From: "Joe Barr" 

On Tue, 20 May 2003 18:49:36 -0400, Geo. wrote:

> I still don't get the issue. Linux is free, for MS to do something wrong
> wouldn't they have to be cheaper? I mean just matching the price of a
> competitor is what I would call being competitive. Did MS pay someone to
> use windows?
>
> Somehow, I don't see MS lowering the price of Windows to match Linux as a
> bad thing.
>
> Geo. (actually I'd like to see that happen, start with the CAL price)

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.

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.

And of course you still don't get the free part of Linux, but I'm not going
to explain it to you again.

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