gumboman wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:12:39 -0700, Evolution <myname@rcn.com> wrote: If you click on the article referenced there, http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-033.html You're going to use the Cato Institue as a reference in Hillary's defense but you aren't neocons. OK. No, that link was quoted in YOUR reference and YOUR reference was based on it

"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" wrote: I.P. Nichols wrote: But being a monopoly isn't illegal under US law and DOJ did stop Microsoft from compelling box vendors to install Windows on all the boxes they sold as a condition of granting them an OEM license. If that were true, then why would I have to pay MORE for the same computers w/o an OS? Well it's true so you shouldn't blame

"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" wrote: The fact that MS has a monopoly with these vars is why I had to but the Windows license. I could have paid more for a box with no OS, but there was no negotiation with the price without Windows. The DOJ was suppose to stop this exploitation, but did absolutely nothing about it. But being a monopoly isn't illegal under US law and DOJ did stop