From some of the things I read Microsoft used there Monopoly to do #3, they forced companies to only sell there OS and no one elses if not they wouldn't allow there OS to be used by 'blank' companies.
That I believe especially since Mr.Gates said Linux was a cancer a while back...
They also did (from what I read) bribed companies to use there OS only.
That is ther reason why Apple and Micro$oft aren't the same, Apple has never bribed or threathend companies to use there OS...
And this is obvious because if not Apple would have more then 5% of the Market Share.
Comments
Let my present exhibit A:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...t+iPod&pl=true
For the record, Apple is better.
# Monopolization would be found if
1. Large market share obtained by the competitor was obtained by actions in violation of sec. 1
2. Monopoly would be illegal even if unexercised, even if there was an intent to exercise the power
3. The use of the market share would be illegal if used to foreclose competition, grain competitive action, or destroy a competitor
4. Old cases: It doesn't matter whether or not the consumers are getting the best prices
link http://case.tm/Lawschool/antitrust3.htm
From some of the things I read Microsoft used there Monopoly to do #3, they forced companies to only sell there OS and no one elses if not they wouldn't allow there OS to be used by 'blank' companies.
That I believe especially since Mr.Gates said Linux was a cancer a while back...
They also did (from what I read) bribed companies to use there OS only.
That is ther reason why Apple and Micro$oft aren't the same, Apple has never bribed or threathend companies to use there OS...
And this is obvious because if not Apple would have more then 5% of the Market Share.