cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Mon Feb 19 04:44:13 UTC 2001
David Johnson scripsit:
> Oh how I hate defending Microsoft...
Here come de judge:
# [T]he proof of Microsoft's dominant, persistent market share protected
# by a substantial barrier to entry, together with Microsoft's failure to
# rebut that prima facie showing effectively and the additional indicia of
# monopoly power, have compelled the Court to find as fact that Microsoft
# enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
(Conclusions of Law, page 37.)
> The only exclusive ownership they have is of their own products, and the
> legal priviledge of that derives from copyright law. They have no exclusive
> ownership of "operating systems", "word processors" or anything like that.
Right enough. But they have control of the supply.
> Far from it. There is no legal difference between Microsoft, Inc, and Redhat,
Yes there is, unless an appellate court decides otherwise.
Red Hat has not been found by a trier of fact, the legal equivalent
of a jury, to enjoy monopoly power.
> Microsoft may be a boor, but they ain't the boogeyman.
As I have said, holding monopoly power is not in itself an offense;
engaging in certain kinds of business practices *while* you hold
monopoly power is.
John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
More information about the License-discuss