Re: Off Topic MS nonsense [was: Re: Boycott Microsoft Website]

From: Gary Jones <GJones@manassa.demon.co.uk>

Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0000

In article <333ACC68.DB9@sprynet.com>, Brad Proctor
<fredlie@sprynet.com> writes
8<
>David Springer wrote:
>>
>> Gary Stewart (gary@dcs.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>>
>> : To be a monopoly (legally) you only have to have a 30% (I know it seems
>weird,
>> : but thats law for you) market share. So, bearing this in mind I think we can
>> : agree that Micro$oft more than qualifies, even going by your figures (which
>I
>> : think are a bit suspect)
>>
>> I have two questions:
>>
>> 1) You're writing from the UK so how would you know what US law defines
>>    as a monopoly ?
>>
>8
And of course US law *must* be the reference point<grin>?! In a global
market, you cannot judge companies whose influence is as great as
Microsofts according to national law. International law (where it
applies) is obviously what has to be used, or in its absence good old
common sense.

Microsoft have an enormous amount of power because they supply so much
of big (and small) business software. One of the UK banks is so far in
bed with Microsoft that their IT strategy, at least for desktop
development, is primarily determined by MS. As indeed are most companies
who supply software, IT services, or services via IT.

Not, of course, that this has anything to do with this ng. Can we take
it somewhere else if anyone wishes to carry on the discussion, or
preferably just drop it. It is *soooo* dull, and we can probably agree
that nobody is likely to change their mind.
--
Gary Jones

References

Boycott Microsoft Website
Jack Teh <jteh@usthk.ust.hk>
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Boycott Microsoft Website
Jack Teh <jteh@usthk.ust.hk>
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000