However to say that Microsoft hasn’t innovated is the other extreme, same as to say that Microsoft doesn’t have smart people working for them or that the people that work for Microsoft are bad monopolistic people as well. Maybe some are, but I am pretty sure the vast majority of them are just pawns in the bigger chess game played by their management infrastructure at the highest levels. Basically the people that work at Microsoft are trying to get their beans or their fortune (if they are lucky enough).

Also let’s not confuse, Capitalism with Monopoly, Capitalism is the healthy human cell and Monopoly is the cancer cell. Capitalism if growing at a reasonable rate is a good system, however if turned into a monopoly, it is cancer even for capitalism itself. If that wasn’t the case, the GOV wouldn’t care about how many monopolies sprout out there, but it seems they do care.

This is a common issue of speaking adjectively rather speaking adverbially. The difference between using the word Capitalism in a context where no adverb of quantity has been use as opposed to using the phrase “Overly Grown Capitalism” = “Monopoly” where adverbs of quantity can tell you how much of capitalism we have, thus being indicative of health or unhealthy.

No doubt everything, even the healthiest thing, in excess is always bad for any system. What did I mean by that? Well let’s say that Microsoft could have been or could be (in the future) somewhat more con descendant to the Open Source cause, WITHOUT losing any influence or any SIGNIFICANT amount of money in the process. Then it is possible that the Open Source community will look at the company with a different face and different opinion, much like other companies are seeing by the Open Source community from a more favorable point of view.

Secondly. “Microsoft is a business whose primary goal is not to help people, but to make a buck. And there’s nothing wrong with that.” Well, that’s the entire problem isn’t it? We (most of the western world) live in a captialist society and a lot of people (me included) hate it. Having said that, either change society or put up with all the crap that companies do to make money. Having a monoplies commision seems a bit pointless to me, it’s like some vague effort to pretend that capitalism isn’t all bad, of course everyone is trying to dominate everyone else, of course they will do whatever it takes to make money, that’s how the game has been set up.

Neither example defines a monopoly. Driving competitors out of business and smacking business partners around is what a profit driven corporation does.

I actually agree with the points you made about Microsoft, except I do sincerely believe that they would behave like a monopoly whenever possible and that would trump all the other practical points that were made. It’s a moot point though since there’s actually quite a bit of competition now.

Brian - regarding Microsoft and whether they’re a monopoly, two instances come to mind:

* When Dell wanted to initially offer PC’s pre-installed with Linux couple years back, Microsoft slapped their wrists and Dell quickly rescinded the offering. Dell is now trying again with Linux PC’s since the competitive landscape changed, but they don’t price them as competitively as they like in order to appease Microsoft.

* When the Internet was starting to hit the mainstream, Netscape was the only real player in town, but Microsoft then bundled IE into windows and virtually drove Netscape out of business. Who cares? Consumers should care, because IE is notorious about blatantly not complying with W3C standards and web developers have nightmares trying to make their web applications universally consistent with their look-and-feel. There is a growing movement of having traditional desktop apps being served over the web, and if the browser is going to be the main interface, non-compliance with standards will deter progress. Thank goodness Firefox is helping to keep them in check

Or show your boss how much defending against malware is costing your company.

However, Micro$oft has historically proven that it will behave as a monopoly whenever they get a chance

I do not think this is true.

* I’ve been working in IT since 1989. I’ve always been able to use ’stuff other than Microsoft’ if I’ve wanted or needed.

* Monopolists raise the prices of goods to what they want says the theory - Microsoft has never done this in my experience. If they _had_ the various business I’ve worked for would not have switched to Windows, nor chosen it for a desktop or server OS.

monopolies by nature hampers innovation and they will overcharge the consumers because they can and no one could stop them

I’d have to dig up the book (it’s at home) or google (I am at work ..) but I believe this is not true either. Or rather it’s true in theory but not so true in the real world. What comes to mind are Standard Oil - after Standard had become a monopoly oil prices dropped. I also recall cases where a company gained a transportation monopoly in NYC in the 19th century after which prices dropped for customers and stayed down.

Of course there are always government enforced monopolies like the AT+T where this _is_ true but it seemed like you were speaking of ‘capitalism pure and raw’ not an artificial state of affairs.

At some point in the near future, these big companies are going to have to accept the premise that you can make money and not act like a giant penis.

This is true. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I can defend every anti-competitive practice Microsoft’s legal team has ever done. I think the real responsibility lies with the government to deal with monopolies in a fair and just way. And the antitrust lawsuit has produced little in the way of common-sense oversight.

This argument is pretty dated - it would be more relevant 10-15 yrs ago, but the Information Age has made it much more of a competitive playground.

Yeah, that’s a very good point, Al. It’s going to be very interesting to see how things change in the 21st century. I’m glad we’ve got more choices now, and I think it’s going to make for better computing all around.

In the earlier post about OpenOffice, I agreed with your point about using the best available software. Especially if my livelihood depended on it, my goal is to get the job done and I won’t cut corners unless necessary.

However, Micro$oft has historically proven that it will behave as a monopoly whenever they get a chance, and monopolies by nature hampers innovation and they will overcharge the consumers because they can and no one could stop them - until now. Their tactics worked in the 20th Centruy Industrial Age, but in the 21st century Information Age, they do not have the same leverage. 10-15 yrs ago, I would do everything in my power to avoid giving them a nickel, but they aren’t as much a threat as they once were.

For the starving artist, sometimes it is necessary to use a tool like OpenOffice or Google Docs, or even GIMP vs Photoshop. Because there will always be the starving artists, there will always be OpenOffice and GIMP. Sometimes, there may never even be a reason to go beyond the FOSS tool, such as using Linux and Apache as a web server over Windows Server and IIS. But if my livelihood depends on the written word or the publishable image, I will not be as good as I can be if I don’t invest in MS Office or Photoshop. If MS was the monopoly like they once were, I’d reconsider, but since they’re not, we all are free to make the choice that makes the most sense for us as individuals.