Quote from: BitterTea on June 15, 2011, 08:12:00 PM

Quote from: EnterpriseE1701E on June 15, 2011, 08:04:48 PM

Right, but that protection isn't unique to microsoft. It also applies to apple and other companies. This isn't an offensive argument in any way, precisely because everybody could've had this.

Excellent goal post shift! Seven points!

Nice arrogance and douchbaggery! 3 points!

Anyways, if you look at what Atlas said, I responded it couldn't be a subsidy if it wasn't favorting microsoft. This is simple definitions.

Quote

Quote from: EnterpriseE1701E on June 15, 2011, 06:42:34 PM

The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

You've only showed that government subsidizes all content industries equally (though, those with more political clout get better treatment). You have not shown that Microsoft would have existed in any meaningful way if there were no subsidization at all. Would you like to try again?

Uh, you need to learn to read better. I'm not yet admitting that it got a IP subsidy(as I think the definition on that is schizophrenic, at best). I was saying that, and see my last paragraph of my last post for this, A) I don't believe it constitutes a subsidy, and B) If it counts as a subsidy, you should have no trouble at all naming other examples of corporations/companies that came into existence exclusively because of this IP subsidy. That is, if you are unable to show how a company who had this subsidy that became a corporation exclusively because of this one subsidy, then the IP wasn't a subsidy at all to begin with. But once again, that's a hypothetical-- even if you prove B, I'll contest A and negate B by examining and finding other circumstances that led to it becoming a corporation.