Well, duh. But we're not talking "integration", we're talking
"bundling". MS have been bitching about protecting their "Right to
innovate" when in fact, the feds haven't been trying to stifle that at
all. They're only interested in how these innovations are delivered -
as they should be.
> also, who the fuck gets the right to say what i can and cannot put into my
> os. Land of the free bubbie, you want socialistic reforms go peddle it
> to...well wher ever it is they still do that.
> > >(2) Require Microsoft to *facilitate* OEM customization such as boot
> > >and desktop screens.
> Same should go fro Apple, Sun, and any other os maker? Pulease..pull the
> other one.
Like it or not, monopolies should play by different rules - though I
certainly wouldn't include this in the "minimum" that Joe was asking
> > >(4) Define "operating system" and prohibit mandatory bundling of MS
> > >non-OS and OS products.
> In legal terms the answert to this this BLOW ME. If a user base wnats
> something, they get to decide whats Added or Not. You gonna go after
> REDHAT for bundling stuff with LInux? You gonna prohibit new techs from
> being incluede into the Suits to work better with soses of any platform?
Monpolies, different rules, yadda, yadda.
> Who the fuck gives the GOV the right to break apart a SOFTWARE COMPANY?
> The bells...I bearly agree with. This..Fuck no. Its the surest path down
> which IM sure the Gov would love to lead us and its amzing the otherwise
> wise folks are turning into sheeple about.
'cause we all know that software companies are entirely different than
any other type of company that ever existed... yawn.
But I say try for the Chinese Walls first. If that doesn't work, break
'em up like stale crackers.
> (i will say it has been a good litmus test to see who the total screw
> balls are)
I noticed that too.
-- Mark Baker, CTO, Beduin Communications Corp. Ottawa, CANADA http://www.beduin.com