[Am-info] 'Big Guns' Weigh In On Microsoft Case

[Mitch Stone]

--- From a message sent by Sujal Shah on 1/28/02 4:30 PM ---

>> Excuse me, exactly when was Windows declared "standard?"  Like the 
>> meter, the
>> kilogram, the degree fahrenheit, etc ...?
>>
>
>Another response to ACT might be, "That's the point, stupid."  The 
>entire point is to damage (destroy is too strong for an objective 
>remedy) the Windows standard, precisely because it isn't a "standard," 
>but a monopoly maintained through illegal means.  The point of the case 
>is that the "standard" might have crumbled if consumers were allowed to 
>have a choice in their operating systems and related software.

How can anyone in sound mind, and with a straight face, characterize 
competition as the problem and not the solution? I've been puzzling over 
this one for years. It's tempting, but too easy, to chalk up these 
comments as the scripted remarks of paid Microsoft shills. These 
otherwise intelligent people must somehow have come to believe that 
competitive markets are not relevant in this instance -- that a 
proprietary commercial product can be called a "standard" without it also 
being called a monopoly.

 Mitch Stone  
 mitch@accidentalexpert.com