On 2009-03-14, Matt <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> Sinister Midget wrote:
>> On 2009-03-13, Philip <none@xxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Sort like when the Terminator said "I'll be back".
>> But the difference is that this time the monopolists bought enough
>> people in government that they won't have to worry about it.
> That's not the impression I get from the article. Did you read it?
Enough of it to see that it doesn't mean they'll go after MICROS~1.
Antitrust can cover a lot of companies for a lot of reasons. Going
after some of them may be the plan. It doesn't mean the sights are on
the same one(s) as before.
My bet is there may be some verbal threats, but mostly they will be
done to keep the monopoly in line (ie. by paying off the "right"
government officials). That will be for show for the rest of us. Other
actions will be taken to bring other companies to follow the same path
rather than risk a lot of trouble. IMO, of course.
It's rare that actions are taken to "protect the consumer" as they're
often portrayed. Take the tobacco settlement as one example. If they
were really trying to protect the consumer from something that they
determined was bad, they would have outlawed the product. They didn't.
They opted for "fines" forever. That's because protecting people was
never the goal. Getting more money to spend was. (Some states were in
such a hurry to spend it that they started borrowing against future
They aren't getting any fines out of the monopolists. What they are
getting is donations to campaigns, something Billy Buttcrust didn't get
much involved in before Justice went after them. He's learned his
lesson. I can't find the link, but I recall seeing an article a few
years back that mentioned that point exactly, taken as a quote or an
almost quote from His Billness.
The states play the same games.
The last thing any of them want is to lose a company that can give them
billions in fines and taxes permanently, or in political donations.
They'd rather harass them publicly and take bribes privately.
Note that the one article mentions spreading things more evenly across
parties. They're both in on the game.
If Windows is the answer, it must have been a stupid question.