11 ms·
Being found to have a monopoly (by a judge who explicitly excluded Macs and Linux machines) meant Microsoft was held to much higher standards. Other companies c
by scholia 13y ago
Being found to have a monopoly (by a judge who explicitly excluded Macs and Linux machines) meant Microsoft was held to much higher standards. Other companies can and do behave far worse and get away with it.
You want to compare the effects of these lives "ruined" (whose exactly?) with the Chinese workers making your products committing suicide?
- gnaritas 13y agoI made no such comparison and any such comparison is a red herring. Bill the businessman was ruthless and unethical and destroyed many a business via illegal means. Bill the philanthropist is a great man who's doing great things that I very much support. One does not negate the other. I can despise Bill the businessman and look up to Bill the philanthropist at the same time.
- scholia 13y agoFirst, you're overstating things wildly. Unless you come up with some names (people and companies) I shall continue to believe that you're blowing smoke. Second, Gates wasn't uniquely bad, and he had plenty of equally ruthless rivals including Jobs, Ellison and Noorda. He was, as mentioned, held to much higher standards. Third, it still shows a profound lack of humanity to think that what was mostly antitrust-theatre has anything like the same importance as real life and death issues in the wider world.
- gnaritas 13y ago> I shall continue to believe that you're blowing smoke. Well fuck off then, we're done. I'm not going to waste my time reiterating Microsoft's crimes to someone's who apparently blind to them and continues to throw out red herrings.
- scholia 13y agoYou've already made it obvious you don't actually know anything about Microsoft's crimes. Which, sadly, I do.