Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's finding of fact has a difficult time defining exactly what the facts are. These actions thus contributed to improving the quality of Web browsing software, lowering its cost, and increasing its availability, thereby benefiting consumers. But then he somehow concludes that Microsoft's successful innovations have actually prevented others in the industry from making new innovations. Then, dazzling us with confusion, Jackson argues that Microsoft can set the operating system price, or could keep its prices higher, or could delay the arrival of new innovations from others. Not that they did, but that they could.
Point is, did is fact.
But could is theory. For PC users who want to change their operating system, there are four main options. But not even the cheapest. After all, these guys are engaged in a profit-maximizing business. But as these price listings show, it's a very competitive business.