Without forcing everybody to search the interline comments. 1) you obviously have no concept of anti-trust or anti-competitive law, practice or the public interest it represents. I wrote my thesis on government regulation of monopoly v. monopoly franchises such as utilities. 2) market domination can, and generally does, stifle competition, but it also kills innovation of alternatives. Software companies are too busy kissing arse with Bill, and threatened by Bill, to release software on other systems say unix or os/2. a perfect example is Corel. Corel was _very_ enthusiastic to release for OS/2, in fact they were ported to OS/2 before W95 released. Shortly after the announcement, the honcho reversed positions and canceled Rev 6 for OS/2 stating that Rev 2.5 which has existed for some time, was "adequate" for OS/2. I am not going to expose my inside source, as their will be retribution. 3) you are totally ignoring the comments on anti-thrust and restraint of trade. In general market terms, anti-thrust is less important than restraint of trade --Bill _clearly_ violates the rules on restraint of trade, and therefore should be dismembered to avoid lack of innovation as in #2 above. 4) you clearly have no concept of American free market policy. Yes, you may be very successful, even filthy rich, but when you stretch your rights to clearly offend the public interest, then anti-trust and restraint of trade laws serve the _needs_ of a free and _competitive/innovative_ market. America does not serve dinner to merchants who rape, pillage, and burn --as Bill Gates has crushed his opponents; the barbarians are punished. There are grounds for criminal charges in Bill's actions. 5) you are incorrect in your assumptions that Gates was sued anonymously. In the initial action by the DOJ, competitors were _asked_, by subpoena, for factual information by the DOJ. The _DOJ_ provided the shield in so much as Bill's barbarian actions were of sufficient interest that evidence providers desired and were given protection --not much different than the Federal Witness Protection program. when CI$ and the rest banded together to protest Bill's obvious restraint of trade and stonewalling on hooks to Win95 for three months after Win95 released, they did not, and _could_ not, do so anonymously. 6) how much is Bill paying _you_ for your efforts? You obviously have too much of an interest in the commercial outcome to be so ignorant. 7) Your beliefs are one thing --state 'em, but don't speak for America until you know the definition of the "public interest" and have some concept of anti-trust and restraint-of-trade legislation and court rulings which have set the guidelines. clutch it in, _after_ your brain is in gear. 8) no, I am not a liberal by any means. I am somewhere to the right of the Libertarians, but definitely not an anarchist either. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS --FORWARD TO ALT.FLAME