> The U.S. Government's assertion that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market might be the most patently absurd claim ever advanced by the legal mind. Linux, a technically superior operating system, is being given away for free, and BeOS is available at a nominal price. This is simply a fact, which has to be accepted whether or not you like Microsoft.
AFAIK this is a very common misunderstanding. The term 'monopoly' is being (ab)used by a lot of people as meaning 100% market share, which is NOT how the courts define it. (They just tend to agree that less than 50% market share is not a monopoly.)
And while market share is an easy to prove (ok, not that easy, the hard part is to figure out what actual market is being talked about) and useful warning sign, the courts tend to take more interest in the actual anti-competitive practices.
> The old robber-baron monopolies were monopolies because they physically controlled means of production and/or distribution. But in the software business, the means of production is hackers typing code, and the means of distribution is the Internet, and no one is claiming that Microsoft controls those.
AFAIK this is a very common misunderstanding. The term 'monopoly' is being (ab)used by a lot of people as meaning 100% market share, which is NOT how the courts define it. (They just tend to agree that less than 50% market share is not a monopoly.)
And while market share is an easy to prove (ok, not that easy, the hard part is to figure out what actual market is being talked about) and useful warning sign, the courts tend to take more interest in the actual anti-competitive practices.
> The old robber-baron monopolies were monopolies because they physically controlled means of production and/or distribution. But in the software business, the means of production is hackers typing code, and the means of distribution is the Internet, and no one is claiming that Microsoft controls those.
Hmmm… did anyone say 'Github' ?