While cruising around looking for newsworthy items to post on PCBurn I read through a few comments on the bottom of an article about Samsung and price fixing.
Now, this is a comment I’ve seen a few places. People claim, in the presence of all evidence to the contrary, that Microsoft doesn’t/didn’t engage in unsavory colluding practices to ensure their A) place in the market or B) revenue margins. Some idiot inevitably claims that no one wants to compete with them, and that’s why they always end up being the only supplier in a given software sector… even in light of their suspiciously high prices.
The poster even claims that they don’t create any barriers to competition… which is what’s been proven by the past 20 years of court cases against the Redmond behemoth. They’ve been convicted of being a monopoly, conspiring to keep competitors out of their market, and just about every other charge along those lines. See the current European court cases I’ve been ref’ing for the latest round.
So why do people persist in parroting this line?
Execs go to jail, do not pass go in Samsung DRAM price fixing case - Engadget
