From: "Joe Barr" 

On Tue, 20 May 2003 22:11:40 -0400, Geo. wrote:

> "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.05.20.23.27.34.366084{at}austin.rr.com...
>
>> Well, here is the reasoning as I understand her.  A monopoly can use
>> exclusionary pricing (giving the product away, for example) to prevent
>> competition from ever establishing a foothold in the market.  In this
>> case, it would be MS illegally maintaining their monopoly.
>
> that would make sense if the competition was charging a price, but when
> the competition is from a free product, monopoly or not, you should be
> allowed to match their price. If you want to complain about preload deals
> or some other form of distribution where market share can be used as an
> advantage fine but straight price to price competition doesn't to me seem
> to be unfair use of market share.
>
>> It might well be good for those very few MS customers who got the deep
>> discounts, but it would be bad for consumers because it would prevent
>> the formation of a free marketplace.
>
> If you want to require a standard price structure (ie no special deals)
> that's fine.
>
>> And of course you still don't get the free part of Linux, but I'm not
>> going to explain it to you again.
>
> I get the free, I downloaded Knoppix without a credit card, it's free. As
> for the other free, I don't agree, if it's got a license agreement that
> says something other than "this is public domain" then it's
not free. (I
> don't see the license agreement as bad, I just don't see it as free, there
> are restrictions.)
>
> Geo.

Of course, none of people Microsoft is wining and dining, bribing, or
giving their software to is getting Linux for free.  Each and every one of
them is paying for it, and for support.

You keep swimming in your fantasy pool, but be careful when you get in over
your head.  :)







--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4