LAW: Re:Class action suite against Microsoft

Miles Seeley says:
"While I respect Paul Romeo's opinions about Microsoft (and they are widely held), I maintain that those who brought suit against Microsoft seemed to have a different idea than I do about what constitutes a "level playing field."

I read much of the testimony, out of curiosity, and it seemed to me that they wanted the government to do what they could not do- punish, fine, and break up Microsoft so that they (the competitors) could survive and thrive.

They had all been Microsoft competitors for a long time and had been bested. In the rough and tumble business world, Microsoft was, as I said before, a tough and sometimes ruthless player. I thought, then and now, that if it could be shown that Microsoft broke laws as it prospered (ie if it truly "stole" Apple's secrets) then it should be punished. But the anti-trust suits seemed designed more to give the plaintiffs what they could not achieve in the open market.

Americans have a strong belief that success is admirable, but too much success- a monopoly or near-monopoly- is bad and not in the best interests of the consumers. Where to draw the line between"successful" and "too successful" is a matter that rests more in the fields of law and politics than in business. As in so many things, it depends on your point of view and whose ox is being gored. Ê I'm sure my arguments rest on shaky legal grounds, at best, and all they represent is my best efforts to understand very complicated issues".