[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A challenge re-issued.
Interesting how you can twist that around...
More correctly, I'd classify my self as a defender of freedom. I would
defend any company's right to do business as they wish within the bounds of
applicable laws, of course, and any consumers right to make a free choice
within the choices available. As I've said in numerous other messages, I'd
take this same stance if it were another company (Sun, Netscape, or Novell
for instance) being bashed about in this forum.
Part of the issue NOT discussed in this forum is that it seems to me (and
I'm not a lawyer) that our US system of laws doesn't contain absolutes. It
is a collection of opinions which can vary greatly from one case to another
(even given fairly similar circumstances). For anyone to make a blanket
assertion quoting "what the law is" seems (at least in the US) to be
laughable to me. If I missed this point I hope that one of the lawyers
present will correct me.
Given the non-absolute system of laws it seems that until the ruling judge
makes a decision (and that decision is upheld at every level of appeal)
that we cannot know with absolute certainty what is right and what is wrong
(in a legal sense).
At 02:07 AM 11/10/97 -0500, Paul Crowley wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Charles Kelly, NT*Pro wrote:
>> There are hundreds of products from hundreds of companies. I can pick any
>> one I chose and pay my hard-earned dollars for it. If I don't like what is
>> on my computer I buy a competing product that I do like and (wipe the hard
>> disk) and install whatever I like. Totally my choice.
>> Given that frame of reference, I'm struggling to see how you are "forced."
>Given this assertion, it's telling that neither you nor any of the other
>Microsoft defenders on this list have risen to the challenge of providing
>an example of behaviour that you *would* consider unethical, or worthy of
>legal restraint as an anti-competitive practice, were Microsoft to indulge
>I had looked forward to reading the replies to this challenge, but I think
>the deafening silence we've heard on this key point sends an even clearer
>signal.� It seems as though your definition of anti-competitive practices
>extends no further than actually rounding up bands of consumers at
>gunpoint and forcing them to buy your product.
>\/ o\��� firstname.lastname@example.org��� \ /
>/\__/ Paul Crowley -+- DATA IS SACRED /~\