Selling Linux to Windows Users

[Bart Silverstrim]

Rashkae wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Kjetil Halvorsen wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 15:59, Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>>>>> Monopoly _is_ a low-life business act, which is why
>>>>>> even the heartl of capitalism, the USA, has laws against it
>>>>>> (toothless, true, but laws all the same).
>>>>> Actually, it's perfectly legal to have a monopoly,  as long as you
>>>>> don't commit ant-competitive acts to acquire or maintain it.
>>>> That's splitting hairs of the finest kind, since it's really
>>>> _difficult_ to have a monopoly without being anti-competitive.
>>> That is not splitting hairs. I prefer (in calculators) a calculator
>>> with reverse polish notation (RPN). Those are expensive because only
>>> HP makes them. But HP did nothing to monopolize the market,
>>> every maker is free to make RPN calculators.  Until they do, I
>>> will have to pay HP's heavy price.
>> Are you sure they did nothing to monopolize the market?   Microsoft 
>> doesn't do anything to prevent competition in their markets, either - 
>> they just buy out any company that _is_ providing competition.  In any 
>> case, I've _owned_ non-HP RPN calculators, so HP doesn't have a 
>> monopoly.
> 
> err, by that logic, MS doesn't have a monopoly either.

Actually, Microsoft *has* used anticompetitive practices.

There is a rant written by an individual that I found extremely 
articulate on reasons not to support Microsoft. A part that pertains to 
this thread is thus:
**************
This ruling was in part (not in whole) reversed by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals and sent back to a lower court for reevaluation, not because the 
facts that led to the initial ruling were invalid (the court unanimously 
found that Microsoft engaged in unlawful conduct to maintain its 
dominant position in the operating systems market) but mainly on the 
grounds of unprofessional conduct by judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who 
discussed his personal feelings about the case in the press immediately 
after the ruling. Although Microsoft claimed victory after this partial 
reversal of the original ruling, the essence of that ruling still 
stands, and Microsoft has still been found guilty of illegal monopolist 
practices and other unlawful conduct, such as:

     * Exclusive agreements with PC manufacturers to bundle Microsoft 
products
     * Overruling the users' decision to use Netscape Navigator
     * Mixing Windows and browser code to prevent the removal of 
Internet Explorer
     * Agreements with ISP's to exclusively promote Internet Explorer
     * Exclusive agreements with developers to create software that 
forces Internet Explorer to be the default browser
     * Making Internet Explorer the exclusive browser on the Apple 
platform, by threatening to halt the development of MS Office for MacOS
     * Lying to Java developers about Microsoft Java being cross-platform
     * Pressuring Intel to discontinue development of their own 
cross-platform Java
***************

This is part of a much larger document at the site
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/index.html

The quote is from rants, microsoft, section 5:"Bad practice, foul play", 
US DoJ: Findings of Fact.

-Bart