Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The courts have, for the most part, disagreed with your analysis.

==========

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86 based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others.

[...]

However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case.

The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.

==========

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_compe...

On 27 February 2008, the EU fined Microsoft an additional €899 million (US$1.44 billion) for failure to comply with the March 2004 antitrust decision.



Microsoft may have been a monopoly 13 years ago but they aren't today.

Europe ruled that a primarily foreign company owed them 1.44 billion dollars and forced them to put out a product that no consumers wanted and retailers refused to stock.


The claim in the article was that they're a "convicted monopolist" and I just gave you two convictions.

Nothing I wrote and nothing the article wrote requires them to be a monopolist today. The OP said the article writer didn't know what monopoly meant. I'm pointing out that they know perfectly well what it means and that the OP merely disagrees with their conclusion.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: