Re: AT&T, IBM, SOC and M$

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

  On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 11:21:02 -0500 (EST), claribba wrote:
  
  >For a lucid article on antitrust vs. AT&T, IBM, Standard Oil Co., and a
  >couple of other cases, see today's [12-21-97] San Jose Mercury article by
  >Scott Herhold & Scott Thurm "Antitrust: big no longer equals bad" at:
  >
  >	http://www.sjmercury.com/business/microsoft/docs/ms122197.htm
  >
  >No subscription is needed to read this.  It can be accessed from the
  >Mercury Center page...link on the lower right side of page.
  
  
       Well if the author's knowledge about what happened to IBM is any
  indication of his knowledge on the subject I'd say much of that article
  is nothing but 'huey'.  We should wish on M$ the years of hassle the
  DOJ brought down on IBM (albeit much of which was IBM's own fault), and
  to say that IBM got away free just gives insight into what the author
  doesn't know.
  
       I'm not saying I don't agree that monopolies have been enjoying
  government protection over the last several years, but as far as his
  opinion of what happened with IBM I'd say he's all wet.
  
   ...Cheers,
  
   ...Norm
  
  ***********************************************
  * Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
  * For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
  * with "send pub_key" in the subject          *	
  ***********************************************