I never denied that Microsoft has a monopoly; I said that their monopoly on the OS market is not necessarily eternal. It can be broken, and ignoring their competitors - which do exist, as far behind as they might be - puts them at risk of having that happen. That would kill competition, but I'm going to have to dispute it. I do recall antitrust investigations into matters such as how MS dealt with PC vendors, so there's a good chance it has happened in past (Intel pulled similar tactics against AMD, actually, which led to a $1b payout last year if I recall). However, you are saying it is still going on. Penalising makers for shipping non-Windows operating systems is an abuse of power and as such is most likely illegal in most major markets; with the amount of scrutiny Microsoft is still regularly under for much less serious issues, I should have heard of the lawsuits by now if it were true. So unless I see it from a credible source...
This is only a part of it. The main issue was how Microsoft used their monopoly to enforce monopolies on other products such as the office suite. As remedy, the first judge proposed to break Microsoft in two. One company would make the OS, and another different company would make Office. It is that judgement that was not pursued by the appeal court. Microsoft was still judged guilty of abusing its monopoly. The remedy was ... basically a gentle tap on the fingers and 'don't do it again please'. (a powerless group of people nominated by microsoft themselves to 'monitor' microsoft for a determined period of time) No break-up of the company. No rule to have Microsoft sell at the same price to every PC maker. No rule to prevent Microsoft forbidding the presence of other OS on the hard disk at sale. In a nutshell, nothing that would allow competition again. Every dirty and illegal Microsoft practices were proven and documented in court with all necessary evidences. They constitute the findings of law that allowed the states that were engaged in a class-action against microsoft to obtain reparation without having to establish microsoft guiltiness again.
Alright so let's tld;dr this thread. Saffaya has some weird obsession with Microsoft. Saffaya praises Apple for pretty much everything. Saffaya does not appear to have extensive interaction with linux beyond wikipedia. Saffaya has never programed an OS. That's the end of the tl;dr for people who don't feel like going through five pages of this awful terrible thread. You are either trolling or one of the dumbest hate mongers I have ever had the fortune of encountering. You've pretty promptly run this thread into the ground. You provide walls of text answering questions that were not asked, or simply ignoring people providing valid counterpoints with completely irrelevant points. That's where this whole monopoly thing came from for example. Oh and providing the Iphone OS for an example of a well made OS is quite simply laughable. I have an Iphone and I can tell you I would kill to have something else on it without voiding the warranty. This OS has so many bugs they released a patch every few days. It lacks useful features such as supporting flash, and copy paste(Until very very recently). Only took them a few YEARS to put copy/paste into an OS.
I have been considering it. I like the iphone for a number of conveniences but quite a bit of its "features" bug the shit out of me.
Disagreeing with someone doesn't require you to spit lies about them. Attacking the speaker instead of debating is pretty low. I wish you would concentrate more on the subject of the thread and less on my person. Everyone who posted here was able to do it, surely you can too ? The patch to correct the vulnerability that sparked this thread is known to cause blue screens. http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/73cea559-ebbd-4274-96bc-e292b69f2fd1/
Doc soooo regrets posting this thread.... you never know where a fire might start. But we are adults...we can take it..get through it..get over it...get past it.
Aaagh, sorry to keep this alive. Saffaya, while I understand where you are coming from, using this case as any 'proof' of MS monopoly or unsound business practices beyond its intent is not prudent. What happened in this case was tantamount to walking into the courtroom being charged with speeding and walking out a convicted murderer with a death sentence. In the US judicial system this is absolutely NOT allowed, even if the judge 'knows' you are a murderer who deserves death. The judge overstepped his boundaries and, coupled with his ethical violations (nevermind trying to figure his motivation for them...) prompted the appeals courts to vacate the ruling. The agreement that the US and MS agreed on dealt directly with what had been charged in the initial case: MS inclusion of 'features' vs 'programs'. Therefore, that case was ostensibly won by the US. ANy other rule of law that happened is relative rubbish because it cannot be acted on and since it was never actually argued correctly in court, would have little to no bearing on any future rulings of MS monopoly.
Ya if I had ignored the one inflammatory poster like everyone else I would have had to spend 6 pages getting to the heart of the problem in this thread. You. Lucky for us I didn't.