Hola gente,
estaba esperando que compilara algo, y me encontr�, en el sitio del DOJ
de los EE.UU., una lista[0] de comentarios "seleccionados" en el caso
U.S. vs MS Corp. Hay comentarios sin duda interesantes (e.g. los de
Mark Alexander, Daniel Maddux y Herb Kohl, entre otros), pero me llam�
en particular la atenci�n el de Red Hat. Es interesante ver lo que la
compa��a piensa de s� misma:
From a company with only $482,000 in revenue in 1995, Red Hat has
grown to over $100 million in revenue in 2001. The vast majority of
Red Hat's revenues are derived from the services it offers around
its well-known Linux distribution, not from license fees or
royalties. Despite its rapid growth, however, until last year Red
Hat Linux was not considered an effective competitor with either Sun
Microsystems or Microsoft in the server market. With increasing
success, Red Hat has now penetrated that market, demonstrating that
it can be an effective competitor where no illegal monopoly exists.
The same cannot be said for the desktop operating system market, the
subject of many of the claims and findings against Microsoft in this
matter. Because of Microsoft's stranglehold on that market, with
over a 94% marketshare -- a stranglehold unlawfully maintained --
Red Hat has elected not to attempt to compete until a level playing
field can be established. Any efforts by Red Hat toward competing
would be utterly fruitless and an unjustified use of corporate
resources.
Obviamente me falta algo de pericia legal, pues me pregunto que quiere
decir exactamente "competir" en este contexto. El resto del comentario
es, adem�s de extenso, buena lectura.
M.
[0] http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-major.htm
[1] http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00030616.htm
--
�Desea desuscribirse? Escriba a [EMAIL PROTECTED] con el tema
'unsubscribe'. M�s informaci�n: http://www.linux.or.cr/listas
