[Ryanrk]

I would like to know what you guys think on this topic, THis is my 2 cents. I feel microsoft shouldn't be broken up, in fact i don't think they have really done anything wrong. It isn't illegal to have a monopoly it's just illegal to use your monopolistic powers to drive away competition. They are accused of doing this in WIN98. Now i felt that was a pretty good idea, but i know some netscape users would disagree. I don't think MS should be broken up, in fact i think MS brings out some very good products and the fact that they get broken up might disrupt this.

[Noodlez]

I see no reason to breakup Microsoft, I feel this would hurt there software, I also see nothing wrong with IE being part of Windows, The Internet has become a part of day to day life and therefor it makes since to have the OS work and use the internet to the fulest. They havn't bloked users from installing what ever other browswer they wish. Heck I don't even thing Mircosoft has a monopoly, there are many other OS to pick, Theres just happens to be the one that fits the needs of the avg user.

[EddiE314]

No, i think MS should just give users the option of installing or not installing Internet Explorer instead of forcing it on everyone. Other than that i don't have much of an opinion

[Arin]

If you dont have ie then the operating system wouldent work. it is based on ie.

[Reidyn]

Last time I checked, this was supposed to be a free country. If Microsoft wants to make IE an integral part of the OS, that should be their choice. It doesn't prevent Navigator or Opera from functioning. Many of the battles won by Microsoft were through the incompetence of their competition. Lotus OWNED the office productivity application market (90%) at one time, and then BLEW it. IBM was a bigger company than Microsoft, and didn't have the marketing prowess to put OS/2 on top. They blew it. Netscape started the giveaway game, despite the rhetoric of it being "shareware". They knew that no idividual users were paying for it. They blew it by not innovating enough and letting Microsoft pass them up. AOL owns them now, and has tremendous financial resources. When the users in the marketplace make a choice, and most choose one product, it's not the proper role of government to decide that this is a problem. If someone comes up with something that is, to the majority of the market, a better product than Microsoft's, it will prevail. That hasn't happened. The OS competition is good, but the majority of home consumers are not technologically adept and don't perceive any value in switching to Linux or BeOS. Those who do switch see some specific need that is addressed that Microsoft didn't address for them. If that happens to be only 5% of the market, so be it. That's the way the market works. Leave it alone and let it regulate itself.

[Arin]

No.

[TLDTMS]

There invading Anti Trust laws that were set in 1805 when people use to pick cotton and raise horses.


Accually I dont know when the Anti Trust Law came about.

[Syncope]

In my opinion, MS is guilty as charged...which is a GOOD thing. It's more important for the U.S. on a global scale to have this monopoly, than to offer it up for grabs again. Breaking up MS to increase domestic competition is penny wise and pound foolish.

[Ryanrk]

THe Sherman Act of 1905 is the Act that Microsoft has broken, But the reason i don't think microsoft will be broken up is because the sherman act is so Vague and has so many loopholes that they can probably appeal.

[DosFreak]

I think AOL should be broken up.

[Seldzar]

I think your mom should be broken .....errr up.

=)

[Arin]

anti trust was for stuff like oil. oil should be not owned by one company because then it drives down prices. but ms should be because it only standardizes everything. could you emagin if there were as many different oses running as there are cars. it would be a world of ****tastic imcompatible.