Paul Rubin wrote:
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft.
>> Because the error I'm correcting is the belief that Microsoft's
>> conduct was extremely unusual (unlike anything any reputable company
>> had ever done, essentially).
> MS's monopolistic conduct was uncommon, but not so extremely unusual
> as to be unheard of. Congress had indeed seen conduct like that
> before, which is why it saw the need for passing laws against it.
But there is no law against that type of conduct, *unless* you are a
monopolist. So your conclusion hinges on the determination that Microsoft
had a monopoly, and that hinges on the definition of the "market". That's a
different can of worms for a different part of this thread.
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
