[vidarh]

That particular statement seemed very clear, and not true. There were no anti-trust investigations into Commodore because they were never in a remotely dominant enough position for it.

If you have a clarification, make it instead of breaking the site rules with insults.

EDIT: I see you've made the suggestion of anti-trust issues in another comment too, and there's simply absolutely no basis for that. At the time Commodore reached its highest ever revenue it wasn't even close to even half the market, much less any position where theyd be at risk of antitrust, and Atari, which you also implicated elsewhere was a near bankrupt non-entity (soon to be bought by Tramiel for a pittance), and that was the largest Commodore ever got.

[kjs3]

Don't worry, he's just a crank with an axe to grind and not enough facts or imagination to support his argument. Don't worry, anyone who took a minute to think about what he said knows you're right. And calling some someone a 'coward' while flinging poo from behind an anon nick...chef kiss.

[vidarh]

I'm mostly curious where this very strange misconception might have come from. As much as I was a diehard Commodore fan as a child, at no point did I labour under the misconception that they were dominant enough to be in some kind of monopoly position. After all, the entire period was defined by a vast range of different home computers, at a level not seen before or since.