Philip wrote:
>What on earth does "market presence" mean? Go head-to-head with MS in
>the market? What these folks fail to realize is that MS is a convicted,,
>but not reined-in monopoly.
What? According to shitheaded asshole trolling fsckwits like Quack
and DFS, there is no M$ monopoly, because you can install Linux, or
you can buy a Mac!
Why didn't the M$ lawyers think of that?
Judge: "Procede with your defense."
M$ lawyer: "Your Honor, we cannot possibly have abused our alleged
monopoly position, because there is no monopoly. Anyone can buy a
Mac, if they want. The defense rests."
Judge: "Case dismissed."
Shortest fscking trial ever, eh? Those M$ lawyers must be utterly
incompetent to not to have used this obvious, air-tight defense!
Or could it be that a company need not have 100% of a market to have
what is, as a practical and a legal matter, monopoly power in that
market?
Sheesh!
|
|
