At 07:34 AM 5/19/98 -0700, Ellen J. Dannin wrote: >Any comments on the microsoft antitrust suit from the list? There is an article on antitrust legislation and its enforcement in ther last issue of the Dollars and Sense. One view they menation is that all this antitrust schmooze is a diversion from more serious issues, such as publi/private ownership of key industries. >From an unbiased point of view, private monopoly on a computer operating system would be tantamount to private monopoly on print can you imagine a situation that each time you want to type a letter you have to ask for a permission to use a typeset. Yet this is what happens when we use computers, we essentially cannot use them without Bill Gates' permission. It wouild make sense that operating system is publicly owned. That does not mean nationalization of Microsoft. It would be more comparable to the use of eminent domain to forcibly acquire a strip of land to build a roadway. One does not need a revolution to do that - it's quite often done under the current system. Given that antitrust litigation will last for years, this looks to me like a diversion tactics Clintonoids use to address a more serious question of public ownership of Windows. Regards, Wojtek Sokolowski
