> I would welcome a counterpoint in fact (vs personal statements) It would help, to make a counterpoint, if you spelled out exactly what in the 90s this remind

> I would welcome a counterpoint in fact (vs personal statements) It would help, to make a counterpoint, if you spelled out exactly what in the 90s this reminds you of. My wild guess is that this reminds you of the legal agreements Microsoft got in trouble for having computermakers sign that kept BeOS off their computers. But that's wildly inapplicable here. Nevermind the important fact that a TOS for Github's own service forbidding using it to create a competing service is materially different from signing an agreement with a 3rd part to not do business with a competitor, the simple fact is Anti-Trust laws only apply to Trusts. At the time Microsoft got in trouble, they had previously signed a legal agreement acknowledging they were a trust, in 1994. Github hasn't done that. Microsoft signed a legally binding document that said "We acknowledge we are a Trust, and we agree to play by the rules governing Trusts" and then broke those rules. That's what they got in trouble for. None of that applies here, however much you "think Github has a dominant position". That's not enough to get you slapped with antitrust violations. If Github were a monopoly in it's market (which it isn't, but let's pretend), that's not illegal! They would first have to be shown to be leveraging that position to enter into other markets, or to in some other way be illegally using that position to prevent 3rd parties from doing business with competitors, which is a violation of the Sherman Act. Simply saying that competitors can't use their free service is not a violation of the Sherman Act.