By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

Not sure if that really actually proved your point.  Exactly what point are you trying to make.  You made some hint at sleazy tactic but what you just posted have absolutely nothing to do with that insinuation.  Then you made another summary with some conclusion about sleazy tactic but still have not listed anything that support that summary.  MS bundling Internet explorer could be considered as a power move but not a unethical tactic.  Not sure you are talking about the same statements you made previously.

MS get's taken to court for being the worst kind of monopoly, that uses it's power to squash would-be rivals before they're even out of the gate, and is found guilty and get's ordered to separate. Gates even stepped down as CEO during this, coincidentally.

This doesn't prove anything as to MS being extremely controlling and monopolizing? I thought MS wasn't a saint but neither is the competition.

Getting sued and taking to court is one thing.  Winning is another.  Anyone in the US can be taken to court that does not mean guilt.  Being a monopoly is not a crime or is it sleazy tactic as you continue to suggest.  Sleazy tactic would be MS actively preventing software from running on Windows or actively making competition software that run on windows run worse while their software always outperforms.  This is the point I would be looking from you to actually make, not that bundling internet explorer into Windows somehow is a sleazy tactic because one judge thought so.  

Bundling Explorer into Windows I would not consider a controlling move unless MS also made it so that no other browser could be run on the system.  While being the browser for windows, Safari is the default browser for Mac OS. Its expected by user to have a default browser for the OS more than it being a controlling move.  All OS have a default browser, so I still do not see your point.  Also Apple bundle pretty good software within the OS just like MS bundle basic software within Windows. Linux distros also bundling a lot of default software. No one would think paint is preventing someone from using Photoshop but the ideal of having basis features to an OS would not be or is considered a controlling move.  

Like the case against them. There's no need to be sleazy with the software if nobody get's the chance to compete because they get hindered prior.

I wouldn't consider the judge talking to reporters as having anything to with how MS operated their business prior, leading them to court. I would also consider the CEO stepping down while in court as a sign of guilt. Who's considerations are correct?

As for expectations, people used to expect to pay for new things and probably more than they would want to. Today people expect new things for free and are upset when they cost anything, especially when its supposedly too much. I still expect to pay for things. Which expectations are correct?

What are the odds that with an appeal from a supposed corrupt, stop it quietly before it becomes a problem company, that instead of another guilty verdict (with possibly a less harsh sentence this time around), MS get's let completely off the hook? Which or who's judgement is correct?

If a control hungry company, like all the rest some would say, can get out of trouble using more corruption without it being obvious, then they likely aren't controlling and corrupt? Which or who's corruption is acceptable?

I guess my point here is, since you keep asking, wouldn't you say, that no company is a saint, and all are guilty of some type of sleazy corruption?

The case did not show MS hindering at least at that time anyone from putting a browser on the OS.

A judge who talks about a case can be seen as not impartial which can cause all kinds of problems with the judicial process.  So you believing its not a big deal does not mean the judge actions were not a big deal.

We can do if then buts all day long but until there is actually evidence its a waste of time.  I do not live in if then buts.  This is why we have a process to expose such things instead of delving into what ifs.

You still have not established any corruption, all this guessing what could or could be means nothing without actually showing corruption.  If we go down your position where we believe that something could be there without any actual data to support it than we can believe everyone and everything is corrupt.  How can you prove me wrong if I say well if if your actions or non actions are corrupt behind the scenes without proof.  This does not support any real argument, it just throws out unsubstantiated opinion without substance.

I have already stated that no company is a saint, but what I have not stated is that they use sleazy tactics or even tried to insinuate such a position without proof.  I would agree that all business when they gain an advantage will continue to push for that advantage in their market.  That does not mean they need to resort to corrupt tactics to achieve it. My point is that you have not supported your first claim and continue to throw out well what ifs, this is not a solid position to support your previous statements.