XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.os2.advocacy   
   From: spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid   
      
   begin  In <1h2kqnn.1ccfysg1dpxog0N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>, on 09/08/2005   
      at 02:31 PM, ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) said:   
      
   >I am sure you believe that if a vendor agrees to not supply   
   >non-Microsoft software, it is perfectly ok for the vendor to go back   
   >on his word.   
      
   You're probably also sure that the Earth is flat. What I believe is   
   that when m$ engages in illegal tactics it should be prosecuted and   
   given more than a slap on the wrist or a poorly enforced minimal   
   consent decree.   
      
   >No, they won't. Not since Microsoft established an effective   
   >standard.   
      
   M$ never established an effective standard. There are still problems   
   with hardware that won't work with specific versions of windoze.   
      
   >If it is illegal for company X to make certain deals, so it should   
   >be for company Y.   
      
   That's not how the antitrust laws are written, because one of the   
   issues they deal with is unfair exploitation of market share.   
      
   >I assume you mean something else by "equal protection of the law"?   
      
   Correct. A law prohibiting convicted embezzlers from working as   
   accountants may not satisfy your criteria, but nothing in such a law   
   would conflict with equal protection of the law. The phrase has a   
   specific legal meaning, and it's not the one that you want.   
      
   --   
   Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT     
      
   Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the   
   right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to   
   domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not   
   reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)