> From: Steven Rogers <srogers1 at austin.rr.com> > > > On Mar 30, 2004, at 3:11 PM, Charles Martin wrote: > >> As a point of fact, one cannot dispute that Microsoft is a monopoly >> (an abusive monopoly, actually), since it has been judged so by both >> the US Circuit Court and the European Union. That *makes* it a fact, >> in addition to being bloody obvious. > > Kind of like when states pass laws that declare Pi = 3.0 You have, of course, documentation of which state has passed such a law ... > Yeah, its > really cool when governments make things be true. It actually wasn't the "government" (ie the executive or legislative branch, the part of the government that passes laws) that did that, it was the court system ... and yes, the courts establish facts and enforce the law based on those facts. The US and European court system have established that Microsoft is an abusive monopoly, and that makes it a fact (at least in the US and Europe, anyway). This is the fundamental underlying concept of our system of government. The foundation of our not only our government, but our very ability to govern is the idea that the courts uphold our laws, and we obey them, based on factual arguments. It's not a perfect system, but to date nobody has come up with anything better. The government is not, generally speaking, in the business of making things that are patently not true be true (present administration excepted). Governments that do, on the whole, tend to collapse under the weight of their own unreality at some point. Where I think you might be confused is in the notion (unstated by either me or the courts) that being a monopoly is itself illegal. It's not. ABUSING your monopoly, on the other hand, is. That, in a very broad nutshell, is why Microsoft is in trouble whereas your local electric company probably isn't. _Chas_ "George W. Bush is ... the kind of politician who would cut down a tree and then climb on its stump to give a speech about conservation." -- John Kerry http://www.johnkerry.com