> a bullshit argument: using the apparent benefits of the monopoly to defend its existence; this (bad) argument also applies to Microsoft.
It doesn't apply is what I'm saying.
> In my post, I demonstrated that if that posted truly believed that, then they had better be prepared to defend Microsoft as well.
You didn't, because your argument was based on the false premise that MS got in trouble "for having the gall to believe that web browsers should be free" or, as you detail now, that monopolies shouldn't exist and that their benefits aren't enough of a reason for them to exist. Being a monopoly isn't what got MS in trouble, harming consumers to protect that monopoly from competing OS's is what did. There's no need to "defend the existence of a monopoly", because monopolies aren't illegal.
I don't care about your personal attacks. This is a website for discussion, not pissing contests.
It doesn't apply is what I'm saying.
> In my post, I demonstrated that if that posted truly believed that, then they had better be prepared to defend Microsoft as well.
You didn't, because your argument was based on the false premise that MS got in trouble "for having the gall to believe that web browsers should be free" or, as you detail now, that monopolies shouldn't exist and that their benefits aren't enough of a reason for them to exist. Being a monopoly isn't what got MS in trouble, harming consumers to protect that monopoly from competing OS's is what did. There's no need to "defend the existence of a monopoly", because monopolies aren't illegal.
I don't care about your personal attacks. This is a website for discussion, not pissing contests.