Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

They effectively made it impossible to buy a computer without paying them. They profited even when they were not part of a transaction which killed BeOS and others.



That does not answer my question. Did they abuse monopoly, and if they did - how?


How is not an abuse of monopoly to create agreements that require Microsoft to be paid even if their product doesn't ship on the computer?


Which agreement are you talking about specifically?


The agreements with Dell, HP, etc. that required them to charge for Windows on every machine even if it didn't ship with Windows.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: