If the government is willing to go after MS for monopolistic behavior, why don't they go after UUNET or SPRINT.NET?????

[NikPreviousAcct]

Well? Aren't they a monopoly too???

Or is it that those companies provide so much for the government that they're willing to overlook them?

I dunno... just brainstorming on a sudden idea that I got. After all... it's important to hold on to those thoughts when they roll through -it's a rare thing

NO MS BASHING!!!!!!

nik

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

where's my answer!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!!!111!!!!1!1111!!!1!

/me pulls out my hair

 

[tweakmm]

i beleive you mean UUNET

 

[globalstud]

MS definitely made too much money in too short a time. Really.
I know, you may say success does not warrant our scrutiny.
The populace, companies have paid too much money for MS products. They have been ripping us off indeed.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
i beleive you mean UUNET

Uh... I said that.



nik

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: globalstud
MS definitely made too much money in too short a time. Really.
I know, you may say success does not warrant our scrutiny.
The populace, companies have paid too much money for MS products. They have been ripping us off indeed.

Well, we're not arguing MS here. I have strong opinions on how well MS makes their products.

nik

 

[Desslok]

Mainly because you don't have other companies like Oracle bitching and whining about not being able to compete.

 

[Soybomb]

You just named 2 providers that are strong competitors to each other. Name another OS that rivals MS in the desktop market. While I love linux its desktop market share is almost not worth counting. Mac OS is the closest you'll come and the market share is still way way way low in comparison, this kinda' breeds suspicion. Many of MS's practices have come under scrutiny such as the bundled and previously pretty much unremovable IE, etc. I don't even think any of these providers have near the monopolistic potential as MS. Incumbent local exchange carriers come alot closer.

just for fun lets list large backbone providers:
sprint
savvis
att
genuity
global crossing
cable and wireless
Allegiance

Those are just the ones that come to mind right away.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: tweakmm
i beleive you mean UUNET

Uh... I said that.



nik

suuuure

 

[tweakmm]

I'm pretty sure that there are more than one backbone providers, thus, none of them are a monopoly

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Soybomb
You just named 2 providers that are strong competitors to each other. Name another OS that rivals MS in the desktop market. While I love linux its desktop market share is almost not worth counting. Mac OS is the closest you'll come and the market share is still way way way low in comparison, this kinda' breeds suspicion. Many of MS's practices have come under scrutiny such as the bundled and previously pretty much unremovable IE, etc. I don't even think any of these providers have near the monopolistic potential as MS. Incumbent local exchange carriers come alot closer.

just for fun lets list large backbone providers:
sprint
savvis
att
genuity
global crossing
cable and wireless
Allegiance

Those are just the ones that come to mind right away.

Qwest
Level3
UUnet
WillTel
ATT
Worldcom
Sprint
Genuity
Global Crossing
Cable and Wireless
Internet2

There are a bunch more smaller backbones too, like Covads, the Bells, etc.

 

[JellyBaby]

You might have a hard time calling them monopolies and even if they were monopolies you'd have to prove they abuse(d) their market position.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Well? Aren't they a monopoly too???

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Using monopoly power to force competitors out of the market is.

For example, Netscape was not only the primary web browser for most Windows users, but was also a revenue-bearing product before Microsoft began distributing IE with Windows 95. Arguably, the reason IE commands the overwhelming majority of browser users under Windows is due to being bundled with the OS.

It has been alleged that they altered APIs to make Real products perform less optimally than Windows Media Player.

Those are the sorts of behaviors which are labelled anticompetitive and incur the big stick of the Sherman Act.

 

[glenn1]

If the government is willing to go after MS for monopolistic behavior, why don't they go after UUNET or SPRINT.NET?????

Answer: Microsoft has $43 billion in cash on hand, and adds about $3 billion to that total every quarter. UUNET and Sprint.NET don't have a collective pot to piss in. Which one do you think the government is going to go after? The government is going after Microsoft for the same reason it went after the tobacco companies, namely, to try to shake them down for a cash settlement.

The federal government doesn't give any more of a rats ass about your choices in operating system being limited by Microsoft any more than they care about whether you smoke 20 packs a day. If UUNET and Sprint.NET had money, you can bet your ass Uncle Sam would be all over them. And if Microsoft were in Chapter 11 protection, you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't be bothering to sue them for monopolistic behavior. It's all about the shakedown.