[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Well you would be wrong then.
It depends on what kind of justification you're looking for?
Legal? Apparently not.
Legally certainly not. Morally not.. what other way would it be ok?
My only claim is to an intelligence superior to yours and, believe me, it doesn't take genius-level to get there<hr></blockquote></strong>
The only thing your superior at grover is dodging things when your wrong.. or putting words in people's mouths son. You obviously have a over-inflated opinion of yourself. I remember when you talked shit about eating everyone at Macmonkey for lunch. I think your stomach wasn't as big as your mouth was huh?
Having better products is anti-competitive. You're hurting your competition by releasing good products. You've got to look a little deeper if you want to be serious about it.
No that is competing. When you use your monopoly to gain other ones without competing with quality is where the anti-competitive behavior comes into effect. See that is what MS did. But again your trying to justify their actions. And again your being a apologist.
Microsoft did dominate the market by having a better product (for the environment). It ran on more varied hardware and was/is pretty flexible. But that's a side-issue and nothing at all to do with the subject.<hr></blockquote></strong>
MS got the monopoly by it's anti-competitive licensing deals with major PC clone vendors. Practices the Gov put a stop to in 1990. Not because DOS was better. But a apologist wouldn't see it that way I guess.
Yeah MS is known for quality 1st rate software all right.
[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]
[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>