Eh? I think we're in agreement, not disagreement! My main point was that Microsoft is constrained by business and legal factors. The monopoly problem you referred to is a legal constraint. And, as you said, "Intel could [sic] care less about what software is run on it's [sic] systems." In other words, Microsoft doesn't have the business muscle to force Intel to run only Microsoft. My point was that Microsoft has always had the _technical_ know-how to bully, but the _business and legal_ aspects constrain that potential.

If I have misread your post, I apologize. I think we're only in disagreement on one point. In your opinion (correct me if I'm wrong), Microsoft is successfully fooling either Intel or the public, or both, into manufacturing and/or using MS-only chips, using a "security camouflage." In my opinion, they aren't fooling anybody; I think Intel is too smart for that and would have nothing to gain by it. Since neither one of us represents Intel or the entire public (to my knowledge), these remain just opinions, of course.

I hope this clarifies my previous post.

-AB

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/96/15709#15709