Microsoft Failure in Online Services - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft Failure in Online Services - Linux ; DFS wrote: > > If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you > ridiculous freetards. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 40 of 40

Thread: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

  1. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    DFS wrote:
    >
    > If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you
    > ridiculous freetards.


    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.

    Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Page 27

    It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not found
    to have been illegally acquired, see United States v. Microsoft,
    56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have been
    illegally maintained.
    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  2. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:41:04 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:

    > DFS wrote:
    >>
    >> If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you ridiculous
    >> freetards.

    >
    > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
    >
    > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    >
    > STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    >
    > Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION
    >
    > Page 27
    >
    >
    > It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not found to have
    > been illegally acquired, see United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448,
    > 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have been illegally maintained.
    >


    And:-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

    http://www.news.com/2100-1040-232565.html

    http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

    --
    Mandriva 2008.1 64-bit.
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.

  3. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    Moshe Goldfarb (flatfish) in real life Gary Stewart

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

    --
    ! Don Zeigler

  4. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    Moshe Goldfarb (flatfish) in real life Gary Stewart

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

    --
    ! Don Zeigler

  5. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    Moshe Goldfarb (flatfish) in real life Gary Stewart

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

    --
    ! Don Zeigler

  6. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    High Plains Thumper wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >>
    >> If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you
    >> ridiculous freetards.

    >
    > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
    >
    > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    >
    > STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    > Defendant.
    >
    > Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION
    >
    > Page 27
    >
    >
    > It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not found
    > to have been illegally acquired, see United States v. Microsoft,
    > 56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have been
    > illegally maintained.
    >



    If there's a monopoly then there's no alternative to Windows. But lame
    idiot chrisv just said there are "two very viable alternatives" to Windows.

    Which is it, freetards?




  7. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    DFS wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you
    >>> ridiculous freetards.

    >>
    >> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
    >>
    >> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    >>
    >> STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT
    >> CORPORATION, Defendant.
    >>
    >> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION
    >>
    >> Page 27
    >>
    >>
    It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case
    >> was not found to have been illegally acquired, see United
    >> States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24
    >> but only to have been illegally maintained.

    >
    > If there's a monopoly then there's no alternative to Windows.
    > But lame idiot chrisv just said there are "two very viable
    > alternatives" to Windows. Which is it, freetards?


    Another case of troll illiteracy.

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/

    7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics

    16. Turn a question asked of you back on your opponent. Better
    yet, turn the questions back on the Linux Advocate with a
    question like: "What do you think is the `right' answer, lamer?"
    You have now taken the heat off of your ignorance and you have
    cast doubt on the credibility of your opponent.

    49. Restate the issues to support your preconceptions
    If the issues being discussed in a thread are not exploitable by
    you for your purpose, restate the issues to support your ability
    to attack Linux Advocate opponent.
    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  8. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    High Plains Thumper wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>> DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you
    >>>> ridiculous freetards.
    >>>
    >>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
    >>>
    >>> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    >>>
    >>> STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT
    >>> CORPORATION, Defendant.
    >>>
    >>> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION
    >>>
    >>> Page 27
    >>>
    >>>
    It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case
    >>> was not found to have been illegally acquired, see United
    >>> States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24
    >>> but only to have been illegally maintained.

    >>
    >> If there's a monopoly then there's no alternative to Windows.
    >> But lame idiot chrisv just said there are "two very viable
    >> alternatives" to Windows. Which is it, freetards?

    >
    > Another case of troll illiteracy.


    Run HPT! Run!




  9. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    * William Poaster peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:41:04 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>> If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you ridiculous
    >>> freetards.

    >>
    >> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
    >>
    >> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    >> STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    >> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION
    >>
    >> Page 27
    >>
    >>
    >> It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not found to have
    >> been illegally acquired, see United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448,
    >> 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have been illegally maintained.
    >>

    >
    > And:-
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
    > http://www.news.com/2100-1040-232565.html
    > http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm


    DFS has been shown this many times. He prefers his own layman's view
    where it suits his virulent anti-open complex.

    --
    Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.
    -- Bill Gates

  10. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    On Tue, 20 May 2008 07:13:31 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * William Poaster peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:41:04 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>
    >>> DFS wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you ridiculous
    >>>> freetards.
    >>>
    >>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
    >>>
    >>> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF NEW
    >>> YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil
    >>> Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION
    >>>
    >>> Page 27
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not found to have
    >>> been illegally acquired, see United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448,
    >>> 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have been illegally maintained.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And:-
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
    >> http://www.news.com/2100-1040-232565.html
    >> http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

    >
    > DFS has been shown this many times. He prefers his own layman's view
    > where it suits his virulent anti-open complex.


    He probably shuts his eyes, & thinks it will go away. Then repeats the M$
    Mantra to himself.

    As he repeats himself *so* many times, & as he's been corrected *so* many
    times, you begin to wonder:

    a] Has he got long term memory loss.
    or
    b] Is this guy just plain stupid
    or
    c] Is this guy being paid to look stupid.

    Or any combination of the above.

    --
    Mandriva 2008.1 64-bit.
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.

  11. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    In article <3myYj.25266$C8.17406@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
    Linonut wrote:
    >
    > DFS has been shown this many times. He prefers his own layman's view
    > where it suits his virulent anti-open complex.


    I think you've oversimplified his position. I *think* his position is
    that economically MS did not have a monopoly, and possibly also that
    they don't have a monopoly *now*.

    As far as the former goes, he's probably technically right, but
    antitrust law doesn't match up exactly with economic theory, and it is
    the law that matters in court, not what the economists say, so there's
    not much point in making his point. :-)

    As far as the later goes, a key finding the court used to support
    finding monopoly was that server operating systems required hardware
    that was more powerful and expensive than the hardware consumers used.
    The court also noted that these server OSes lacked features and support
    for the breadth of applications that people want on consumer PCs. These
    facts meant that Unix and Unix-like operating systems, even though they
    were readily available for x86, were not in the same market as Windows.

    That's simply not true today. Linux, for example, does NOT require more
    powerful and expensive hardware than Windows. Indeed, one of the more
    common advocacy points is that Linux can run on less powerful hardware
    than Windows. Another common advocacy point is that Linux does have the
    features and breadth of applications that people want/need on consumer
    PCs.

    Every Linux advocate here in COLA whose Linux is running on a commodity
    PC, rather than on expensive server-class hardware, is proof that Linux
    *is* an effective substitute for an x86 PC OS in the same market that
    Windows is in.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  12. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article <3myYj.25266$C8.17406@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> DFS has been shown this many times. He prefers his own layman's view
    >> where it suits his virulent anti-open complex.

    >
    > I think you've oversimplified his position. I *think* his position is
    > that economically MS did not have a monopoly, and possibly also that
    > they don't have a monopoly *now*.


    It's pretty difficult to oversimplify DFS's position:

    Ridicule GNU/Linux, its users, its developers, its whole motivation,
    and ridicule even the most obvious statements of truth made by its
    proponents.

    > As far as the former goes, he's probably technically right, but
    > antitrust law doesn't match up exactly with economic theory, and it is
    > the law that matters in court, not what the economists say, so there's
    > not much point in making his point. :-)
    >
    > As far as the later goes, a key finding the court used to support
    > finding monopoly was that server operating systems required hardware
    > that was more powerful and expensive than the hardware consumers used.
    > The court also noted that these server OSes lacked features and support
    > for the breadth of applications that people want on consumer PCs. These
    > facts meant that Unix and Unix-like operating systems, even though they
    > were readily available for x86, were not in the same market as Windows.


    I'm not at all getting what you mean in the previous paragraph. I
    didn't know servers had anything to do with it.

    > That's simply not true today. Linux, for example, does NOT require more
    > powerful and expensive hardware than Windows. Indeed, one of the more
    > common advocacy points is that Linux can run on less powerful hardware
    > than Windows. Another common advocacy point is that Linux does have the
    > features and breadth of applications that people want/need on consumer
    > PCs.
    >
    > Every Linux advocate here in COLA whose Linux is running on a commodity
    > PC, rather than on expensive server-class hardware, is proof that Linux
    > *is* an effective substitute for an x86 PC OS in the same market that
    > Windows is in.


    So what does that have to do with Microsoft's current monopoly status?

    --
    The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow.
    -- Bill Gates

  13. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > > As far as the later goes, a key finding the court used to support
    > > finding monopoly was that server operating systems required hardware
    > > that was more powerful and expensive than the hardware consumers used.
    > > The court also noted that these server OSes lacked features and support
    > > for the breadth of applications that people want on consumer PCs. These
    > > facts meant that Unix and Unix-like operating systems, even though they
    > > were readily available for x86, were not in the same market as Windows.

    >
    > I'm not at all getting what you mean in the previous paragraph. I
    > didn't know servers had anything to do with it.


    In the court's analysis of possible alternatives to Windows in the
    market for x86 operating systems, the court decided that operating
    systems like Unix required significantly more resources to run than the
    typical consumer PC had. Accordingly, to switch from Windows to, say,
    Unix, a consumer would typically have to buy new hardware, or
    significantly upgrade their hardware. That meant that these operating
    systems were not potential competitors to Windows in the consumer PC OS
    market. Basically, the court was able to split the x86 OS market into
    consumer OSes and server OSes, and treat them as separate markets.

    > > That's simply not true today. Linux, for example, does NOT require more
    > > powerful and expensive hardware than Windows. Indeed, one of the more
    > > common advocacy points is that Linux can run on less powerful hardware
    > > than Windows. Another common advocacy point is that Linux does have the
    > > features and breadth of applications that people want/need on consumer
    > > PCs.
    > >
    > > Every Linux advocate here in COLA whose Linux is running on a commodity
    > > PC, rather than on expensive server-class hardware, is proof that Linux
    > > *is* an effective substitute for an x86 PC OS in the same market that
    > > Windows is in.

    >
    > So what does that have to do with Microsoft's current monopoly status?


    If the trial were held today, it is unlikely that Microsoft would be
    found to have a monopoly on x86 PC operating systems. The court would
    probably not be able to put Linux in a separate market.

    (That doesn't mean that Microsoft would get off if the trial were held
    today. They would probably not be found to *have* a monopoly, but could
    still be found guilty of restraint of trade, and a few other things.
    Most antitrust convictions, in fact, have nothing to do with having a
    monopoly).


    --
    --Tim Smith

  14. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> I'm not at all getting what you mean in the previous paragraph. I
    >> didn't know servers had anything to do with it.

    >
    > In the court's analysis of possible alternatives to Windows in the
    > market for x86 operating systems, the court decided that operating
    > systems like Unix required significantly more resources to run than the
    > typical consumer PC had. Accordingly, to switch from Windows to, say,
    > Unix, a consumer would typically have to buy new hardware, or
    > significantly upgrade their hardware. That meant that these operating
    > systems were not potential competitors to Windows in the consumer PC OS
    > market. Basically, the court was able to split the x86 OS market into
    > consumer OSes and server OSes, and treat them as separate markets.


    Ah, I understand now.

    >> So what does that have to do with Microsoft's current monopoly status?

    >
    > If the trial were held today, it is unlikely that Microsoft would be
    > found to have a monopoly on x86 PC operating systems. The court would
    > probably not be able to put Linux in a separate market.


    But even so, wouldn't the apparently tiny percentages of Linux systems
    /sold/ actually /prove/ monopoly (even if not proving an
    illegally-maintained monopoly)?

    Oops, I see the below now, but the question still remains.

    > (That doesn't mean that Microsoft would get off if the trial were held
    > today. They would probably not be found to *have* a monopoly, but could
    > still be found guilty of restraint of trade, and a few other things.
    > Most antitrust convictions, in fact, have nothing to do with having a
    > monopoly).



    --
    Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave the
    coffee shop and go to jobs.
    -- Bill Gates

  15. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    William Poaster wrote:
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> William Poaster fired off:
    >>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>>> DFS wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you ridiculous
    >>>>> freetards.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
    >>>>
    >>>> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF
    >>>> NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    >>>> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION
    >>>>
    >>>> Page 27
    >>>>
    >>>>
    It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not
    >>>> found to have been illegally acquired, see United States v.
    >>>> Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have
    >>>> been illegally maintained.
    >>>
    >>> And:-
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
    >>> http://www.news.com/2100-1040-232565.html
    >>> http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

    >>
    >> DFS has been shown this many times. He prefers his own layman's view
    >> where it suits his virulent anti-open complex.

    >
    > He probably shuts his eyes, & thinks it will go away. Then repeats the
    > M$ Mantra to himself.
    >
    > As he repeats himself *so* many times, & as he's been corrected *so*
    > many times, you begin to wonder:
    >
    > a] Has he got long term memory loss. or b] Is this guy just plain stupid
    > or c] Is this guy being paid to look stupid. Or any combination of the
    > above.


    His ignorance shows that he is only here to troll. Typical to all COLA
    trolls, he backs off when pointed off, then repeats his mantra although he
    has been shown the truth, like there is no truth. He similar to Tim
    Smith, Erik Funkenbusch and PhlatPhish do their selective gross snippage
    to remove any hint of posted truth, then repeat their diatribes.

    Similar to a bottle of shampoo: apply, rinse, repeat. However, the
    stench remains.

    --
    HPT

  16. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    High Plains Thumper writes:

    > William Poaster wrote:
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> William Poaster fired off:
    >>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>>>> DFS wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly, you ridiculous
    >>>>>> freetards.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
    >>>>>
    >>>>> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF
    >>>>> NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    >>>>> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Page 27
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not
    >>>>> found to have been illegally acquired, see United States v.
    >>>>> Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have
    >>>>> been illegally maintained.
    >>>>
    >>>> And:-
    >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
    >>>> http://www.news.com/2100-1040-232565.html
    >>>> http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
    >>>
    >>> DFS has been shown this many times. He prefers his own layman's view
    >>> where it suits his virulent anti-open complex.

    >>
    >> He probably shuts his eyes, & thinks it will go away. Then repeats the
    >> M$ Mantra to himself.
    >>
    >> As he repeats himself *so* many times, & as he's been corrected *so*
    >> many times, you begin to wonder:
    >>
    >> a] Has he got long term memory loss. or b] Is this guy just plain stupid
    >> or c] Is this guy being paid to look stupid. Or any combination of the
    >> above.

    >
    > His ignorance shows that he is only here to troll. Typical to all COLA
    > trolls, he backs off when pointed off, then repeats his mantra although he
    > has been shown the truth, like there is no truth. He similar to Tim
    > Smith, Erik Funkenbusch and PhlatPhish do their selective gross snippage
    > to remove any hint of posted truth, then repeat their diatribes.
    >
    > Similar to a bottle of shampoo: apply, rinse, repeat. However, the
    > stench remains.


    Astonishing. Not one bit of truth or fact in another "me too" poast from
    COLA's dumbest advocate HPT.

  17. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    DFS wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>>> DFS wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> If there's an alternative then there's no monopoly,
    >>>>> you ridiculous freetards.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
    >>>>
    >>>> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
    >>>> COLUMBIA
    >>>>
    >>>> STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT
    >>>> CORPORATION, Defendant.
    >>>>
    >>>> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION
    >>>>
    >>>> Page 27
    >>>>
    >>>>
    It bears repeating that the monopoly in this
    >>>> case was not found to have been illegally acquired, see
    >>>> United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C.
    >>>> Cir. 1995),24 but only to have been illegally
    >>>> maintained.
    >>>
    >>> If there's a monopoly then there's no alternative to
    >>> Windows. But lame idiot chrisv just said there are "two
    >>> very viable alternatives" to Windows. Which is it,
    >>> freetards?

    >>
    >> Another case of troll illiteracy.

    >
    > Run HPT! Run!


    Run from what? Oh, I get it, we've gone from troll illiteracy to
    troll idiocy. Trolls get stupider with every passing day here.

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  18. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    High Plains Thumper wrote:

    >Some DumbFsckingpieceof**** wrote:
    >>
    >> If there's a monopoly then there's no alternative to Windows.
    >> But lame idiot chrisv just said there are "two very viable
    >> alternatives" to Windows. Which is it, freetards?

    >
    >Another case of troll illiteracy.


    The trolls have had it explained to them countless times. The fact
    that "there is an alternative" does NOT mean that "there is no
    monopoly".

    Micro$oft has monopoly power in the market, because all OEM's must use
    their products. An OEM cannot say "forget you, your terms are
    unacceptable, and we are going with your competition instead."


  19. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    chrisv wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >
    >> Some DumbFsckingpieceof**** wrote:
    >>>
    >>> If there's a monopoly then there's no alternative to Windows.
    >>> But lame idiot chrisv just said there are "two very viable
    >>> alternatives" to Windows. Which is it, freetards?

    >>
    >> Another case of troll illiteracy.

    >
    > The trolls have had it explained to them countless times. The fact
    > that "there is an alternative" does NOT mean that "there is no
    > monopoly".


    uh duh... I'm chrisv, a shameless dumbass.



    > Micro$oft has monopoly power in the market, because all OEM's must use
    > their products.


    You morons said and continue to say MS is an illegal monopoly (neither is
    true of course). Then out of the other side of your mouths you said "Linux
    is an alternative". Which is it, wackos?




    > An OEM cannot say "forget you, your terms are
    > unacceptable, and we are going with your competition instead."


    Why not?

    Whoops - now chrisv will have to lie about the quality of Linux, or lie
    about MS forcing everyone to adopt Windows...or more likely just slink away
    like the worm he is.





  20. Re: Microsoft Failure in Online Services

    On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:56:49 -0400, DFS wrote:


    > You morons said and continue to say MS is an illegal monopoly (neither is
    > true of course). Then out of the other side of your mouths you said "Linux
    > is an alternative". Which is it, wackos?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> An OEM cannot say "forget you, your terms are
    >> unacceptable, and we are going with your competition instead."

    >
    > Why not?
    >
    > Whoops - now chrisv will have to lie about the quality of Linux, or lie
    > about MS forcing everyone to adopt Windows...or more likely just slink away
    > like the worm he is.


    Why do you think many people call it LIEnix?



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2