the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
Studebaker Hawk
the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
Billy the Boy is on trial for (among other things) forcing
computer manufacturers to NOT bundle competing software.
Killing free trade. Killing Netscape (and others), not by
skill, not by competition, but by monopoly and dirty tricks.
We need more government trustbusting. Real Free Trade.
LOTS more. The Very Rich Boys can go to hell. (yeah right)
As we all know, any unregulated market will "eat itself",
and in the long term are utterly dependent on external
regulation. This is trustbusting suit only one example.
But it looks like OJ again, Billy has the dream team, and
Justice has let itself get very rusty in the last few
decades. .
"TIME DIGITAL......... Bad Video at the Microsoft Trial
This may have been the most damaging week so far in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. Did the company try to enter doctored video
into evidence in its own defense? That's what David Boies is
trying to prove. Do his claims hold up? And if so,
will it make the government's case unbeatable?"
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/digital/daily/0,2822,19339,00.html
[Hey Billy the Boy! don't EVEN think of canceling this mssg]
Studebaker Hawk
about: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>Billy the Boy is on trial for (among other things) forcing
>computer manufacturers to NOT bundle competing software.
>Killing free trade. Killing Netscape (and others), not by
>skill, not by competition, but by monopoly and dirty tricks.
>We need more government trustbusting. Real Free Trade.
>LOTS more. The Very Rich Boys can go to hell. (yeah right)
This is the main trial page.
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/digital/microsoft/index.html
Fascinating!
slicer_1
> the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>
>Billy the Boy is on trial for (among other things) forcing
>computer manufacturers to NOT bundle competing software.
>Killing free trade. Killing Netscape (and others), not by
>skill, not by competition, but by monopoly and dirty tricks.
>We need more government trustbusting. Real Free Trade.
>LOTS more. The Very Rich Boys can go to hell. (yeah right)
But, he did NOT stop them from bundling other software, the computer
manufacturers could have just as easily dropped Microsoft and loaded UNIX on
their machines and bundled NETSCAPE with it .. they decided to stick with
Microsoft .. WHY/ Because the public likes Windows and it makes the
computer manufacturers more money to sell their computers with Microsoft
products on them. PERIOD end of story. Computer manufacturers are
capitalists and want to to make as much money as possible per sell. They
can do that with Microsoft. If Netscape was a true competitor with
Microsoft, it would have written an OS ....
>
>As we all know, any unregulated market will "eat itself",
>and in the long term are utterly dependent on external
>regulation. This is trustbusting suit only one example.
>But it looks like OJ again, Billy has the dream team, and
>Justice has let itself get very rusty in the last few
>decades. .
>
Unregualted markets will "eat inferior products", and thatis what people are
afraid of. People do not want to take the time to produce superior
products, they want to sit on their fat butts and coast through life. They
want to live off of the production of others .. and we let them ...
When things don't go their way, they get the government to smack the
producer with a lawsuit, stating "you need to helpthe loser out, your need
to bundle your OS with his crappy browser ...just to be fair .. your a rich
company, you can afford it" .... It is all a bunch of Socialist crap and you
know it.
> "TIME DIGITAL......... Bad Video at the Microsoft Trial
> This may have been the most damaging week so far in the Microsoft
> antitrust trial. Did the company try to enter doctored video
> into evidence in its own defense? That's what David Boies is
> trying to prove. Do his claims hold up? And if so,
>
> will it make the government's case unbeatable?"
>
>http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/digital/daily/0,2822,19339,00.html
>
p@u.c
>
>
>> the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>>
>>Billy the Boy is on trial for (among other things) forcing
>>computer manufacturers to NOT bundle competing software.
>>Killing free trade. Killing Netscape (and others), not by
>>skill, not by competition, but by monopoly and dirty tricks.
>>We need more government trustbusting. Real Free Trade.
>>LOTS more. The Very Rich Boys can go to hell. (yeah right)
>
>But, he did NOT stop them from bundling other software, the computer
>manufacturers could have just as easily dropped Microsoft and loaded UNIX on
>their machines and bundled NETSCAPE with it .. they decided to stick with
>Microsoft .. WHY/
The QWERTY effect -- everything already ran in Microsoft, so it would have
made very little economic sense for an individual company to switch
to UNIX, just like it would be pointless for a company to start putting
out keyboards with the keys arranged differently. That doesn't
necessarily mean that Microsoft was the best, only that its market
dominance was such that "rebelling" against it was impractical.
Only collective action -- all the companies switching to UNIX
simultaneously -- would work.
>Because the public likes Windows and it makes the
>computer manufacturers more money to sell their computers with Microsoft
>products on them. PERIOD end of story.
Windows is one of the shoddiest, most inefficient, and most annoying
operating systems I've every worked with. I would switch to UNIX or
Linux in a heartbeat if I didn't already have thousands of dollars'
worth of software written for Windows, and if there were more programs
out there which were compatible with these other systems.
>Computer manufacturers are
>capitalists and want to to make as much money as possible per sell. They
>can do that with Microsoft.
They *have* to do that with Microsoft. That's not fair, and that's not
a free market. The government's suit is justified.
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
Adog
FREE to offer the deal, the OEM is FREE to accept or deny it. Does Microsoft
use its market dominance to leverage the OEM's decision? Yes. Does this
violate free trade? No.
You are confused, the free market (its real definition, not yours) is much
more "fair" then you understand. If forcing OEM's to bundle IE is bad for
Microsoft's or the OEM's customers, it will damage Microsoft's position in
some way. Microsoft does not have the power to string too many bad decisions
together without getting hung. Their current market dominance allows them to
make more poor decisions then their current competitors, this is the award
they get for having a strong history of providing a good product. This is
fair. This is a free market.
Andrew J. Brehm
The free market is not an axiom.
If the free market can't regulate itself monopolies will "regulate" the
economy. A free market assumes that the market regulates the economy,
which it no longer can, if a monopoly exists. "Free" implies
independence, independence from government _and_ monopolies. Do we need
a free market to defend economy against the government? Yes, we do. Do
we need a government to defend a free market against monopoly? Yes, I
think we do too.
Bundling a software product with an operating system eliminates the free
market. A free market is two or more products competing against each
other. MSIE did not compete against Netscape Navigator.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC 604e/233
supporter of pepperoni pizza
Adog
extolled and denied by rhetoric. Which direction, and to what satisfaction,
seems highly dependent on the considerer. But consider this:
> A free market assumes that the market regulates the economy,
>which it no longer can, if a monopoly exists.
In the history of American business, what company ever became a monopoly
without the help of government and remained one for long enough to torture
its customers? (You may want to say Microsoft, find another)
>"Free" implies
>independence, independence from government _and_ monopolies. Do we need
>a free market to defend economy against the government? Yes, we do.
Amen, in the end I hope its the economy that wins this battle.
>Do
>we need a government to defend a free market against monopoly? Yes, I
>think we do too.
If no answer is clear to my first question, would you reconsider your
postion?
>Bundling a software product with an operating system eliminates the free
>market. A free market is two or more products competing against each
>other. MSIE did not compete against Netscape Navigator.
Bundling a software product with an operating system is a strategy decision
of Microsoft for leveraging Window's dominance to make Internet Explorer
compete effectively with a superior product(Navigator). This decision or its
application does not step outside of a free market. A free market does not
require a certain number of competing products.
One should not cut a product out of its environment, and disregard
everything that it is attached to. You can't pull a heart from the body and
still check its pulse. Put a BetaMax next to a VHS VCR and compare and we
got screwed. But we didn't get screwed when you consider everything that was
involved. Consumers made decisions on a complicated set of criteria that
extended beyond the quality of the product. And I tend to assume that
consumers(since they're spending their own money) are pretty smart. VHS won.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Adog <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> Requiring an OEM to bundle IE with Windows is *FREE TRADE*. Microsoft is
>> FREE to offer the deal, the OEM is FREE to accept or deny it. Does Microsoft
>> use its market dominance to leverage the OEM's decision? Yes. Does this
>> violate free trade? No.
>>
>> You are confused, the free market (its real definition, not yours) is much
>> more "fair" then you understand. If forcing OEM's to bundle IE is bad for
>> Microsoft's or the OEM's customers, it will damage Microsoft's position in
>> some way. Microsoft does not have the power to string too many bad decisions
>> together without getting hung. Their current market dominance allows them to
>> make more poor decisions then their current competitors, this is the award
>> they get for having a strong history of providing a good product. This is
>> fair. This is a free market.
>
>The free market is not an axiom.
>
>If the free market can't regulate itself monopolies will "regulate" the
>economy.
You can, of course, cite six examples where this occurred to a
significant extent WITHOUT government stepping in to create and/or
protect the monopoly.
> A free market assumes that the market regulates the economy,
>which it no longer can, if a monopoly exists.
And the evidence of this inability includes:
Standard Oil, market share declined from 90%+ to 50% *before*
government intervention
Commodore Vanderbilt's shipping line, which actually drove a
government-created government-protected monopoly into bankruptcy and
liquidation.
What else?
> "Free" implies
>independence, independence from government _and_ monopolies. Do we need
>a free market to defend economy against the government? Yes, we do. Do
>we need a government to defend a free market against monopoly? Yes, I
>think we do too.
Historically, there has only been one sustained monopoly:
The government monopoly on the initiation of force.
What will protect us from this monopoly, once it claims the right to
protect us from anyone else against our will?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Good Response. Unfortunately, the virtues of a free market can be both
> extolled and denied by rhetoric. Which direction, and to what satisfaction,
> seems highly dependent on the considerer. But consider this:
>
> > A free market assumes that the market regulates the economy,
> >which it no longer can, if a monopoly exists.
>
> In the history of American business, what company ever became a monopoly
> without the help of government and remained one for long enough to torture
> its customers? (You may want to say Microsoft, find another)
Standard Oil?
IBM?
Microsoft.
> >"Free" implies
> >independence, independence from government _and_ monopolies. Do we need
> >a free market to defend economy against the government? Yes, we do.
>
> Amen, in the end I hope its the economy that wins this battle.
Well, no, I hope they' ll fight forever. I don't want one of them to win
and break the balance of power (or terror).
> >Do
> >we need a government to defend a free market against monopoly? Yes, I
> >think we do too.
>
> If no answer is clear to my first question, would you reconsider your
> postion?
I will reconsider my position anyway, paying attention to what I read
here.
> >Bundling a software product with an operating system eliminates the free
> >market. A free market is two or more products competing against each
> >other. MSIE did not compete against Netscape Navigator.
>
> Bundling a software product with an operating system is a strategy decision
> of Microsoft for leveraging Window's dominance to make Internet Explorer
> compete effectively with a superior product(Navigator). This decision or its
> application does not step outside of a free market. A free market does not
> require a certain number of competing products.
Why would we need a free market if competition is not required?
> One should not cut a product out of its environment, and disregard
> everything that it is attached to. You can't pull a heart from the body and
> still check its pulse. Put a BetaMax next to a VHS VCR and compare and we
> got screwed. But we didn't get screwed when you consider everything that was
> involved. Consumers made decisions on a complicated set of criteria that
> extended beyond the quality of the product.
Consumers would have bought Internet Explorer if it was as good as
Microsoft claimed it was.
> And I tend to assume that
> consumers(since they're spending their own money) are pretty smart. VHS won.
I tend to assume that customers are pretty dumb. Or how would you
explain that in 1995 everybody dashed out and bought Windows 95, even
tho no applications were available for it at the time?
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >Adog <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Requiring an OEM to bundle IE with Windows is *FREE TRADE*. Microsoft
> >> is FREE to offer the deal, the OEM is FREE to accept or deny it. Does
> >> Microsoft use its market dominance to leverage the OEM's decision? Yes.
> >> Does this violate free trade? No.
> >>
> >> You are confused, the free market (its real definition, not yours) is
> >> much more "fair" then you understand. If forcing OEM's to bundle IE is
> >> bad for Microsoft's or the OEM's customers, it will damage Microsoft's
> >> position in some way. Microsoft does not have the power to string too
> >> many bad decisions together without getting hung. Their current market
> >> dominance allows them to make more poor decisions then their current
> >> competitors, this is the award they get for having a strong history of
> >> providing a good product. This is fair. This is a free market.
> >
> >The free market is not an axiom.
> >
> >If the free market can't regulate itself monopolies will "regulate" the
> >economy.
>
> You can, of course, cite six examples where this occurred to a significant
> extent WITHOUT government stepping in to create and/or protect the
> monopoly.
The question was whether or not a monopoly hurts the market. If the
monopoly has been created by the government, it's still a monopoly.
Frankly, I don't care who is responsible for what damages the economy,
as long as somebody fights it.
> > A free market assumes that the market regulates the economy, which it no
> >longer can, if a monopoly exists.
>
> And the evidence of this inability includes:
>
> Standard Oil, market share declined from 90%+ to 50% *before* government
> intervention
Could theoretically happen to Microsoft, but remember oil is oil and
interchangeable. Software isn't.
> Commodore Vanderbilt's shipping line, which actually drove a
> government-created government-protected monopoly into bankruptcy and
> liquidation.
>
> What else?
German Telecom...
> > "Free" implies independence, independence from government _and_
> >monopolies. Do we need a free market to defend economy against the
> >government? Yes, we do. Do we need a government to defend a free market
> >against monopoly? Yes, I think we do too.
>
> Historically, there has only been one sustained monopoly:
>
> The government monopoly on the initiation of force.
Exactly.
> What will protect us from this monopoly, once it claims the right to
> protect us from anyone else against our will?
The balance of power, the federal system, the media and the economy.
Jerry Watson
Adog wrote:
>
> Requiring an OEM to bundle IE with Windows is *FREE TRADE*. Microsoft is
> FREE to offer the deal, the OEM is FREE to accept or deny it. Does Microsoft
> use its market dominance to leverage the OEM's decision? Yes. Does this
> violate free trade? No.
NO. MS required OEMs to carry IE or they couldn't get the OS at market
prices. Just as if GM required you to buy a convertable before you could
get a car. Not tires, not an engine, not a driveshaft, but
"convertable", which many people feel degrades the usefullness of a car.
Imagine if you lived in Port Angeles Washington with 50+ inches of rain
per year. Want a hard top? Tough.
bsdwatson
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Adog <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> Good Response. Unfortunately, the virtues of a free market can be both
>> extolled and denied by rhetoric. Which direction, and to what satisfaction,
>> seems highly dependent on the considerer. But consider this:
>>
>> > A free market assumes that the market regulates the economy,
>> >which it no longer can, if a monopoly exists.
>>
>> In the history of American business, what company ever became a monopoly
>> without the help of government and remained one for long enough to torture
>> its customers? (You may want to say Microsoft, find another)
>
>Standard Oil?
Standard Oil "tortured" its customers by insisting on selling its
products at lower and lower prices.
When it could no longer maintain that pattern, it lost market share.
By the time the government acted to break up the "monopoly", it is
questionable whether Standard Oil still had 50% of the national market
or not.
>IBM?
The government tried for years to prove that IBM had a monopoly, and
couldn't do it. Today, I believe, Compaq produces more sales dollars
from computers than any other manufacturer.
>Microsoft.
Microsoft is very aware of how vulnerable it is. The fastest-growing
operating system is not a Microsoft product and is almost completely
immune to a corporate buy-out.
I have examined the case the federal government is making against
Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of
the majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape,
Novell, Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other
large company; for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission,
and so is the federal court system.
>> >"Free" implies
>> >independence, independence from government _and_ monopolies. Do we need
>> >a free market to defend economy against the government? Yes, we do.
>>
>> Amen, in the end I hope its the economy that wins this battle.
>
>Well, no, I hope they' ll fight forever. I don't want one of them to win
>and break the balance of power (or terror).
It's interesting that you are terrorized by the thought of multiple
companies desperately competing to offer you what you want with better
quality at lower prices.
>> >Do
>> >we need a government to defend a free market against monopoly? Yes, I
>> >think we do too.
>>
>> If no answer is clear to my first question, would you reconsider your
>> postion?
>
>I will reconsider my position anyway, paying attention to what I read
>here.
>
>> >Bundling a software product with an operating system eliminates the free
>> >market. A free market is two or more products competing against each
>> >other. MSIE did not compete against Netscape Navigator.
>>
>> Bundling a software product with an operating system is a strategy decision
>> of Microsoft for leveraging Window's dominance to make Internet Explorer
>> compete effectively with a superior product(Navigator). This decision or its
>> application does not step outside of a free market. A free market does not
>> require a certain number of competing products.
>
>Why would we need a free market if competition is not required?
"Free market" is defined by processes, not by results. If one company
simply produces products so good and so cheap that no competitor can
make any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
>> One should not cut a product out of its environment, and disregard
>> everything that it is attached to. You can't pull a heart from the body and
>> still check its pulse. Put a BetaMax next to a VHS VCR and compare and we
>> got screwed. But we didn't get screwed when you consider everything that was
>> involved. Consumers made decisions on a complicated set of criteria that
>> extended beyond the quality of the product.
>
>Consumers would have bought Internet Explorer if it was as good as
>Microsoft claimed it was.
I know a lot of people who claim that Internet Explorer IS as good as
Microsoft claims. Who say they prefer it because it runs better on
their system. Who say that they like the user interface better. (I
disagree on the first and last points; as for the second one, maybe
there's something odd about their system.) And no, they aren't
Microsoft devotees or employees.
>> And I tend to assume that
>> consumers(since they're spending their own money) are pretty smart. VHS won.
>
>I tend to assume that customers are pretty dumb. Or how would you
>explain that in 1995 everybody dashed out and bought Windows 95, even
>tho no applications were available for it at the time?
Because previously existing apps mostly ran better with it than with
previously existing operating systems?
Because it was easier to install and configure?
Because it networked better?
(These last two are why I was involved in buying a couple hundred
copies.)
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>The question was whether or not a monopoly hurts the market. If the
>monopoly has been created by the government, it's still a monopoly.
>Frankly, I don't care who is responsible for what damages the economy,
>as long as somebody fights it.
But if the government regulates to create a monopoly, it's hardly a
matter of a failure of a free market to regulate itself, is it?
>> > A free market assumes that the market regulates the economy, which it no
>> >longer can, if a monopoly exists.
>>
>> And the evidence of this inability includes:
>>
>> Standard Oil, market share declined from 90%+ to 50% *before* government
>> intervention
>
>Could theoretically happen to Microsoft, but remember oil is oil and
>interchangeable. Software isn't.
>
>> Commodore Vanderbilt's shipping line, which actually drove a
>> government-created government-protected monopoly into bankruptcy and
>> liquidation.
>>
>> What else?
>
>German Telecom...
Details... at least SOME details...
>> > "Free" implies independence, independence from government _and_
>> >monopolies. Do we need a free market to defend economy against the
>> >government? Yes, we do. Do we need a government to defend a free market
>> >against monopoly? Yes, I think we do too.
>>
>> Historically, there has only been one sustained monopoly:
>>
>> The government monopoly on the initiation of force.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> What will protect us from this monopoly, once it claims the right to
>> protect us from anyone else against our will?
>
>The balance of power, the federal system, the media and the economy.
The balance of power? Where?
The "federal system" died in the Lincoln administration.
The media are consistently on the side of increased government
regulation - of everything except, of course, the media.
The economy will hurt everyone EXCEPT the government, before it hurts
the government: the government is the only one with the power to
extract its defined amount of money from business profits without
regard to whether there are any business profits to begin with.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
> >IBM?
>
> The government tried for years to prove that IBM had a monopoly, and
> couldn't do it. Today, I believe, Compaq produces more sales dollars from
> computers than any other manufacturer.
I wasn't talking about today, but about the old ages, before
microcomputers.
> >Microsoft.
>
> Microsoft is very aware of how vulnerable it is. The fastest-growing
> operating system is not a Microsoft product and is almost completely
> immune to a corporate buy-out.
And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
> I have examined the case the federal government is making against
> Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of the
> majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
> Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large company;
> for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the federal
> court system.
McDonald's products are interchangeable, software products aren't.
> >> >"Free" implies independence, independence from government _and_
> >> >monopolies. Do we need a free market to defend economy against the
> >> >government? Yes, we do.
> >>
> >> Amen, in the end I hope its the economy that wins this battle.
> >
> >Well, no, I hope they' ll fight forever. I don't want one of them to win
> >and break the balance of power (or terror).
>
> It's interesting that you are terrorized by the thought of multiple
> companies desperately competing to offer you what you want with better
> quality at lower prices.
I didn't say that. You made that up. It is in fact interesting, but it
is not information about me. A monopoly is _not_ and never has been
multiple companies competing to offer me anything at lower prices.
> >> >Bundling a software product with an operating system eliminates the
> >> >free market. A free market is two or more products competing against
> >> >each other. MSIE did not compete against Netscape Navigator.
> >>
> >> Bundling a software product with an operating system is a strategy
> >> decision of Microsoft for leveraging Window's dominance to make
> >> Internet Explorer compete effectively with a superior
> >> product(Navigator). This decision or its application does not step
> >> outside of a free market. A free market does not require a certain
> >> number of competing products.
> >
> >Why would we need a free market if competition is not required?
>
> "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results. If one company
> simply produces products so good and so cheap that no competitor can make
> any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
You're making something up again. I didn't say this was the problem. In
contrast, I said the problem was, that at the moment, the market
_should_ be like you say, but isn't,
> >Consumers would have bought Internet Explorer if it was as good as
> >Microsoft claimed it was.
>
> I know a lot of people who claim that Internet Explorer IS as good as
> Microsoft claims. Who say they prefer it because it runs better on their
> system.
What's wrong with letting two browser companies compete and those who
prefer Microsoft would simply buy Microsoft???
> Who say that they like the user interface better. (I disagree on the
> first and last points; as for the second one, maybe there's something odd
> about their system.)
Probably... I hate the way MSIE does not actually show where a link
leads to ("link to index.html at www.ibm.com" instead of the real path),
but they might have changed that. The loast version I used was
3.something on MacOS.
> And no, they aren't Microsoft devotees or employees.
I didn't doubt that.
> >> And I tend to assume that consumers(since they're spending their own
> >> money) are pretty smart. VHS won.
> >
> >I tend to assume that customers are pretty dumb. Or how would you explain
> >that in 1995 everybody dashed out and bought Windows 95, even tho no
> >applications were available for it at the time?
>
> Because previously existing apps mostly ran better with it than with
> previously existing operating systems?
Have you tried OS/2 Warp with WinOS/2? I have. And many people were
surprised how well it ran Windows programs. Only when more and more
Windows 95 programs hit the market, it became obselete. I continued
using it until summer '98, tho. THEN I bought a PowerPC running MacOS,
BeOS and Linux to be safe.
> Because it was easier to install and configure?
One point. However, it still crashes when I try to install my ISDN
adapter.
> Because it networked better?
Better than what? Better than OS/2? I don't think so. Windows NT might,
but not 95.
> (These last two are why I was involved in buying a couple hundred
> copies.)
These last two were why I could convince many people to try OS/2 in
1995.
> -------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to
> US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and all
> nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a
> download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes
> acceptance of these terms.
You know, In Germany sending spam is simply illegal.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >The question was whether or not a monopoly hurts the market. If the
> >monopoly has been created by the government, it's still a monopoly.
> >Frankly, I don't care who is responsible for what damages the economy,
> >as long as somebody fights it.
>
> But if the government regulates to create a monopoly, it's hardly a
> matter of a failure of a free market to regulate itself, is it?
No, but it still proves that a monopoly hurts the free market. If the
market cannot regulate away this monopoly, why could it regulate away a
monopoly that emerged from the market?
> >> Commodore Vanderbilt's shipping line, which actually drove a
> >> government-created government-protected monopoly into bankruptcy and
> >> liquidation.
> >>
> >> What else?
> >
> >German Telecom...
>
> Details... at least SOME details...
Two details: German Telecom is the only telephone company that can offer
local calls to customers.
Local calls cost 3$/hour.
> >> What will protect us from this monopoly, once it claims the right to
> >> protect us from anyone else against our will?
> >
> >The balance of power, the federal system, the media and the economy.
>
> The balance of power? Where?
America: house, senate, president
Germany: federal parliament, state governments, federal government
> The "federal system" died in the Lincoln administration.
Do you think so? In the Lincoln administration the rights of states was
overruled when it hit invidual rights as states in the constitution.
> The media are consistently on the side of increased government
> regulation - of everything except, of course, the media.
Hm... what about the free media market and how it regulates itself? In
Germany we have several fights between tv stations and government, the
longes was several months between WDR (a state owned tv station) and
Chancellor Kohl a few years ago.
Mike Doll
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Microsoft is very aware of how vulnerable it is. The fastest-growing
> > operating system is not a Microsoft product and is almost completely
> > immune to a corporate buy-out.
>
> And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
> could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
> purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
There will never be a GUI for Linux? I disagree, and would place the
assertion right up there with "No one will ever need more than 640k of
memory".
> > I have examined the case the federal government is making against
> > Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of the
> > majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
> > Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large company;
> > for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the federal
> > court system.
>
> McDonald's products are interchangeable, software products aren't.
Then why are the functionality of the top 3 spreadsheets and word
processors nearly identical? Since the companies want to produce
what the market wants, they must include the functions that other
candidate suppliers offer. To use an automotive example, I doubt
that all suppliers came up with the ideas of using radios or air-
conditioning at the same time, but they are now standard and optional
regardless of which type of vehicle you buy.
> > It's interesting that you are terrorized by the thought of multiple
> > companies desperately competing to offer you what you want with better
> > quality at lower prices.
>
> I didn't say that. You made that up. It is in fact interesting, but it
> is not information about me. A monopoly is _not_ and never has been
> multiple companies competing to offer me anything at lower prices.
>
> > "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results. If one company
> > simply produces products so good and so cheap that no competitor can make
> > any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
>
> You're making something up again. I didn't say this was the problem. In
> contrast, I said the problem was, that at the moment, the market
> _should_ be like you say, but isn't,
Methinks you're avoiding the point of the question. If one company
does manage to reach a monopoly by means of having a far
superior product, should they be allowed to make profits
due to their product, or should the government take it away
from them or spread around the methodology to ensure "fairness"
I think that the Cola market adequately covers this topic, with the
top 2 companies getting a sizable chunk of the world's non-
alcoholic drink market.
I'm still running a dual boot, with OS/2 warp over Win3.1 on the "working"
side, and Win95 on the games side. OS/2 programmers have some
fantastic AI routines, but there's very few who program for it, and since
my home system is largely a games platform, that's where I spend most
of my time.
> > Because it was easier to install and configure?
>
> One point. However, it still crashes when I try to install my ISDN
> adapter.
>
> > Because it networked better?
>
> Better than what? Better than OS/2? I don't think so. Windows NT might,
> but not 95.
>
> > (These last two are why I was involved in buying a couple hundred
> > copies.)
>
> These last two were why I could convince many people to try OS/2 in
> 1995.
> --
> Andrew J. Brehm
> fan of Woody Allen
> PowerPC 604e/233
> supporter of pepperoni pizza
--
Mike Doll
+=========+
|TANSTAAFL|
+=========+
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>
> > > Microsoft is very aware of how vulnerable it is. The fastest-growing
> > > operating system is not a Microsoft product and is almost completely
> > > immune to a corporate buy-out.
> >
> > And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
> > could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
> > purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
>
> There will never be a GUI for Linux? I disagree, and would place the
> assertion right up there with "No one will ever need more than 640k of
> memory".
??? Hello?
Who said anything about a GUI????
Who are you replying to?
To sort things out, X11R6 is a fine X server but an X server alone does
not make an operating system a general purpose operating system. Most
general purpose operating systems don't even use X (but a GUI).
The definition of a general purpose system might be something along the
lines:
a) availability of office software
b) ease of use and configuration
c) limited network abilities
Linux Intel fills
a) Star Office
b) _not_
c) not limited
Linux PowerPC (the version I use) fills
a) Applixware (now!)
b) _not_
c) not limited
Windows, MacOS, OS/2, even Atari/Amiga systems can be thought of as
general purpose operating systems, UNIX certainly can't.
> > > I have examined the case the federal government is making against
> > > Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of the
> > > majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
> > > Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large company;
> > > for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the federal
> > > court system.
> >
> > McDonald's products are interchangeable, software products aren't.
>
> Then why are the functionality of the top 3 spreadsheets and word
> processors nearly identical?
That's not what I meant.
> > > "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results. If one company
> > > simply produces products so good and so cheap that no competitor can make
> > > any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
> >
> > You're making something up again. I didn't say this was the problem. In
> > contrast, I said the problem was, that at the moment, the market
> > _should_ be like you say, but isn't,
>
> Methinks you're avoiding the point of the question. If one company
> does manage to reach a monopoly by means of having a far
> superior product, should they be allowed to make profits
> due to their product, or should the government take it away
> from them or spread around the methodology to ensure "fairness"
> I think that the Cola market adequately covers this topic, with the
> top 2 companies getting a sizable chunk of the world's non-
> alcoholic drink market.
The answer is NO, the government shouldn't.
However, we better wait for the outcome of the Microsoft trial to see
whether this logic applies to Microsoft or not.
You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
> > Have you tried OS/2 Warp with WinOS/2? I have. And many people were
> > surprised how well it ran Windows programs. Only when more and more
> > Windows 95 programs hit the market, it became obselete. I continued
> > using it until summer '98, tho. THEN I bought a PowerPC running MacOS,
> > BeOS and Linux to be safe.
>
> I'm still running a dual boot, with OS/2 warp over Win3.1 on the "working"
> side, and Win95 on the games side. OS/2 programmers have some
> fantastic AI routines, but there's very few who program for it, and since
> my home system is largely a games platform, that's where I spend most
> of my time.
Good to hear you use OS/2.
Studebaker Hawk
on Tue, 16 Feb (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>Mike Doll <mld...@home.com> wrote:
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>> > Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
>> > purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
>The definition of a general purpose system might be something along the
>lines:
>
>a) availability of office software
>b) ease of use and configuration
>c) limited network abilities
[snips]
>Windows, MacOS, OS/2, even Atari/Amiga systems can be thought of as
>general purpose operating systems, UNIX certainly can't.
>> > > I have examined the case the federal government is making against
>> > > Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of the
>> > > majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
>> > > Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large company;
>> > > for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the federal
>> > > court system.
I see no similarities, other than they are all huge.
It's possible you don't understand what a monopoly is,
nor the specific charges against Microsoft. They were
forcing Dell Computer, Compaq, and the rest to squelch
competition against Microsoft thus squelching consumer
choice. There is probably nothing more important to a
free market than consumer choice.
To use McDonald's as an example, if they produced all
the market-viable beef, and they refused to sell any to
say, Burger King -- that would be a violation of our
free market laws. Because they are killing competition
NOT with a superior product, but because of their monopoly
position. This is how Microsoft dealt with Netscape (and
others).
>> > > "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results.
>> > > If one company simply produces products so good and so
>> > > cheap that no competitor can make
>> > > any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
superior to MS-Explorer. So your scenario does not represent
the case against Microsoft. According to economic theory,
removing choice must harm the consumer. For example, not all
people have the same tastes or values.
>> > > If one company simply produces products so good and so
>> > > cheap that no competitor can make any money, what's the problem?
"Good product" was not MS's method, "monopoly" was.
Getting into McDonalds hypothetical monopoly
position, it is ALSO against the law...because economic
theory says they MUST maximize profit eventually.
JUST as Microsoft did by banning Netscape from new computers.
Keep in mind that most of the gouging monopolies of the
past got to be that way via good products. But monopolies
MUST kill free trade. Only real competition (and/or external
regulation) can keep products good and cheap.
>> Methinks you're avoiding the point of the question. If one company
>> does manage to reach a monopoly by means of having a far
>> superior product, should they be allowed to make profits
>> due to their product, or should the government take it away
>> from them or spread around the methodology to ensure "fairness"
>> I think that the Cola market adequately covers this topic, with the
>> top 2 companies getting a sizable chunk of the world's non-
>> alcoholic drink market.
>
>The answer is NO, the government shouldn't.
Agree. And the PepsiCo does not force stores
to ban Coke or Shasta from their shelves.
Billy the Boy reminds of nothing more than a mean-spirited
spoiled brat who will stop at nothing short of a good whipping.
>> or should the government take it away from them or
>> spread around the methodology to ensure "fairness"
That is nothing but an emotional red herring and
strawman. It has no bearing in this case.
>However, we better wait for the outcome of the Microsoft trial to see
>whether this logic applies to Microsoft or not.
Logic? With Microsoft's legal Dream Team? Perhaps you
can do a better job yourself? All you need to know is that
competition (choice) is the foundation of foundations of a free
market (capitalism). Then ask if Microsoft by taking advantage
of its monopoly position by *forcing* Dell Computer etc. to ban
Microsoft's competition from new computers reduced competition
or choice.
--
Still lingering in the dying alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.
Studebaker Hawk
In <7a1e20$6q7$1...@remarQ.com>
>
>> the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>>
>>Billy the Boy is on trial for (among other things) forcing
>>computer manufacturers to NOT bundle competing software.
Forcing Dell Computers, Compaq, and the rest to NOT give
their customers a product choice.
>>Killing free trade. Killing Netscape (and others), not by
>>skill, not by competition, but by monopoly and dirty tricks.
>>We need more government trustbusting. Real Free Trade.
>>LOTS more. The Very Rich Boys can go to hell. (yeah right)
>But, he did NOT stop them from bundling other software, the computer
>manufacturers could have just as easily dropped Microsoft and
>loaded UNIX on their machines and bundled NETSCAPE with it
What's UNIX? Some OS nobody would buy?
> .. they decided to stick with Microsoft .. WHY/
Duh...er...because Billy the Boy has a monopoly on the
only market-viable PC operating system??? You are kinda
slow, aintcha? You are aware that capitalism as we know it
is dependent on product competition aintcha? Or do you
prefer that brand of capitalism in South America?
>Because the public likes Windows and it makes the
>computer manufacturers more money to sell their computers
>with Microsoft products on them.
That's how Billy the Boy can do whatever he wants,
free trade be damned.
Yep. That was the ultimatum Bill the Boy gave them
all right. Perhaps you need to do some research
on free trade? If Microsoft dictates to computer
makers what they are allowed, no free trade.
>PERIOD end of story. Computer manufacturers are
>capitalists and want to to make as much money as possible per
>sell. They can do that with Microsoft.
Not quite right. Because of Gates' monopoly, they
are dependent on his product. He said, DO NOT PERMIT
COMPETITION WITH ME or I will cut you off.
> If Netscape was a true competitor with
>Microsoft, it would have written an OS ....
If Netscape was NOT a true competitor with
Microsoft, why was Billy shitting in his pants,
breaking the law to kill it? Netscape is a piece
of art, MS-Explorer is just another piece of
mediocrity off the MS-assembly line. A poor copy
of Netscape.
>>As we all know, any unregulated market will "eat itself",
>>and in the long term are utterly dependent on external
>>regulation. This is trustbusting suit only one example.
>>But it looks like OJ again, Billy has the dream team, and
>>Justice has let itself get very rusty in the last few
>>decades. .
>>
>Unregulated markets will "eat inferior products",
Everybody knows MS-Explorer was not even in
Netscape's ballpark when Billy pulled that stunt.
That's why he was so frightened.
That's what trustbusting is all about, allowing
products to compete against products; fairly, not
with just monopoly power. Not only did Bill Gates
remove choice of product from the manufactures, but
from the consumers as well. Just what do you think
the "free" in "free trade" is all about? Like duh.
>and thatis what people are afraid of. People do not want
>to take the time to produce superior products,
Are you that ignorant? That's why people are so pissed
off about this. Netscape was FAR FAR FAR superior.
Why are you so kissy assed to the talentless Rich Boys?
Are you under the impression that money can bypass the
law and spirit of capitalism anytime it wants?
I just love this Rush Limbaugh styled rant you come up
with next. Hey, this is not Limbaughtomyville, pal.
Do you have anything real?
>they want
>to sit on their fat butts and coast through life. They
>want to live off of the production of others .. and we let them ...
>When things don't go their way, they get the government to smack the
>producer with a lawsuit, stating "you need to helpthe loser out,
I see the veins on your bulging out now, Limbaugh-style.
I suppose you want us to forget that Gates was the one
with the losing product too?
>your need producer with a lawsuit, stating "you need
>to helpthe loser out, to bundle your OS with his crappy
>browser ...just to be fair .. your a rich
>company, you can afford it" .... It is all a bunch
>of Socialist crap and you
You mis-represent the case. It was not costing Gates
one production dime. GATES DOES NOT BUNDLE SOFTWARE.
He was FORCING the computer makers to remove choice
when THEY bundle the software on the computers THEY make!
Gates was trying tell Dell, Compaq, etc what they could
sell!
>company, you can afford it" .... It is all a bunch
>of Socialist crap and you know it.
You are just a Rich Boy bootlick. Rich Boys don't
want any competition. And Rich Boy Bootlicks like
you twist reality so you can see a Commie under every
bush. But it's you and Gates that are pissing on
capitalism and free trade, not me.
>> "TIME DIGITAL......... Bad Video at the Microsoft Trial
>> This may have been the most damaging week so far in the Microsoft
>> antitrust trial. Did the company try to enter doctored video
>> into evidence in its own defense? That's what David Boies is
>> trying to prove. Do his claims hold up? And if so,
>>
>> will it make the government's case unbeatable?"
>>
>>http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/digital/daily/0,2822,19339,00.html
This is the main trial page.
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/digital/microsoft/index.html
Fascinating! But even TIME uses kid gloves on Gates. They
are afraid he will cut off their interviews. Whores.
Try Brill's Content for the real scoop.
>> [Hey Billy the Boy! don't EVEN think of canceling this mssg]
>>
kee wurdz:
Microsoft Bill Gates Microsoft Bill Gates antitrust trial Justice
Department MS-Explorer v. Netscape MS-Explorer vs. Netscape
Microsoft Bill Gates Microsoft Bill Gates antitrust trial Justice
Department MS-Explorer v. Netscape Netscape vs. 800 lb gorilla.
Microsoft Bill Gates Microsoft Bill Gates antitrust trial Justice
Department ******** Bill Gates gives capitalism a bad name.
Microsoft Bill Gates Microsoft Bill Gates antitrust trial Justice
Department ****** Like the robber barons before him.
Microsoft Bill Gates Microsoft Bill Gates antitrust trial Justice
Department
Keith
shawk@hawk..dot (Studebaker Hawk) wrote:
[
[In <7a1e20$6q7$1...@remarQ.com>
Mike Doll
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Mike Doll <mld...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
> > > could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
> > > purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
> >
> > There will never be a GUI for Linux? I disagree, and would place the
> > assertion right up there with "No one will ever need more than 640k of
> > memory".
>
> ??? Hello?
> Who said anything about a GUI????
Acutally, I brought up the GUI in reference to the "Normal operating
system everyone can use". Since, to most, a large part of the usability
of a system is the interface (presuming that it can actually run programs),
this is an important step towards making the system excepted by the
masses.
> To sort things out, X11R6 is a fine X server but an X server alone does
> not make an operating system a general purpose operating system. Most
> general purpose operating systems don't even use X (but a GUI).
>
> The definition of a general purpose system might be something along the
> lines:
>
> a) availability of office software
> b) ease of use and configuration
> c) limited network abilities
>
> Linux Intel fills
> a) Star Office
> b) _not_
> c) not limited
>
> Linux PowerPC (the version I use) fills
> a) Applixware (now!)
> b) _not_
> c) not limited
>
> Windows, MacOS, OS/2, even Atari/Amiga systems can be thought of as
> general purpose operating systems, UNIX certainly can't.
I'm in over my head, and will admit it. I was looking strictly from the
"can the average citizen figure this out by blundering around in it", for
which the interface is key. What systems actually exist or will run under
Linux I don't know, since I haven't looked into it.
> > > > I have examined the case the federal government is making against
> > > > Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of the
> > > > majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
> > > > Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large company;
> > > > for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the federal
> > > > court system.
> > >
> > > McDonald's products are interchangeable, software products aren't.
> >
> > Then why are the functionality of the top 3 spreadsheets and word
> > processors nearly identical?
>
> That's not what I meant.
Are you referring strictly to the operating systems as "software", then, or
the software available to each of the operating systems?
> (snip)
> > > Have you tried OS/2 Warp with WinOS/2? I have. And many people were
> > > surprised how well it ran Windows programs. Only when more and more
> > > Windows 95 programs hit the market, it became obselete. I continued
> > > using it until summer '98, tho. THEN I bought a PowerPC running MacOS,
> > > BeOS and Linux to be safe.
> >
> > I'm still running a dual boot, with OS/2 warp over Win3.1 on the "working"
> > side, and Win95 on the games side. OS/2 programmers have some
> > fantastic AI routines, but there's very few who program for it, and since
> > my home system is largely a games platform, that's where I spend most
> > of my time.
>
> Good to hear you use OS/2.
Yeah, but my GalCiv crashed, and the disks are too old to be usable
(violins in background). )c8
Time to buy another version, even though the
interface is pale compared to Win95 sims. Win95 can't match the
thought engine yet. Way to go, Stardock!
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>
> > Mike Doll <mld...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
> > > > could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
> > > > purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
> > >
> > > There will never be a GUI for Linux? I disagree, and would place the
> > > assertion right up there with "No one will ever need more than 640k of
> > > memory".
> >
> > ??? Hello?
> > Who said anything about a GUI????
>
> Acutally, I brought up the GUI in reference to the "Normal operating
> system everyone can use". Since, to most, a large part of the usability
> of a system is the interface (presuming that it can actually run programs),
> this is an important step towards making the system excepted by the
> masses.
A graphical user interface is not the only thing needed for a generap
purpose system. Actually, since most OSs do have a GUI it is no
criterium at all.
> > To sort things out, X11R6 is a fine X server but an X server alone does
> > not make an operating system a general purpose operating system. Most
> > general purpose operating systems don't even use X (but a GUI).
> >
> > The definition of a general purpose system might be something along the
> > lines:
> >
> > a) availability of office software
> > b) ease of use and configuration
> > c) limited network abilities
> >
> > Linux Intel fills
> > a) Star Office
> > b) _not_
> > c) not limited
> >
> > Linux PowerPC (the version I use) fills
> > a) Applixware (now!)
> > b) _not_
> > c) not limited
> >
> > Windows, MacOS, OS/2, even Atari/Amiga systems can be thought of as
> > general purpose operating systems, UNIX certainly can't.
>
> I'm in over my head, and will admit it. I was looking strictly from the
> "can the average citizen figure this out by blundering around in it", for
> which the interface is key. What systems actually exist or will run under
> Linux I don't know, since I haven't looked into it.
Well, I can definitely tell you that it lacks several features needed. I
use it on an everyday basis, but never for anything general. I use MacOS
for that.
And I wouldn't exactly call Linux "easy to configure and set up".
> > > Then why are the functionality of the top 3 spreadsheets and word
> > > processors nearly identical?
> >
> > That's not what I meant.
>
> Are you referring strictly to the operating systems as "software", then, or
> the software available to each of the operating systems?
I was refering to the question whether any operating system would stand
a chance as long as the large majority of the software available won't
run anywhere except under Windows. Let's face it, for real competition a
new operating system would have to be compatible with Windows (or
MacOS). And this is a hard thing to do, since Windows' source code is
not available for everyone to see. Also software patents make it
impossible to copy Windows' (or any application's) looks. You can read a
lot about this at http://www.gnu.org. Check for "software patents",
"copyrights" and "philosophy".
> > > I'm still running a dual boot, with OS/2 warp over Win3.1 on the "working"
> > > side, and Win95 on the games side. OS/2 programmers have some
> > > fantastic AI routines, but there's very few who program for it, and since
> > > my home system is largely a games platform, that's where I spend most
> > > of my time.
> >
> > Good to hear you use OS/2.
>
> Yeah, but my GalCiv crashed, and the disks are too old to be usable
> (violins in background). )c8
Well, you might want to contact Stardock about it.
> Time to buy another version, even though the
> interface is pale compared to Win95 sims. Win95 can't match the
> thought engine yet. Way to go, Stardock!
Have I ever seen you in comp.os.os2.advocacy?
slicer_1
>could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
>purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
Your argument is flawed Mircosoft isn't an OS. It's Windows products are.
What about DOS? It was the operating system of choice for many years .. no
one attacked it. why? It was definatelty a monopoly .. there was a few
versions of DOS, but hey let's face MS-DOS (Mircosoft's version) was by and
far on teh most PC's.
People like Windows becasue it is easy to use and it is relativly
inexpensive... if you will notice the "power" users will employee an OS like
LINUX, UNIX, or some varibale thereof ...
>
>> I have examined the case the federal government is making against
>> Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of the
>> majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
>> Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large company;
>> for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the
federal
>> court system.
>
>McDonald's products are interchangeable, software products aren't.
What about Netscape, Novell, Oracle, and Kroger's? You picked out one but
failed to address the others and McDonalds product are NOT interchangable ..
if people went to McDonalds, ordered a BIg Mac and got a Whopper, they would
be upset and McDonalds market share would suffer, due to the fact the market
was not happy with the product
>
>> >> >Bundling a software product with an operating system eliminates the
>> >> >free market. A free market is two or more products competing against
>> >> >each other. MSIE did not compete against Netscape Navigator.
>> >>
>> >> Bundling a software product with an operating system is a strategy
>> >> decision of Microsoft for leveraging Window's dominance to make
>> >> Internet Explorer compete effectively with a superior
>> >> product(Navigator). This decision or its application does not step
>> >> outside of a free market. A free market does not require a certain
>> >> number of competing products.
>
>> >Consumers would have bought Internet Explorer if it was as good as
>> >Microsoft claimed it was.
>>
Bundling is a choice made by Microsoft to give the market MORE value for
their dollar ... all manufacturers do the same thing ..
>> I know a lot of people who claim that Internet Explorer IS as good as
>> Microsoft claims. Who say they prefer it because it runs better on their
>> system.
>
>What's wrong with letting two browser companies compete and those who
>prefer Microsoft would simply buy Microsoft???
>
There is nothing wrong with that, what is the problem with giving your
product away? It is Microsoft's product, they should be able to do what
they choose with it ..
>> Because it networked better?
>
>Better than what? Better than OS/2? I don't think so. Windows NT might,
>but not 95.
windows 95/98 network very very easily for anyone with a basic understanding
of networking....I found it was MUCH easier to configure thn OS/2
slicer_1
>You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
>ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
BS .. Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing fee, because people where
choosing OS's that didn't have that fee .. it was a purley captialist move
and NOTHING to do with 'Fair"!!
slicer_1
>>> > > I have examined the case the federal government is making against
>>> > > Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of
the
>>> > > majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
>>> > > Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large
company;
>>> > > for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the
federal
>>> > > court system.
>
>It's possible you don't understand what a monopoly is,
>nor the specific charges against Microsoft. They were
>forcing Dell Computer, Compaq, and the rest to squelch
>competition against Microsoft thus squelching consumer
>choice. There is probably nothing more important to a
>free market than consumer choice.
They never "forced" anyone .. they simoply said, if you choose to use our
OS, then you must use our browser. These other companies, could have opted
out and gone by the wayside.
>
>To use McDonald's as an example, if they produced all
>the market-viable beef, and they refused to sell any to
>say, Burger King -- that would be a violation of our
>free market laws. Because they are killing competition
>NOT with a superior product, but because of their monopoly
>position. This is how Microsoft dealt with Netscape (and
>others).
>
Not a good example, because Microsoft doesn't produce all of the
market-viable OS's or browsers. All of you that support the DOJ's positions
must assume that we the consumer are just plain stupid and can make make no
desicions on our own. Even if IE is loaded on our PC we can still purchase
Netscape's Navigator. Or is the whole thing revolving around the fact that
MS gives it away for free?
>>> > > "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results.
>>> > > If one company simply produces products so good and so
>>> > > cheap that no competitor can make
>>> > > any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
>
>First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
>Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
>superior to MS-Explorer. So your scenario does not represent
>the case against Microsoft. According to economic theory,
>removing choice must harm the consumer. For example, not all
>people have the same tastes or values.
>
They never tried to BAN it ... if they were to BAN it, it would simply be a
matter of designing the OS to NOT ru the software .. a very simple procedure
.. THAT my friend would have been wrong.
>>> > > If one company simply produces products so good and so
>>> > > cheap that no competitor can make any money, what's the problem?
>
>"Good product" was not MS's method, "monopoly" was.
>Getting into McDonalds hypothetical monopoly
>position, it is ALSO against the law...because economic
>theory says they MUST maximize profit eventually.
>JUST as Microsoft did by banning Netscape from new computers.
>Keep in mind that most of the gouging monopolies of the
>past got to be that way via good products. But monopolies
>MUST kill free trade. Only real competition (and/or external
>regulation) can keep products good and cheap.
>
are you saying Netscape sucks and is therefore NOT real competition for MS?
Or are you just an advocate for the government regulations? Microsoft is a
FARcry from being a monopoly .. there is nothing stopping anyone from
writing and selling a good OS or a good browser .. peopl eare just lazy and
don't want to do it .... Netscape did it(actually the founder stole the
original source code, but that is not relevant) they wrote a good browser
and put on the market .. that is why Netscape has the lions share of the
market! they have better than 51% of the browser market IE is hovering
around 29% with AOL having about 16% (imagine media poll, nov 1998)
>>> Methinks you're avoiding the point of the question. If one company
>>> does manage to reach a monopoly by means of having a far
>>> superior product, should they be allowed to make profits
>>> due to their product, or should the government take it away
>>> from them or spread around the methodology to ensure "fairness"
>>> I think that the Cola market adequately covers this topic, with the
>>> top 2 companies getting a sizable chunk of the world's non-
>>> alcoholic drink market.
>>
>>The answer is NO, the government shouldn't.
>
>Agree. And the PepsiCo does not force stores
>to ban Coke or Shasta from their shelves.
PepsiCo and Coke do force resturants to choose .. they can only carry one
product NOT both ..... IE McDonalds or Burger King ...
>Logic? With Microsoft's legal Dream Team? Perhaps you
>can do a better job yourself? All you need to know is that
>competition (choice) is the foundation of foundations of a free
>market (capitalism). Then ask if Microsoft by taking advantage
>of its monopoly position by *forcing* Dell Computer etc. to ban
>Microsoft's competition from new computers reduced competition
>or choice.
They NEVER forced anyone to do anything .. the computer manufacturer had the
coice to not load Windows .. it was a choice they made (it just happened to
be driven by the market ... people LOVE Windows!)
Andrew J. Brehm
> >And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
> >could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
> >purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
>
> Your argument is flawed Mircosoft isn't an OS.
Hello???? We were talking about Microsoft Windows here, and nothing but
Windows was mentioned.
> It's Windows products are.
Well, not technically, but we better forget that.
> What about DOS? It was the operating system of choice for many years .. no
> one attacked it. why?
Well actually, Digital Research did fight Microsoft's licensing
techniques and the matter hasn't been cleared yet. Caldera bought the
old DR-DOS copyright from Novell two years ago.
> It was definatelty a monopoly .. there was a few
> versions of DOS, but hey let's face MS-DOS (Mircosoft's version) was by and
> far on teh most PC's.
And DR sued Microsoft.... I see you aren't very informed about the
matter.
> People like Windows becasue it is easy to use and it is relativly
> inexpensive... if you will notice the "power" users will employee an OS like
> LINUX, UNIX, or some varibale thereof ...
Relatively inexpensive? I couldn't afford it in 1995. That's why I
bought OS/2. It was cheaper.
> >McDonald's products are interchangeable, software products aren't.
>
>
> What about Netscape, Novell, Oracle, and Kroger's? You picked out one but
> failed to address the others and McDonalds product are NOT interchangable ..
> if people went to McDonalds, ordered a BIg Mac and got a Whopper, they would
> be upset and McDonalds market share would suffer, due to the fact the market
> was not happy with the product
They are interchangeable in the meaning that if you buy a BigMac you can
easily buy a milkshake at Burger King and consume bothz of them. If you
buy an OS, you will have to buy applications for this OS. Which means
that switching to another OS will be harder than switching to another
burger.
> >> >Consumers would have bought Internet Explorer if it was as good as
> >> >Microsoft claimed it was.
> >>
>
> Bundling is a choice made by Microsoft to give the market MORE value for
> their dollar ... all manufacturers do the same thing ..
That's what Microsoft said. I say if MSIE was that good, let the
customer decide in a free market what they want to buy.
> >> I know a lot of people who claim that Internet Explorer IS as good as
> >> Microsoft claims. Who say they prefer it because it runs better on their
> >> system.
> >
> >What's wrong with letting two browser companies compete and those who
> >prefer Microsoft would simply buy Microsoft???
> >
> There is nothing wrong with that, what is the problem with giving your
> product away? It is Microsoft's product, they should be able to do what
> they choose with it ..
Well, it's hard to compete against a company that can afford to give
away their products, isn't it? If this is what the free market is about,
I guess, the free market is not as gfree as it claims it was.
> >> Because it networked better?
> >
> >Better than what? Better than OS/2? I don't think so. Windows NT might,
> >but not 95.
>
> windows 95/98 network very very easily for anyone with a basic understanding
> of networking....I found it was MUCH easier to configure thn OS/2
So did I. But MacOS was even easier. And now BeOS is the easiest.
Gary McCormick
thing to do with how they conduct business.
slicer_1
ROTF...@Republican.Losers.gov wrote in message
<36cacf5...@news.supernews.com>...
>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:02:52 -0500, "slicer_1" <afn0...@afn.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
>>>ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
>>
>>
>>BS .. Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing fee, because people where
>>choosing OS's that didn't have that fee .. it was a purley captialist
move
>>and NOTHING to do with 'Fair"!!
>>
>>
>
>Bullshit. Thay stopped the fee after the DOJ began an investigation
>and said "stop it or else".
BS .. my cousin works at Microsoft and I have asked him about that .... the
plans were already in motion to end the fee, but so what? Why is it wrong
to charge a fee for each CPU the OS controls? If I am the Network
Administrator over 20 machines, is it not fair for me to charge more if I
have to admin 150?
slicer_1
Gary McCormick wrote in message <36CB06D5...@ms.com>...
>Fair?? What would Microsoft know about fair? It's certainly doesn't have
a
>thing to do with how they conduct business.
>
>
>
>> >You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
>> >ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
>>
>> BS .. Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing fee, because people where
>> choosing OS's that didn't have that fee .. it was a purley captialist
move
>> and NOTHING to do with 'Fair"!!
Fair is the watch word of the weak! You are just unhappy because Bill Gates
has used his competitive nature and made a boat-load of money, and you can't
do that .. ou stuck in your $100K per year job and you are mad at the world
...
Good Job Bill! If Netscape can't comete with you then FUCK 'EM! I would
never purchase a product from such a whiny company with such whiny
advocates. If it is so superior a product, what are you worried about?
Isn't 51% of the market place enough .. isn't it unfair to take away from
the 29% MS has?
You people make me sick!
>
slicer_1
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
<1dndx0c.c3g...@dialup-51.germany.ecore.net>...
>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>
>> >And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
>> >could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
>> >purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
>>
>
>Hello???? We were talking about Microsoft Windows here, and nothing but
>Windows was mentioned.
>
>> It's Windows products are.
>
>Well, not technically, but we better forget that.
what do mean technically not an OS? Can you please explain what makes an OS
and why Windows isn't?
>
>> What about DOS? It was the operating system of choice for many years ..
no
>> one attacked it. why?
>
>Well actually, Digital Research did fight Microsoft's licensing
>techniques and the matter hasn't been cleared yet. Caldera bought the
>old DR-DOS copyright from Novell two years ago.
>
>> It was definatelty a monopoly .. there was a few
>> versions of DOS, but hey let's face MS-DOS (Mircosoft's version) was by
and
>> far on teh most PC's.
>
>And DR sued Microsoft.... I see you aren't very informed about the
>matter.
>
If I remember correctly the law suit was dismissed .. will have to check the
records to make sure ...
>> People like Windows becasue it is easy to use and it is relativly
>> inexpensive... if you will notice the "power" users will employee an OS
like
>> LINUX, UNIX, or some varibale thereof ...
>
>Relatively inexpensive? I couldn't afford it in 1995. That's why I
>bought OS/2. It was cheaper.
OS/2 was only cheaper by $20 MSRP ... and you could get the upgrade for
>$100 ....
>> >McDonald's products are interchangeable, software products aren't.
>>
>>
>> What about Netscape, Novell, Oracle, and Kroger's? You picked out one
but
>> failed to address the others and McDonalds product are NOT interchangable
..
>> if people went to McDonalds, ordered a BIg Mac and got a Whopper, they
would
>> be upset and McDonalds market share would suffer, due to the fact the
market
>> was not happy with the product
>
>They are interchangeable in the meaning that if you buy a BigMac you can
>easily buy a milkshake at Burger King and consume bothz of them. If you
>buy an OS, you will have to buy applications for this OS. Which means
>that switching to another OS will be harder than switching to another
>burger.
What major piece of software doesn't run on Windows? Netscape surly does
... Microsoft has NEVER made any provisions in it's OS to not run a specific
software package ...
MS is not stopping anyone from Buying and or using Netscape ....
> >> >Consumers would have bought Internet Explorer if it was as good as
>> >> >Microsoft claimed it was.
>> >>
>>
>> Bundling is a choice made by Microsoft to give the market MORE value for
>> their dollar ... all manufacturers do the same thing ..
>
>That's what Microsoft said. I say if MSIE was that good, let the
>customer decide in a free market what they want to buy.
Why should MS have to sell the product why can't they give it away? And
what about the statictic Netscape owns 51% of the browser market? Seems to
me MS is losing the browser war ...
>
>> >> I know a lot of people who claim that Internet Explorer IS as good as
>> >> Microsoft claims. Who say they prefer it because it runs better on
their
>> >> system.
>> >
>> >What's wrong with letting two browser companies compete and those who
>> >prefer Microsoft would simply buy Microsoft???
>> >
>> There is nothing wrong with that, what is the problem with giving your
>> product away? It is Microsoft's product, they should be able to do what
>> they choose with it ..
>
>Well, it's hard to compete against a company that can afford to give
>away their products, isn't it? If this is what the free market is about,
>I guess, the free market is not as gfree as it claims it was.
It can't be too hard to compete against a company who can give the product
away, beacuse even though IE is free, Netscape still has 51% of the browser
market .. why is it you MS haters tend to over-look that little piece of
info?
>
>> >> Because it networked better?
>> >
>> >Better than what? Better than OS/2? I don't think so. Windows NT might,
>> >but not 95.
>>
>> windows 95/98 network very very easily for anyone with a basic
understanding
>> of networking....I found it was MUCH easier to configure thn OS/2
>
>So did I. But MacOS was even easier. And now BeOS is the easiest.
MAC had a chance at being a main-stream player and competing with Microsift
but their marketing department screwed the pooch .... they should have
targeted teh main-stream user instead of the graphic artists/and video
editing people ...
Andrew J. Brehm
> >You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
> >ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
>
>
> BS .. Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing fee, because people where
> choosing OS's that didn't have that fee .. it was a purley captialist move
> and NOTHING to do with 'Fair"!!
Actually you are wrong and no OS never came without a fee in this time.
I guess you don't know anything about the matter, do you?
Andrew J. Brehm
> They never "forced" anyone .. they simoply said, if you choose to use our
> OS, then you must use our browser. These other companies, could have opted
> out and gone by the wayside.
Sure. If the market isn't free anymore, the others can just go away.
But the same can be said about government intervention.
> Not a good example, because Microsoft doesn't produce all of the
> market-viable OS's or browsers. All of you that support the DOJ's positions
> must assume that we the consumer are just plain stupid and can make make no
> desicions on our own. Even if IE is loaded on our PC we can still purchase
> Netscape's Navigator. Or is the whole thing revolving around the fact that
> MS gives it away for free?
No, it is revolving around the fact that a free market requires two or
more products to compete against each other. Otherwise we can have a
government providing us with the goods we need as well, if we don't have
a choice.
> >First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
> >Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
> >superior to MS-Explorer. So your scenario does not represent
> >the case against Microsoft. According to economic theory,
> >removing choice must harm the consumer. For example, not all
> >people have the same tastes or values.
> >
>
> They never tried to BAN it ... if they were to BAN it, it would simply be a
> matter of designing the OS to NOT ru the software .. a very simple procedure
> .. THAT my friend would have been wrong.
They did that with Microsoft Windows 3.x in regards to DR-DOS. They also
banned Netscape from some of their OEMs.
And it was and is still wrong.
> are you saying Netscape sucks and is therefore NOT real competition for MS?
> Or are you just an advocate for the government regulations?
"just"??? I am an advocate of government regulations where the market
can't regulate itself.
> Microsoft is a
> FARcry from being a monopoly .. there is nothing stopping anyone from
> writing and selling a good OS or a good browser
...except Microsoft's license agreements with computer makers.
> .. peopl eare just lazy and
> don't want to do it .... Netscape did it(actually the founder stole the
> original source code, but that is not relevant)
Actually no, the founder wrote the original browser and didn't steal
anything.
> >Agree. And the PepsiCo does not force stores
> >to ban Coke or Shasta from their shelves.
>
> PepsiCo and Coke do force resturants to choose .. they can only carry one
> product NOT both ..... IE McDonalds or Burger King ...
Nothing bad about it.
> They NEVER forced anyone to do anything .. the computer manufacturer had the
> coice to not load Windows .. it was a choice they made (it just happened to
> be driven by the market ... people LOVE Windows!)
People don't love Windows, they just insist on using it. People are
shmucks.
Mike Doll
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Time to buy another version, even though the
> > interface is pale compared to Win95 sims. Win95 can't match the
> > thought engine yet. Way to go, Stardock!
>
> Have I ever seen you in comp.os.os2.advocacy?
>
> --
> Andrew J. Brehm
> fan of Woody Allen
> PowerPC 604e/233
> supporter of pepperoni pizza
Nope. Sounds like a place that should be good for the odd arguement, though.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> <1dndx0c.c3g...@dialup-51.germany.ecore.net>...
> >slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
> >
> >> >And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
> >> >could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
> >> >purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
> >>
> >> Your argument is flawed Mircosoft isn't an OS.
> >
> >Hello???? We were talking about Microsoft Windows here, and nothing but
> >Windows was mentioned.
> >
> >> It's Windows products are.
> >
> >Well, not technically, but we better forget that.
>
> what do mean technically not an OS? Can you please explain what makes an OS
> and why Windows isn't?
This is hard to explain in one or two sentences and I don't want to get
too off-topic here. I'll try to make it short.
An operating system is a program that controls the hardware of a
computer and interfaces between software programs and the hardware. It
consists of a boot loader, a kernel, several drivers, probably a shell
(command line interface), sometimes a GUI and maybe some utilities.
The main factor of an operating system is that it runs directly on the
hardware, with no other software between it and the machine. Any version
of Windows except Windows NT does not fall into this category and is
therefor considered a user program.
> >And DR sued Microsoft.... I see you aren't very informed about the
> >matter.
> >
> If I remember correctly the law suit was dismissed .. will have to check the
> records to make sure ...
It wasn't. Caldera is still waiting.
> >They are interchangeable in the meaning that if you buy a BigMac you can
> >easily buy a milkshake at Burger King and consume bothz of them. If you
> >buy an OS, you will have to buy applications for this OS. Which means
> >that switching to another OS will be harder than switching to another
> >burger.
>
> What major piece of software doesn't run on Windows? Netscape surly does
> ... Microsoft has NEVER made any provisions in it's OS to not run a specific
> software package ...
You just made my point. All major software applications run on Windows
and only on Windows (except Netscape and Starr office and some others).
This is what makes the market stuck. You simply can't switch to another
operating system that you might prefer because your applications won't
run anymore. This is what I meant with "not interchangeable" and it's
different with burgers.
> MS is not stopping anyone from Buying and or using Netscape ....
They tried to, but Compaq told the judge.
> >> Bundling is a choice made by Microsoft to give the market MORE value for
> >> their dollar ... all manufacturers do the same thing ..
> >
> >That's what Microsoft said. I say if MSIE was that good, let the
> >customer decide in a free market what they want to buy.
>
> Why should MS have to sell the product why can't they give it away?
Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
against each other. What Microsoft did was using its dominance in one
part of the market to subisidze another product.
> And
> what about the statictic Netscape owns 51% of the browser market? Seems to
> me MS is losing the browser war ...
I hope so, yes. Netscape seems to be good enough to win against bundled
IE. However, do you think this would have been so if Netscape didn't
have enough money to also give Netscape away for free now? How do you
think the situation is for, say, Opera?
> >> There is nothing wrong with that, what is the problem with giving your
> >> product away? It is Microsoft's product, they should be able to do what
> >> they choose with it ..
> >
> >Well, it's hard to compete against a company that can afford to give
> >away their products, isn't it? If this is what the free market is about,
> >I guess, the free market is not as gfree as it claims it was.
>
> It can't be too hard to compete against a company who can give the product
> away, beacuse even though IE is free, Netscape still has 51% of the browser
> market .. why is it you MS haters tend to over-look that little piece of
> info?
Because it doesn't change the facts. Netscape also started to give away
Netscape and that's it. You completely overlook that these two big
companies are not the only ones competing in the market.
Andrew J. Brehm
> BS .. my cousin works at Microsoft and I have asked him about that .... the
> plans were already in motion to end the fee, but so what? Why is it wrong
> to charge a fee for each CPU the OS controls? If I am the Network
> Administrator over 20 machines, is it not fair for me to charge more if I
> have to admin 150?
Your cousin should have told you about it. It isn't enough that he works
there.
I can only tell you that much, and you better think about it.
"The per-CPU license we are talking about here is an entirely different
matter than what you think it is and it has _nothing_ to do with the
question whether or not each machine you buy needs its own license
(which they do)."
Once you understand that, we can go on here.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>> >IBM?
>>
>> The government tried for years to prove that IBM had a monopoly, and
>> couldn't do it. Today, I believe, Compaq produces more sales dollars from
>> computers than any other manufacturer.
>
>I wasn't talking about today, but about the old ages, before
>microcomputers.
The government couldn't prove that IBM *had* a monopoly. Having a
monopoly is not a crime, but is a prerequisite to *abusing* a monopoly
- which in some cases is a crime.
The point about Compaq is that the market, not the government, broke
IBM's dominance of the computer industry.
>> >Microsoft.
>>
>> Microsoft is very aware of how vulnerable it is. The fastest-growing
>> operating system is not a Microsoft product and is almost completely
>> immune to a corporate buy-out.
>
>And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
>could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
>purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
You sure enjoy making assumptions about what other people are capable
of - including that they cannot replicate what has been done.
>> I have examined the case the federal government is making against
>> Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of the
>> majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
>> Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large company;
>> for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the federal
>> court system.
>
>McDonald's products are interchangeable, software products aren't.
One copy of Word 97 works quite a good bit like another copy.
A McDonald's burger is not identical to a Wendy's burger.
>> >> >"Free" implies independence, independence from government _and_
>> >> >monopolies. Do we need a free market to defend economy against the
>> >> >government? Yes, we do.
>> >>
>> >> Amen, in the end I hope its the economy that wins this battle.
>> >
>> >Well, no, I hope they' ll fight forever. I don't want one of them to win
>> >and break the balance of power (or terror).
>>
>> It's interesting that you are terrorized by the thought of multiple
>> companies desperately competing to offer you what you want with better
>> quality at lower prices.
>
>I didn't say that. You made that up. It is in fact interesting, but it
>is not information about me. A monopoly is _not_ and never has been
>multiple companies competing to offer me anything at lower prices.
A monopoly is _not_ and never has been anything other than an artifact
of government control.
What you propose to SOLVE the problems of monopoly, is the only known
CAUSE of the problems of monopoly.
Sort of like taking strychnine to cure a case of poisoning. (Well,
the victim DOES stop complaining...)
>> >> >Bundling a software product with an operating system eliminates the
>> >> >free market. A free market is two or more products competing against
>> >> >each other. MSIE did not compete against Netscape Navigator.
>> >>
>> >> Bundling a software product with an operating system is a strategy
>> >> decision of Microsoft for leveraging Window's dominance to make
>> >> Internet Explorer compete effectively with a superior
>> >> product(Navigator). This decision or its application does not step
>> >> outside of a free market. A free market does not require a certain
>> >> number of competing products.
>> >
>> >Why would we need a free market if competition is not required?
>>
>> "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results. If one company
>> simply produces products so good and so cheap that no competitor can make
>> any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
>
>You're making something up again. I didn't say this was the problem. In
>contrast, I said the problem was, that at the moment, the market
>_should_ be like you say, but isn't,
And your evidence is?
>
>> >Consumers would have bought Internet Explorer if it was as good as
>> >Microsoft claimed it was.
>>
>> I know a lot of people who claim that Internet Explorer IS as good as
>> Microsoft claims. Who say they prefer it because it runs better on their
>> system.
>
>What's wrong with letting two browser companies compete and those who
>prefer Microsoft would simply buy Microsoft???
Nothing. That is precisely what was and is happening in the free
unregulated market. Multiple competing companies (Microsoft among
them) are marketing browsers in one price category, and others are
marketing in other price categories pushing certain advantages. Isn't
this what you wanted?
>
>> Who say that they like the user interface better. (I disagree on the
>> first and last points; as for the second one, maybe there's something odd
>> about their system.)
>
>Probably... I hate the way MSIE does not actually show where a link
>leads to ("link to index.html at www.ibm.com" instead of the real path),
>but they might have changed that. The loast version I used was
>3.something on MacOS.
>
>> And no, they aren't Microsoft devotees or employees.
>
>I didn't doubt that.
>
>> >> And I tend to assume that consumers(since they're spending their own
>> >> money) are pretty smart. VHS won.
>> >
>> >I tend to assume that customers are pretty dumb. Or how would you explain
>> >that in 1995 everybody dashed out and bought Windows 95, even tho no
>> >applications were available for it at the time?
>>
>> Because previously existing apps mostly ran better with it than with
>> previously existing operating systems?
>
>Have you tried OS/2 Warp with WinOS/2? I have.
Me too. In my opinion (and there is a heavy factor of personal
taste), it gave you a choice between a poor copy of a usable but
seriously unstable OS, or a stable but unusable OS. Microsoft offered
an even more usable and somewhat less unstable OS, which at the moment
appears to be winning in the mass market.
> And many people were
>surprised how well it ran Windows programs.
I wasn't. I was surprised by how BADLY it ran Windows programs,
considering all the hype I saw about it.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Mike Doll <mld...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>>
>> > > Microsoft is very aware of how vulnerable it is. The fastest-growing
>> > > operating system is not a Microsoft product and is almost completely
>> > > immune to a corporate buy-out.
>> >
>> > And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
>> > could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
>> > purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
>>
>> There will never be a GUI for Linux? I disagree, and would place the
>> assertion right up there with "No one will ever need more than 640k of
>> memory".
>
>??? Hello?
>
>Who said anything about a GUI????
>
>Who are you replying to?
>
>To sort things out, X11R6 is a fine X server but an X server alone does
>not make an operating system a general purpose operating system. Most
>general purpose operating systems don't even use X (but a GUI).
>
>The definition of a general purpose system might be something along the
>lines:
>
>a) availability of office software
>b) ease of use and configuration
>c) limited network abilities
>
>Linux Intel fills
>a) Star Office
>b) _not_
Install procedure (documented):
(1) Put CDROM in drive, boot from floppy
(2) Answer a few questions, takes about 10 minutes
(3) Leave for a while (actual time gone was about five hours, the
source didn't know how long the install really took)
(4) Come back, Linux is installed and running.
What did you have in mind for "ease of use and configuration"?
>c) not limited
Is the "not limited" a flaw, or an advantage?
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>on Tue, 16 Feb (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>>Mike Doll <mld...@home.com> wrote:
>>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>
>>> > Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
>>> > purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
>
>>The definition of a general purpose system might be something along the
>>lines:
>>
>>a) availability of office software
>>b) ease of use and configuration
>>c) limited network abilities
>
>[snips]
>
>>Windows, MacOS, OS/2, even Atari/Amiga systems can be thought of as
>>general purpose operating systems, UNIX certainly can't.
>
>>> > > I have examined the case the federal government is making against
>>> > > Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of the
>>> > > majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
>>> > > Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large company;
>>> > > for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the federal
>>> > > court system.
>
>I see no similarities, other than they are all huge.
>It's possible you don't understand what a monopoly is,
>nor the specific charges against Microsoft. They were
>forcing Dell Computer, Compaq, and the rest to squelch
>competition against Microsoft thus squelching consumer
>choice.
That's a GENERAL charge. It is lacking in specifics. What specific
actions did Microsoft allegedly take?
Answer: it bundled its products together. Compaq doesn't make you buy
a motherboard, and a case, and a hard drive, etc.; instead you buy a
whole computer.
Answer: it offered a price break per unit in exchange for accepting
certain means of counting units. Your average hardware store will
happily sell you nails at a lower per-nail price if you buy by the
pound, rather than insisting on counting nails.
Answer: it was more willing to trade with a company if that company
refrained from trading with its competitors. Place a bid for a
contract with the US government, and incidentally mention that you're
also a contractor for the Cuban government...
Answer: it deliberately advertised against its competitors. Noticed
what McDonald's ads have been saying about Burger King products
lately?
Answer: it methodically tried to anticipate what competitors might do
and get ahead of them. Isn't that what Amazon.com tried to do to
Barnes & Noble?
There is probably nothing more important to a
>free market than consumer choice.
>
>To use McDonald's as an example, if they produced all
>the market-viable beef, and they refused to sell any to
>say, Burger King -- that would be a violation of our
>free market laws. Because they are killing competition
>NOT with a superior product, but because of their monopoly
>position. This is how Microsoft dealt with Netscape (and
>others).
Really? Microsoft won't sell copies of Windows to Netscape?
And Netscape can't find an easy way around that policy - say, by
buying the stuff at retail from CompUSA?
>>> > > "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results.
>>> > > If one company simply produces products so good and so
>>> > > cheap that no competitor can make
>>> > > any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
>
>First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
>Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
>superior to MS-Explorer.
"Tried to". Unsuccessfully, I note. Failure at a stupid move is
evidence of monopoly abuse?
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>
>> >The question was whether or not a monopoly hurts the market. If the
>> >monopoly has been created by the government, it's still a monopoly.
>> >Frankly, I don't care who is responsible for what damages the economy,
>> >as long as somebody fights it.
>>
>> But if the government regulates to create a monopoly, it's hardly a
>> matter of a failure of a free market to regulate itself, is it?
>
>No, but it still proves that a monopoly hurts the free market. If the
>market cannot regulate away this monopoly, why could it regulate away a
>monopoly that emerged from the market?
If you can't escape from a person who has tied your feet to your hands
and your neck to a tree (the government-decreed monopoly), why should
we believe you could escape from someone who threatens you with an
unloaded rubber-band gun (the hypothetical market-created monopoly)?
Well, let's see...
Of course, there is a problem with this analogy: rubber-band guns do
exist; the market-created monopoly does not.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Install procedure (documented):
>
> (1) Put CDROM in drive, boot from floppy
> (2) Answer a few questions, takes about 10 minutes
> (3) Leave for a while (actual time gone was about five hours, the
> source didn't know how long the install really took)
> (4) Come back, Linux is installed and running.
>
> What did you have in mind for "ease of use and configuration"?
Now, try to open a PPP connection and receive your email. Network the
computer with your friend's machine and run XQuake on it. Have fun!
Normal users won't get that far.
Andrew J. Brehm
> >I see no similarities, other than they are all huge.
> >It's possible you don't understand what a monopoly is,
> >nor the specific charges against Microsoft. They were
> >forcing Dell Computer, Compaq, and the rest to squelch
> >competition against Microsoft thus squelching consumer
> >choice.
>
> That's a GENERAL charge. It is lacking in specifics. What specific
> actions did Microsoft allegedly take?
Per-CPU-licensing. Making Windows 3.1 check for DR-DOS and refuse to
install. Forcing computer manufactruers to not install Netscape on their
machines or otherwise kill their Windows licenses. Proposing Netscape to
devide the market. That's enough for a beginning, I guess.
> Answer: it bundled its products together. Compaq doesn't make you buy
> a motherboard, and a case, and a hard drive, etc.; instead you buy a
> whole computer.
Compaq didn't sign an agreement with the DOJ to now to bundle anything
together. Also Compaq does not hold a quasi monopoly.
> Answer: it was more willing to trade with a company if that company
> refrained from trading with its competitors.
Which is an attack on the free market. You said it.
> Place a bid for a
> contract with the US government, and incidentally mention that you're
> also a contractor for the Cuban government...
Given that
a) The relationship between Cuba and America are probably worse than the
relationships between Compaq and competitors
b) your example is not an example of a free market, but a cloes market
c) I don't approve the decisions of your government here
this is a rather lousy example.
> Answer: it deliberately advertised against its competitors. Noticed
> what McDonald's ads have been saying about Burger King products
> lately?
Has McDonalds forced cities to ban Burger King lately under the thread
not to open three restaurant in the city? Does McDonalds have the power
to do so?
> >To use McDonald's as an example, if they produced all
> >the market-viable beef, and they refused to sell any to
> >say, Burger King -- that would be a violation of our
> >free market laws. Because they are killing competition
> >NOT with a superior product, but because of their monopoly
> >position. This is how Microsoft dealt with Netscape (and
> >others).
>
> Really? Microsoft won't sell copies of Windows to Netscape?
No, but they were planning to kill Windows licenses for computer makers
that wanted to bundle Netscape with their machines.
> And Netscape can't find an easy way around that policy - say, by
> buying the stuff at retail from CompUSA?
You don't know anything about the matter, do you?
> >First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
> >Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
> >superior to MS-Explorer.
>
> "Tried to". Unsuccessfully, I note. Failure at a stupid move is
> evidence of monopoly abuse?
Actually the move wasn't stupid. It was just declared illegal by
government. This is why it was unsuccessful.
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:23:40 GMT, postm...@127.0.0.1 (Warrl kyree
> Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Install procedure (documented):
> >
> > (1) Put CDROM in drive, boot from floppy
> > (2) Answer a few questions, takes about 10 minutes
> > (3) Leave for a while (actual time gone was about five hours, the
> >source didn't know how long the install really took)
> > (4) Come back, Linux is installed and running.
>
> Oh, sure. Just answer a few questions. Like what interrupts are used
> by your video card, you hard drive controller, your modem? Which video
> processor does the video card use? Who is the manufacturer of your HD
> controller? How many heads, sectors and tracks does your HD have?
>
> Once I have a stable OS I tend not to mess with it for about 5 yeras
> so I've lost track of what RedHat and Caldera are doing. Maybe they've
> simplified the process, but back when I installed RedHat on my system
> it took me two days to gather the info necessary to answer that 10
> minutes worth of questions.
>
> It was worth it though!
I was a lucky Macintosh... Linux installed without any problems here. I
didn't even have to configure X11, because it simply took the MacOS
settings.
However, I don't use Linux for the internet or anything except learning
and some programming.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
> >
> >> >IBM?
> >>
> >> The government tried for years to prove that IBM had a monopoly, and
> >> couldn't do it. Today, I believe, Compaq produces more sales dollars from
> >> computers than any other manufacturer.
> >
> >I wasn't talking about today, but about the old ages, before
> >microcomputers.
>
> The government couldn't prove that IBM *had* a monopoly. Having a
> monopoly is not a crime, but is a prerequisite to *abusing* a monopoly
> - which in some cases is a crime.
>
> The point about Compaq is that the market, not the government, broke
> IBM's dominance of the computer industry.
I didn't claim it was impossible for the market to solve problems.
> >And also completely immune to being a normal operating system everybody
> >could use. Let's face it, UNIX (and Linux) will _never_ be a general
> >purpose operating system like Windows, MacOS and to some degree OS/2.
>
> You sure enjoy making assumptions about what other people are capable
> of - including that they cannot replicate what has been done.
Actually, my theory that Linux is not a general purpose OS is not based
on any assumptions about people but on the manpages that come with Linux
and clearly refer to it as a UNIX system for networks.
> >McDonald's products are interchangeable, software products aren't.
>
> One copy of Word 97 works quite a good bit like another copy.
Replacing one item with an identical item is not interchangeability. You
don't know anything except how to live in a Microsoft world, do you? But
you insist that Microsoft's monopoly is not harmful? Oh, well...
> A McDonald's burger is not identical to a Wendy's burger.
But replaceable. It would be worde if they were identical.
> >> It's interesting that you are terrorized by the thought of multiple
> >> companies desperately competing to offer you what you want with better
> >> quality at lower prices.
> >
> >I didn't say that. You made that up. It is in fact interesting, but it
> >is not information about me. A monopoly is _not_ and never has been
> >multiple companies competing to offer me anything at lower prices.
>
> A monopoly is _not_ and never has been anything other than an artifact
> of government control.
Really? What has government done to _support_ Microsoft here? (Except of
provifing the legal grounds for stupid software patenting systems)
> What you propose to SOLVE the problems of monopoly, is the only known
> CAUSE of the problems of monopoly.
How's that?
> >> >Why would we need a free market if competition is not required?
> >>
> >> "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results. If one company
> >> simply produces products so good and so cheap that no competitor can make
> >> any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
> >
> >You're making something up again. I didn't say this was the problem. In
> >contrast, I said the problem was, that at the moment, the market
> >_should_ be like you say, but isn't,
>
> And your evidence is?
My evidence is that when I go to a computer store and want to see all
the competing products of the free market, I don't see them...
Nothing but Windows, sometimes there aren't even any Office products
except Microsoft Office.
And furthermore, there are nearly NO games at all for any other platform
but Microsoft.
How's that for a free market of competition?
> >What's wrong with letting two browser companies compete and those who
> >prefer Microsoft would simply buy Microsoft???
>
> Nothing. That is precisely what was and is happening in the free
> unregulated market.
Where? There are three major browsers in the market. One of the
companies is trying to sell its browser. Anotherone has enough money to
give it away for free. And a third one doesn't even have to sell its
browser at all, but simply bundles it with their operating system and
lets everybody who buys the OS pay for a product they don't even want
(MSIE).
> Multiple competing companies (Microsoft among
> them) are marketing browsers in one price category, and others are
> marketing in other price categories pushing certain advantages. Isn't
> this what you wanted?
No. I want fair chances for the competing companies. What we have here
is not a free market at all.
> >> Because previously existing apps mostly ran better with it than with
> >> previously existing operating systems?
> >
> >Have you tried OS/2 Warp with WinOS/2? I have.
>
> Me too. In my opinion (and there is a heavy factor of personal
> taste), it gave you a choice between a poor copy of a usable but
> seriously unstable OS, or a stable but unusable OS. Microsoft offered
> an even more usable and somewhat less unstable OS, which at the moment
> appears to be winning in the mass market.
Have you noticed that OS/2 used an emulator and a special version of
Windows to run Windows programs? IBM was lucky to have a special
agreement that they could use (for money, of course) Windows licenses
with their OS/2. And even with this they couldn't compete. Is this your
free market?
I tell you, if a free market is that closed and unfree for customers and
companies alike, I don't want it.
> > And many people were
> >surprised how well it ran Windows programs.
>
> I wasn't. I was surprised by how BADLY it ran Windows programs,
> considering all the hype I saw about it.
But you seem to think that running programs of this other OS was a
factor in your choice?
slicer_1
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
<1dne16i.2n...@dialup-68.germany.ecore.net>...
>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>
>> They never "forced" anyone .. they simoply said, if you choose to use our
>> OS, then you must use our browser. These other companies, could have
opted
>> out and gone by the wayside.
>
>But the same can be said about government intervention.
I am not sure what you mean here ...
>
>> Not a good example, because Microsoft doesn't produce all of the
>> market-viable OS's or browsers. All of you that support the DOJ's
positions
>> must assume that we the consumer are just plain stupid and can make make
no
>> desicions on our own. Even if IE is loaded on our PC we can still
purchase
>> Netscape's Navigator. Or is the whole thing revolving around the fact
that
>> MS gives it away for free?
>
>No, it is revolving around the fact that a free market requires two or
>more products to compete against each other. Otherwise we can have a
>government providing us with the goods we need as well, if we don't have
>a choice.
You don't have to have more than one product to have a free market .. you
only need to have the ability for a new product to come into the market
place and compete ...
>
>> >First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
>> >Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
>> >superior to MS-Explorer. So your scenario does not represent
>> >the case against Microsoft. According to economic theory,
>> >removing choice must harm the consumer. For example, not all
>> >people have the same tastes or values.
>> >
>>
>> They never tried to BAN it ... if they were to BAN it, it would simply
be a
>> matter of designing the OS to NOT ru the software .. a very simple
procedure
>> .. THAT my friend would have been wrong.
>
>They did that with Microsoft Windows 3.x in regards to DR-DOS. They also
>banned Netscape from some of their OEMs.
>
WHAT?! I have been an MS OEM since Win 3.1 ans I have NEVER had any OEMS
fail to install Netscape products! That is Balony
>
>> are you saying Netscape sucks and is therefore NOT real competition for
MS?
>> Or are you just an advocate for the government regulations?
>
>"just"??? I am an advocate of government regulations where the market
>can't regulate itself.
The market can ALWAYS regulate itself, it is just we have necver had a TRUE
free-market, the government is ALWAYS meddling ....
>
>> Microsoft is a
>> FARcry from being a monopoly .. there is nothing stopping anyone from
>> writing and selling a good OS or a good browser
>
>...except Microsoft's license agreements with computer makers.
The agreements with computer manufacturers do not efect the ability of the
end-user to purchase and use Netscape Navigator
>
>> .. peopl eare just lazy and
>> don't want to do it .... Netscape did it(actually the founder stole the
>> original source code, but that is not relevant)
>
>Actually no, the founder wrote the original browser and didn't steal
>anything.
>
I will find and post the article in which Marc Andresen admitted he did not
write the code .. he had partnered with some shmoo and then taken the hacked
togther code and marketed it ...
>> >Agree. And the PepsiCo does not force stores
>> >to ban Coke or Shasta from their shelves.
>>
>> PepsiCo and Coke do force resturants to choose .. they can only carry one
>> product NOT both ..... IE McDonalds or Burger King ...
>
>Nothing bad about it.
WHAT .. it is okay for PepsiCo and Coke to do it but NOT Microsoft? You
can't have it both ways ..either it is bad for everyone or it isn't bad for
anyone
>
>> They NEVER forced anyone to do anything .. the computer manufacturer had
the
>> coice to not load Windows .. it was a choice they made (it just happened
to
>> be driven by the market ... people LOVE Windows!)
>
>People don't love Windows, they just insist on using it. People are
>shmucks.
>
BULLSHIT .. the majority of people who are casual computer users love the
interface ....
slicer_1
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>
>> >You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
>> >ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
>>
>>
>> BS .. Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing fee, because people where
>> choosing OS's that didn't have that fee .. it was a purley captialist
move
>> and NOTHING to do with 'Fair"!!
>
>Actually you are wrong and no OS never came without a fee in this time.
>
>
>
You said Dr-Dos charged and actual cpu licensing fee not a total
manufactured licensing fee... right? ... screw it ... you have all these
circular arguments ..all you people want is for someone to take care of you
.. god-forbid you should ever have to do something in life ...
your still pissed off because Microsoft had the guts to do what youcan't ...
isn't that true?
slicer_1
ROTF...@Republican.Losers.gov wrote in message
<36ce71f4...@news.supernews.com>...
>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:37:34 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
>Brehm) wrote:
>
>>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>> What about DOS? It was the operating system of choice for many years ..
no
>>> one attacked it. why?
>>
>>Well actually, Digital Research did fight Microsoft's licensing
>>techniques and the matter hasn't been cleared yet. Caldera bought the
>>old DR-DOS copyright from Novell two years ago.
>
>what he's talking about. But that's typical of MS supporters. They
>read the pro-MS propaganda on the MS home page and think they know it
>all.
>
>It wasn't just licensing techniques by the way. Microsoft started by
>including code in Windows 3.x that crashed DR DOS. If I can find it I
>think I still have a URL somewhere around here to a page where a guy
>shows how he traced the Windows code and found that it went through a
>bunch of bizarre convolutions, *extremely* well-protected against
>snooping, to perform a date calculation that could have been done by
>a simple subroutine call and that "just happened" to crash DR-DOS. But
>hey, it was just an accidental bug, right?
>
>I personally encountered another infamous DR-DOS conflict in the
>Windows 3.x setup routine when I installed Win3.x over DR-DOS. Setup
>would halt and give some vague "floating point error". I called MS
>Tech Support and they said it meant I was running DR DOS and the only
>way I could fix it was to install MS-DOS. Hey sucker, that'll be
>another $60!.
>
>After a little thought I booted off an MS-DOS floppy and Windows 3.x
>installed just fine over DR-DOS. MS tech support seems to have been
>unaware of this simple little trick. It ran OK except for occasional
>crashes apparently caused by the above-mentioned date routines. MS
>with all its programming muscle "couldn't fix" that problem so some
>lone hacker out there somewhere did it for them. I downloaded his
>patch and my crashes went away. Gosh, are we starting to see a pattern
>here?
>
>This weaves in with the story of Wendin-DOS. Several years earlier MS
>had bought out a cheaper and far superior DOS competitor, Wendin DOS.
>Wendin DOS simply ceased to exist, went away, got buried in some deep
>dark MS dungeon, not to see the light of day again until several years
>later when DR-DOS was released. Then it was hastily dragged out and
>dusted off, integrated into MS-DOS, and became part of Microsoft's
>intermediate reply to DR-DOS while Windows 95 was developed.
>
>Anyway, though DR-DOS is still around its death as a major contender
>occurred when Windows 95 was released, with MS-DOS bundled in. You can
>still run Windows 95 on top of DR DOS but who's going to buy another
>OS when MS-DOS comes "free" with Win 95?
>
>Sound familiar?
Yeah, it sounds like capitalism at work ... if this was sooooooo bad why
didn't the manufacturer of Wendin DOS sue?, it is because he made a bundle
of money, more than he would have if had stuck it out and marketed the OS ..
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> >Sure. If the market isn't free anymore, the others can just go away.
> >But the same can be said about government intervention.
>
> I am not sure what you mean here ...
The intervention of a powerful entity like a government is harmful for
the free market. However, government is not the only powerful entity.
The harmful entity can rise from the market and still be harmful to it.
> >No, it is revolving around the fact that a free market requires two or
> >more products to compete against each other. Otherwise we can have a
> >government providing us with the goods we need as well, if we don't have
> >a choice.
>
> You don't have to have more than one product to have a free market .. you
> only need to have the ability for a new product to come into the market
> place and compete ...
_How_ could a new product possibly compete against a free product that
comes bundled with the operating system? Who would voluntarily pay more
money to replace a product he already has and can use?
Remember, today Netscape Navigator is also free. And I don't see many
other browsers out there.
Opera is the only one that stands a chance. Others only have a
marketshare because they also come bundled with operating systems
(NetPositive, WebExplorer) or run on operating systems Microsoft doesn't
support (Crystal Atari Browser).
> >They did that with Microsoft Windows 3.x in regards to DR-DOS. They also
> >banned Netscape from some of their OEMs.
> >
> WHAT?! I have been an MS OEM since Win 3.1 ans I have NEVER had any OEMS
> fail to install Netscape products! That is Balony
I am somewhat surprised that you are an MS OEM, since you seemed not
even to know what per-cpu-licensing meant. Also I didn't know Microsoft
licensed their operating system to small vendors as well, I thought only
to big ones. Note that I don't doubt your words, I am only surprised and
would have bet against it.
> >"just"??? I am an advocate of government regulations where the market
> >can't regulate itself.
>
> The market can ALWAYS regulate itself, it is just we have necver had a TRUE
> free-market, the government is ALWAYS meddling ....
If we never had a true free market, how would anyone possibly _know_ it
could regulate itself? Or do you just _believe_ it would regulate
itself?
> >...except Microsoft's license agreements with computer makers.
>
> The agreements with computer manufacturers do not efect the ability of the
> end-user to purchase and use Netscape Navigator
No, but these agreements attack the freedom of the computer
manufacturers to deliver their customers the software they want.
It's a bit like government taxes. The argument usually goes taxes are
theft and welfare could be privatized and based on voluntarily spent
money. However, one could claim, the taxes you have to pay do not attack
your freedom to voluntarily spend more money for the poor.
> >Actually no, the founder wrote the original browser and didn't steal
> >anything.
> >
> I will find and post the article in which Marc Andresen admitted he did not
> write the code .. he had partnered with some shmoo and then taken the hacked
> togther code and marketed it ...
So he did write it himself, with a partner?
Anyway, the Netscape source code is open. You can simply take a look at
it and compare with the original code (was it Mosaic?).
> >> PepsiCo and Coke do force resturants to choose .. they can only carry one
> >> product NOT both ..... IE McDonalds or Burger King ...
> >
> >Nothing bad about it.
>
> WHAT .. it is okay for PepsiCo and Coke to do it but NOT Microsoft?
Yes, since neither PepsiCo nor Coca Cola have a working monoply like
Microsoft does.
> You
> can't have it both ways ..either it is bad for everyone or it isn't bad for
> anyone
The concept of the so called "different situations" might be new to you.
Everybody could just go away from McDonals and to Wendy's (or whatever
competition there is) and no harm would be done to them. However, in the
software world, customers cannot as easily switch to anothe roperating
environment, since they depend on compatiility. YOu can see there is a
huge difference in situations here.
> >People don't love Windows, they just insist on using it. People are
> >shmucks.
> >
>
> BULLSHIT .. the majority of people who are casual computer users love the
> interface ....
Really? The majority of people who are casual computer users don't even
know other interfaces. How are they supposed to know whether they love
Windows or not if they haven't seen anything else?
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> >Actually you are wrong and no OS never came without a fee in this time.
> >
> >I guess you don't know anything about the matter, do you?
> >
> >
> You said Dr-Dos charged and actual cpu licensing fee not a total
> manufactured licensing fee... right?
No. Nor do I fully understand what you mean by this sentence.
> ... screw it ... you have all these
> circular arguments ..all you people want is for someone to take care of you
> .. god-forbid you should ever have to do something in life ...
I'm not the one who is fully taken care of by Microsoft and who doesn't
even consider using other products. Who was the guy who thought
replacing a McDonalds Burger with a Wendy's Burger was the same thing as
replcaing one copy of Microsoft Office with another copy of Microsoft
Office???
> your still pissed off because Microsoft had the guts to do what youcan't ...
> isn't that true?
Are you loosing the argument or why are you trying to be offensive?
Keith
[>I see no similarities, other than they are all huge.
[>It's possible you don't understand what a monopoly is,
[>nor the specific charges against Microsoft. They were
[>forcing Dell Computer, Compaq, and the rest to squelch
[>competition against Microsoft thus squelching consumer
[>choice.
[
[That's a GENERAL charge. It is lacking in specifics. What specific
[actions did Microsoft allegedly take?
[
[Answer: it bundled its products together. Compaq doesn't make you buy
[a motherboard, and a case, and a hard drive, etc.; instead you buy a
[whole computer.
But Compaq doesn't force you to pay for a monitor to get the
system unit. You can order a Compaq without a hard drive, or with no
keyboard, or even no microprocessor. But under this contract, you
could not get a Compaq without paying for MS-DOS, Windows, and IE.
Let's say that in order to buy a Big Mac, you are required to buy a
pair of sunglasses. It doesn't matter that you have a much better
pair already -- your prescription, specifically made for you -- you
can't get the burger without paying for the sunglasses. When you
complain, you are told that they made an agreement with Ray-Ban that
they have to pay for a pair of sunglasses with every burger they
sell.
You decide to go to Burger King, and discover the same contract in
force -- you want a Whopper, you have to buy a pair of Ray-Bans.
Likewise every restaurant in town, except maybe a couple of little
hole-in-the-wall places you have never heard of. If you are going to
eat, you are going to buy a pair of sunglasses that you can't use.
And you are going to buy a pair EVERY TIME you want to eat.
[Answer: it offered a price break per unit in exchange for accepting
[certain means of counting units. Your average hardware store will
[happily sell you nails at a lower per-nail price if you buy by the
[pound, rather than insisting on counting nails.
No. There was no price break based on this agreement, the agreement
was necessary to buy ANY product at all.
[Answer: it was more willing to trade with a company if that company
[refrained from trading with its competitors. Place a bid for a
[contract with the US government, and incidentally mention that you're
[also a contractor for the Cuban government...
There were a number of Federal contracts let with corporations doing
business in Cuba, even during the 1960s. And the Pepsi machines
never came out of the Federal office buildings, even though Pepsi was
selling in the Kremlin too.
[>To use McDonald's as an example, if they produced all
[>the market-viable beef, and they refused to sell any to
[>say, Burger King -- that would be a violation of our
[>free market laws. Because they are killing competition
[>NOT with a superior product, but because of their monopoly
[>position. This is how Microsoft dealt with Netscape (and
[>others).
[
[Really? Microsoft won't sell copies of Windows to Netscape?
[And Netscape can't find an easy way around that policy - say, by
[buying the stuff at retail from CompUSA?
Actually, MS prohibited most retail sales of MS-DOS until DR DOS 5
came along. I started selling DR DOS because it was OBTAINABLE
WITHOUT A CONTRACT -- it wasn't until I got to use it myself that I
really believed that it was a better product.
Andrew J. Brehm
>
> >This weaves in with the story of Wendin-DOS. Several years earlier MS
> >had bought out a cheaper and far superior DOS competitor, Wendin DOS.
> >Wendin DOS simply ceased to exist, went away, got buried in some deep
> >dark MS dungeon, not to see the light of day again until several years
> >later when DR-DOS was released. Then it was hastily dragged out and
> >dusted off, integrated into MS-DOS, and became part of Microsoft's
> >intermediate reply to DR-DOS while Windows 95 was developed.
> >
> >Anyway, though DR-DOS is still around its death as a major contender
> >occurred when Windows 95 was released, with MS-DOS bundled in. You can
> >still run Windows 95 on top of DR DOS but who's going to buy another
> >OS when MS-DOS comes "free" with Win 95?
> >
> >Sound familiar?
>
>
> Yeah, it sounds like capitalism at work
Sounds like your version of capitalism doesn't work very well. Try GNU
instead!
> ... if this was sooooooo bad why
> didn't the manufacturer of Wendin DOS sue?, it is because he made a bundle
> of money, more than he would have if had stuck it out and marketed the OS ..
You really didn't get the story at all, did you. Wendin was bought by
MS, seems unlikely to me that a division of Microsoft would sue
Microsoft. Also the competitor was DR, not Wendin.
Studebaker Hawk
on Wed, 17 Feb 1999 "slicer_1" wrote:
about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>>>> > > majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
>>>> > > Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large
>company;
>>I see no similarities, other than they are all huge.
>>It's possible you don't understand what a monopoly is,
>>nor the specific charges against Microsoft. They were
>>forcing Dell Computer, Compaq, and the rest to squelch
>>competition against Microsoft thus squelching consumer
>>choice. There is probably nothing more important to a
>>free market than consumer choice.
>
>They never "forced" anyone .. they simply said, if you choose to use our
>OS, then you must use our browser. These other companies,
>could have opted out and gone by the wayside.
Then if I put a gun to your head and said your
money or your life, I'm didn't forcing you, you
could have opted out and gone by the wayside.
You wouldn't be grabbing at straws to verify your
world view would you? Going from conclusions to
"logic", rather than logic to conclusions?
>they simoply said, if you choose to use our
>OS, then you must use our browser.
Because there was no market-viable choice (as you
admitted) you are describing the perfect abuse
of a monopoly. Forcing products on people, and
killing competition not via a good price or product,
but via monopoly coercion.
Again, this is why monopolies are illegal, eventually
they WILL resort to dirty tricks like this (economic law).
Another reason is philosophical: competition is good for
the consumer, the country, and the market. Cut-throatism
and advantage via non-market functions are not.
Speaking philosophically you might keep these things in
mind: most of the world sees the USA as hyper-capitalistic.
Would such a nation's oldest market regulations do anything
but promote a free market environment to best exploit
capitalism's virtues? To make us king of the hill?
Again, this is all basic economic theory.
>>To use McDonald's as an example, if they produced all
>>the market-viable beef, and they refused to sell any to
>>say, Burger King -- that would be a violation of our
>>free market laws. Because they are killing competition
>>NOT with a superior product, but because of their monopoly
>>position. This is how Microsoft dealt with Netscape (and
>>others).
>Not a good example, because Microsoft doesn't produce all of the
>market-viable OS's or browsers.
Even you admitted they do when you said they
"could have opted out and gone by the wayside."
You do a better job bullshitting yourself than us.
>All of you that support the DOJ's positions
>must assume that we the consumer are just plain stupid and can make make no
>desicions on our own.
No, again as you admitted, MS removed that choice by banning
competition on new computers. You said, "then you must use
our browser". You seem rather confused.
> Even if IE is loaded on our PC we can still purchase
>Netscape's Navigator. Or is the whole thing revolving around
>the fact that MS gives it away for free?
Both are free. Fact is, many new computer users are newbies.
If Microsoft is allowed to milk their monopoly position, that
is an unfair advantage that has NOTHING to do with free market
choice. Monopolies are anti-freemarket, anti-capitalism.
That's one reason the Commies insisted on them.
>>>> > > "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results.
>>>> > > If one company simply produces products so good and so
>>>> > > cheap that no competitor can make
>>>> > > any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
>>
>>First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
>>Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
>>superior to MS-Explorer. So your scenario does not represent
>>the case against Microsoft. According to economic theory,
>>removing choice must harm the consumer. For example, not all
>>people have the same tastes or values.
>They never tried to BAN it ...
Again, read your words above. You hair-spilt all day
long, nobody buys that argument.
>>>> > > If one company simply produces products so good and so
>>>> > > cheap that no competitor can make any money, what's the problem?
>>
>>"Good product" was not MS's method, "monopoly" was.
>>Getting back to McDonalds hypothetical monopoly
>>position, it is ALSO against the law...because economic
>>theory says they MUST maximize profit eventually.
>>JUST as Microsoft did by banning Netscape from new computers.
>>Keep in mind that most of the gouging monopolies of the
>>past got to be that way via good products. But monopolies
>>MUST kill free trade. Only real competition (and/or external
>>regulation) can keep products good and cheap.
>>
>
>are you saying Netscape sucks and is therefore
>NOT real competition for MS?
Read my words. I said Netscape:
>>was FAR superior to MS-Explorer.
Why are you so confused?
>Or are you just an advocate for the government regulations?
What are you talking about? I'm talking about regulations
that preserve the free market. Anti-trust laws. Are you
advocating communism?
> Microsoft is a
>FARcry from being a monopoly .. there is nothing stopping anyone from
>writing and selling a good OS or a good browser .. peopl eare just lazy and
>don't want to do it ....
You really do need a course in economics.
>Netscape did it they wrote a good browser
>and put on the market .. that is why Netscape has the lions share of the
>market! they have better than 51% of the browser market IE is hovering
>around 29% with AOL having about 16% (imagine media poll, nov 1998)
AOL is MS based. So, it seems you are no dummy on this
subject. So I must wonder if your illogical arguments
were geared at the stupid and ignorant. And the libertarian
biases. Another MS-paid troll perhaps?
>>>> superior product, should they be allowed to make profits
>>>> due to their product, or should the government take it away
>>>> from them or spread around the methodology to ensure "fairness"
>>>> I think that the Cola market adequately covers this topic, with the
>>>The answer is NO, the government shouldn't.
>>
>>Agree. And the PepsiCo does not force stores
>>to ban Coke or Shasta from their shelves.
>
>PepsiCo and Coke do force resturants to choose .. they can only carry one
>product NOT both ..... IE McDonalds or Burger King ...
Your evidence?
>>Logic? With Microsoft's legal Dream Team? Perhaps you
>>can do a better job yourself? All you need to know is that
>>competition (choice) is the foundation of foundations of a free
>>market (capitalism). Then ask if Microsoft by taking advantage
>>of its monopoly position by *forcing* Dell Computer etc. to ban
>>Microsoft's competition from new computers reduced competition
>>or choice.
>
>They NEVER forced anyone to do anything .. the computer manufacturer had the
>coice to not load Windows ..
...or "go by the wayside"...your words. Some choice.
Andrew J. Brehm
> But Compaq doesn't force you to pay for a monitor to get the
> system unit. You can order a Compaq without a hard drive, or with no
> keyboard, or even no microprocessor. But under this contract, you
> could not get a Compaq without paying for MS-DOS, Windows, and IE.
>
> Let's say that in order to buy a Big Mac, you are required to buy a
> pair of sunglasses. It doesn't matter that you have a much better
> pair already -- your prescription, specifically made for you -- you
> can't get the burger without paying for the sunglasses. When you
> complain, you are told that they made an agreement with Ray-Ban that
> they have to pay for a pair of sunglasses with every burger they
> sell.
>
> You decide to go to Burger King, and discover the same contract in
> force -- you want a Whopper, you have to buy a pair of Ray-Bans.
> Likewise every restaurant in town, except maybe a couple of little
> hole-in-the-wall places you have never heard of. If you are going to
> eat, you are going to buy a pair of sunglasses that you can't use.
> And you are going to buy a pair EVERY TIME you want to eat.
And let's also say that these burgers are the only thing you can
possibly eat on earth, much the same way you need to use Windows since
only few people support other systems (buy an Atari and see what I
mean).
Andrew J. Brehm
> > Even if IE is loaded on our PC we can still purchase
> >Netscape's Navigator. Or is the whole thing revolving around
> >the fact that MS gives it away for free?
>
> Both are free.
By coincidence. Netscape earned enough money on the server market to do
the same thing that Microsoft did on a lower level. They could afford
giving away a product.
> Fact is, many new computer users are newbies.
> If Microsoft is allowed to milk their monopoly position, that
> is an unfair advantage that has NOTHING to do with free market
> choice. Monopolies are anti-freemarket, anti-capitalism.
> That's one reason the Commies insisted on them.
And the power you get over people is one reason communists (and others)
continued to insist on them.
> >Or are you just an advocate for the government regulations?
>
> What are you talking about? I'm talking about regulations
> that preserve the free market. Anti-trust laws. Are you
> advocating communism?
He is. He just doesn't know. I can tell him what a communist country
looks like, I lived in an island in the middle of one.
Huge monopolies, no laws against them, all companies owned by one big
companies, no right to strike, no labor unions, only one product of each
kind etc.
> >They NEVER forced anyone to do anything .. the computer manufacturer had the
> >coice to not load Windows ..
>
> ...or "go by the wayside"...your words. Some choice.
The meaning of a monopoly is that everybody needs the certain product.
Life is a monopoly. And monopolies shouldn't be abused. The individual's
fear of losing his life is an abuse of this monopoly.
slicer_1
>
>I'm not the one who is fully taken care of by Microsoft and who doesn't
>even consider using other products. Who was the guy who thought
>replacing a McDonalds Burger with a Wendy's Burger was the same thing as
>replcaing one copy of Microsoft Office with another copy of Microsoft
>Office???
>
running NT workstation, I have 2 running RedHat LINUX, I have 5 servers
running Windows NT (sp4), 2 running AIX, and I running RedHat LINUX ... my
company would be far from being taken care of by Microsoft ....
>> your still pissed off because Microsoft had the guts to do what youcan't
...
>> isn't that true?
>
>Are you loosing the argument or why are you trying to be offensive?
>
I can't lose the argument because capitalism is on my side ...
Gary Forbis
<36c89942....@news.blarg.net>...
>
>"Free market" is defined by processes, not by results. If one company
>simply produces products so good and so cheap that no competitor can
>make any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
I think you claim all monopolies stem from government control.
The software industry has developed from a very open society to
one quite controlled in a mere quarter century.
Consider VP-Planner and Lotus 123. VP-Planner was an early
spreadsheet program written for the CP/M operating system.
When IBM wanted to enter the microcomputer market it tried to
buy CP/M outright but couldn't. It got Gates to negotiate for it and
Gates couldn't do any better so he proposed a deal where he would
buy Q-DOS (quick and dirty operating system, a CP/M knock off for
the 8086 processor) and use it instead. IBM accepted the deal.
Just as the new operating system was a knock off so was the initial
release of Lotus 123. It was even promoted as a VP-Planner for
IBM-DOS. The command structure was nearly equivalent. Look and
feel became a issue so new releases of MS-DOS and 123 made
changes to their presentation. When VP-Planner was ported to MS-DOS,
Lotus sued Bricklin for look and feel. Lotus was more heavily financed
so in the end Bricklin lost a lot of money. Lotus bought the rights to
VP-Planner and the issue was moot.
What 123 did to VP-Planner in the switch from CP/M to MS-DOS, Excel
did to 123 in the switch from MS-DOS to windows. Money talks and
government is its mouthpiece.
Intellectual property rights, copyrights, and patents are government
enforced monopolies. Microsoft would have a much harder time
competing if it couldn't use the government to enforce its restrictions.
Much of the cost of producing software is the legal costs associated with
look and feel issues. In open competition Microsoft wouldn't fair so well.
This problem isn't unique to Microsoft but is common to almost all market
leaders.
Andrew J. Brehm
> >
> >I'm not the one who is fully taken care of by Microsoft and who doesn't
> >even consider using other products. Who was the guy who thought
> >replacing a McDonalds Burger with a Wendy's Burger was the same thing as
> >replcaing one copy of Microsoft Office with another copy of Microsoft
> >Office???
> >
> Lets see in my company I have (53) client PC running Windows 98, I have 12
> running NT workstation, I have 2 running RedHat LINUX, I have 5 servers
> running Windows NT (sp4), 2 running AIX, and I running RedHat LINUX ... my
> company would be far from being taken care of by Microsoft ....
Not bad for someone who doesn't even know the very basics of the
industry, at least according to what you said here.
Didn't you also claim you were an OEM?
> >> your still pissed off because Microsoft had the guts to do what youcan't
> ...
> >> isn't that true?
> >
> >Are you loosing the argument or why are you trying to be offensive?
> >
> I can't lose the argument because capitalism is on my side ...
And this is why you think you don't need to prove your point?
Andrew J. Brehm
> Intellectual property rights, copyrights, and patents are government
> enforced monopolies. Microsoft would have a much harder time
> competing if it couldn't use the government to enforce its restrictions.
That is correct. Let the government stay out of the software business
for all times. Free software is the key word here. GNU is the system!
> Much of the cost of producing software is the legal costs associated with
> look and feel issues. In open competition Microsoft wouldn't fair so well.
Yepp.
> This problem isn't unique to Microsoft but is common to almost all market
> leaders.
Good point.
Studebaker Hawk
on Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:22:07 "slicer_1" wrote:
about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>
>>
>>even consider using other products. Who was the guy who thought
>>replacing a McDonalds Burger with a Wendy's Burger was the same thing as
>>replcaing one copy of Microsoft Office with another copy of Microsoft
>>Office???
He did make that argument, didn't he? <grin>
>>> your still pissed off because Microsoft had the guts to do what youcan't
>...
>>> isn't that true?
>>
>>Are you loosing the argument or why are you trying to be offensive?
>>
>I can't lose the argument because capitalism is on my side ...
No, your position is anti-capitalistic, anti free market
and has many of the Commies' infatuation with monopolies.
Monopolies are anti-free trade and anti-competition.
Just like the Commies like it.
If you look at this thread, you can see that it is MS's
abuse and fear of pitting its Explorer against Netscape
in a competitive arena (like a coward) that pisses people
off. That is: they bypassed product competition via their
monopoly position.
Studebaker Hawk
on Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:20:27 (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
SHawk:
>> >I see no similarities, other than they are all huge.
>> >It's possible you don't understand what a monopoly is,
Isn't it amazing how people have such strong opinions
about what they don't know? This article is a
pretty good example of that. I would caution people
to not project their world view into the unknown.
Yes, I know this is just human nature. But at times
it leads to wrong conclusions.
>> >nor the specific charges against Microsoft. They were
>> >forcing Dell Computer, Compaq, and the rest to squelch
>> >competition against Microsoft thus squelching consumer
>> >choice.
>>
>> That's a GENERAL charge. It is lacking in specifics. What specific
>> actions did Microsoft allegedly take?
>
>Per-CPU-licensing. Making Windows 3.1 check for DR-DOS and refuse to
>install. Forcing computer manufactruers to not install Netscape on their
>machines or otherwise kill their Windows licenses. Proposing Netscape to
>devide the market. That's enough for a beginning, I guess.
Yes. That is; squelching competition via their monopoly position,
NOT via free market choice.
>> Answer: it bundled its products together.
That is the MS propaganda. The Rich Boy's bootlicks
are also very fond of that description. But combined with
the above we have a clear case of anti-capitalism as we know
it.
>> Answer: it was more willing to trade with a company if that
>>company refrained from trading with its competitors.
>
>Which is an attack on the free market. You said it.
Bingo! In this case, "more willing" is an understatement.
MS basically forced an inferior product down our throats
via it's monopoly position.
>> Place a bid for a
>> contract with the US government, and incidentally mention that you're
>> also a contractor for the Cuban government...
>
>Given that
>b) your example is not an example of a free market, but a closed market
Yep.
>> Answer: it deliberately advertised against its competitors. Noticed
>> what McDonald's ads have been saying about Burger King products
>> lately?
That is NOT a violation of competition, that IS competition.
You don't understand this very well do you?
>Has McDonalds forced cities to ban Burger King lately under the threat
>> >To use McDonald's as an example, if they produced all
>> >the market-viable beef, and they refused to sell any to
>> >say, Burger King -- that would be a violation of our
>> >free market laws. Because they are killing competition
>> >NOT with a superior product, but because of their monopoly
>> >position. This is how Microsoft dealt with Netscape (and
>> >others).
>>
>> Really? Microsoft won't sell copies of Windows to Netscape?
>
>No, but they were planning to kill Windows licenses for computer
>makers that wanted to bundle Netscape with their machines.
Bingo! That is not the competitition between products that
insures consumers get the best product, that is abuse of a
monopoly. It has nothing to do with our beloved free market,
it is indeed a closed market.
>> And Netscape can't find an easy way around that policy - say, by
>> buying the stuff at retail from CompUSA?
>
>You don't know anything about the matter, do you?
>
>> >First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
>> >Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
>> >superior to MS-Explorer.
>>
>> "Tried to". Unsuccessfully, I note. Failure at a stupid move is
>> evidence of monopoly abuse?
>
>Actually the move wasn't stupid. It was just declared illegal by
>government. This is why it was unsuccessful.
Yep. Thanks...
Studebaker Hawk
on Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:06:09 ROTF...@Republican.Losers.gov wrote:
about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>Redhat linux, with compilers in multiple programming languages, and
>X-windows server, networking, true multitasking, 2 CD's of
>applications complete with source code, etc., etc., $35.
>
>Windows 98, STILL not true multitasking, crashes and crashes and
>crashes, $180. No source code, Oh, you want a professional-level
>compiler with that? Ok, another $150-$600 for just one language, and
>Windows is for playing around and goofing off. When I want to get some
>work done, I use linux. It's a pain to install but you can't beat it
>for speed and stability.
Microsoft has made a fortune on the adage "no one ever went
broke underestimating people's intelligence." They know most
people don't really want a computer, they want a television.
They don't want art, they prefer something mediocre of the
MS assembly line they don't have to deal with.
Fine...that is good strategy.
>Microsoft, with all its resources and all its well-funded
>tightly-coordinated development teams, has yet to develop a faster,
>more robust, more flexible operating system than one created by a
>bunch of volunteer amateur and professional programmers working
>disjointedly and spread around the world.
>
>I'll leave it to others to figure out why that is.
Oh come on...not even a hint?
Studebaker Hawk
on Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:19:56 (Keith ) wrote:
about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>[Studebaker Hawk wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>[>forcing Dell Computer, Compaq, and the rest to squelch
>[>competition against Microsoft thus squelching consumer
>[>choice.
>[
>[That's a GENERAL charge. It is lacking in specifics. What specific
>[actions did Microsoft allegedly take?
sombody else replied:
Per-CPU-licensing. Making Windows 3.1 check for DR-DOS and refuse to
install. Forcing computer manufactruers to not install Netscape on their
machines or otherwise kill their Windows licenses. Proposing Netscape to
devide the market. That's enough for a beginning, I guess.
>[
>[Answer: it bundled its products together.
That is only a minor part.
>But Compaq doesn't force you to pay for a monitor to get the
>system unit. You can order a Compaq without a hard drive, or with no
>keyboard, or even no microprocessor. But under this contract, you
>could not get a Compaq without paying for MS-DOS, Windows, and IE.
Good analogy.
>
>Let's say that in order to buy a Big Mac, you are required to buy a
>pair of sunglasses. It doesn't matter that you have a much better
[snip]
Jerry Watson
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
> >against each other.
>
> When was the definition of "free market" changed to be based on the
> results, rather than the process?
Do you know how silly that question is? Reread it. I suppose your
definition of a "free market" is a monopoly that arose from unfair trade
practices?
jdw
Bill Koehler
Studebaker Hawk wrote: ?
>
> What are you talking about? I'm talking about regulations
> that preserve the free market. Anti-trust laws. Are you
> advocating communism?
Let's see you preserve the free market by abolishing it?
What's wrong with this picture.
PS If you have regulations you don't have a free market by definition.
Regulations come under fascism.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>
>> >Sure. If the market isn't free anymore, the others can just go away.
>> >But the same can be said about government intervention.
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean here ...
>
>The intervention of a powerful entity like a government is harmful for
>the free market. However, government is not the only powerful entity.
>The harmful entity can rise from the market and still be harmful to it.
At some point, your theorizing has to meet up with reality.
A theoretical risk can only justify real-world action, if there is
real-world evidence for the claimed risk.
Therefore: show us a harmful entity - a monopoly - that rose up from
the market.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>
>> >Actually you are wrong and no OS never came without a fee in this time.
>> >
>> >I guess you don't know anything about the matter, do you?
>> >
>> >
>> You said Dr-Dos charged and actual cpu licensing fee not a total
>> manufactured licensing fee... right?
>
>No. Nor do I fully understand what you mean by this sentence.
>
>> ... screw it ... you have all these
>> circular arguments ..all you people want is for someone to take care of you
>> .. god-forbid you should ever have to do something in life ...
>
>I'm not the one who is fully taken care of by Microsoft and who doesn't
>even consider using other products. Who was the guy who thought
>replacing a McDonalds Burger with a Wendy's Burger was the same thing as
>replcaing one copy of Microsoft Office with another copy of Microsoft
>Office???
Who was the guy who claimed that McDonald's products are
interchangeable, but Microsoft's aren't?
That has only two possible relevant meanings:
either all instances of a particular McDonald's product are
functionally equivalent and all instances of a particular Microsoft
product is not (a Big Mac is a Big Mac, but Word 95 isn't necessarily
Word 95),
or all McDonald's products are fully replaceable with a competing
product, but Microsoft's products are not replaceable (nobody in the
world cares about the difference between a Big Mac and a Whopper, but
if you want a word processor the difference between Word 95 and any
competitor is such as to compel the choice of Word 95 regardless of
considerations such as price, quality, personal preference, or
existing familiarity).
Which did you intend? I don't care. Both are absurd. I rebutted
both.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:23:40 GMT, postm...@127.0.0.1 (Warrl kyree
>Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Install procedure (documented):
>>
>> (1) Put CDROM in drive, boot from floppy
>> (2) Answer a few questions, takes about 10 minutes
>> (3) Leave for a while (actual time gone was about five hours, the
>>source didn't know how long the install really took)
>> (4) Come back, Linux is installed and running.
>
>Oh, sure. Just answer a few questions. Like what interrupts are used
>by your video card, you hard drive controller, your modem? Which video
>processor does the video card use? Who is the manufacturer of your HD
>controller? How many heads, sectors and tracks does your HD have?
The questions were such that a professional Unix installer had no
trouble answering them - for a client machine he had never seen before
that day.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
>against each other.
When was the definition of "free market" changed to be based on the
results, rather than the process?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>
>> >Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
>> >against each other.
>>
>> When was the definition of "free market" changed to be based on the
>> results, rather than the process?
>
>Do you know how silly that question is? Reread it. I suppose your
>definition of a "free market" is a monopoly that arose from unfair trade
>practices?
No, a definition of a "free market" is NOT ANY specification of
RESULTS. When I point out the fallacy of defining the term by one
result, specifically on the basis that it isn't defined by results,
you assume I want to define it as a different result.
Equivalent argument:
(1) "The sky is defined as a blue thing."
(2) "Color is not a good basis for defining the sky."
(1) "I suppose you think the sky is defined as a red thing?"
A "free market" is when force - government or otherwise - is not used
to constrain people from peacefully and honestly making and living up
to such economic agreements as they see fit to freely enter into.
If people freely choose to give all their business for a certain
product to one company, that is not proof that there is not a free
market.
If people are coerced to divide their business among two companies,
the existence of the two companies is not evidence of a free market.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> >
> >> >Sure. If the market isn't free anymore, the others can just go away.
> >> >But the same can be said about government intervention.
> >>
> >> I am not sure what you mean here ...
> >
> >The intervention of a powerful entity like a government is harmful for
> >the free market. However, government is not the only powerful entity.
> >The harmful entity can rise from the market and still be harmful to it.
>
> At some point, your theorizing has to meet up with reality.
>
> A theoretical risk can only justify real-world action, if there is
> real-world evidence for the claimed risk.
>
> Therefore: show us a harmful entity - a monopoly - that rose up from
> the market.
We are moving in circles. My example would be Microsoft. You don't agree
with that and we know that. So what's the problem?
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
> >
> >> >Actually you are wrong and no OS never came without a fee in this time.
> >> >
> >> >I guess you don't know anything about the matter, do you?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> You said Dr-Dos charged and actual cpu licensing fee not a total
> >> manufactured licensing fee... right?
> >
> >No. Nor do I fully understand what you mean by this sentence.
> >
> >> ... screw it ... you have all these
> >> circular arguments ..all you people want is for someone to take care of you
> >> .. god-forbid you should ever have to do something in life ...
> >
> >I'm not the one who is fully taken care of by Microsoft and who doesn't
> >even consider using other products. Who was the guy who thought
> >replacing a McDonalds Burger with a Wendy's Burger was the same thing as
> >replcaing one copy of Microsoft Office with another copy of Microsoft
> >Office???
>
> Who was the guy who claimed that McDonald's products are
> interchangeable, but Microsoft's aren't?
Interchangeable with competing products yes.
> That has only two possible relevant meanings:
>
> either all instances of a particular McDonald's product are
> functionally equivalent and all instances of a particular Microsoft
> product is not (a Big Mac is a Big Mac, but Word 95 isn't necessarily
> Word 95),
You don't really understand the meaning of "competition" and "competing
products" if you continie to compare two products of the same company,
even two identical products.
> or all McDonald's products are fully replaceable with a competing
> product, but Microsoft's products are not replaceable (nobody in the
> world cares about the difference between a Big Mac and a Whopper, but
> if you want a word processor the difference between Word 95 and any
> competitor is such as to compel the choice of Word 95 regardless of
> considerations such as price, quality, personal preference, or
> existing familiarity).
>
> Which did you intend? I don't care. Both are absurd. I rebutted
> both.
No, you didn't. And it was not absurd. And you didn't quite get it.
But just imagine MS Word was bundled with Windows...
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
> any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
> is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
> US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
> >against each other.
>
> When was the definition of "free market" changed to be based on the
> results, rather than the process?
I don't know. Probably when people found out that the free market had to
serve the people not vice versa.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Jerry Watson wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
> >>
> >> >Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
> >> >against each other.
> >>
> >> When was the definition of "free market" changed to be based on the
> >> results, rather than the process?
> >
> >Do you know how silly that question is? Reread it. I suppose your
> >definition of a "free market" is a monopoly that arose from unfair trade
> >practices?
>
> No, a definition of a "free market" is NOT ANY specification of
> RESULTS.
No, but the process should at least allow competition, otherwise your
free market is not free enough for me.
> A "free market" is when force - government or otherwise - is not used
> to constrain people from peacefully and honestly making and living up
> to such economic agreements as they see fit to freely enter into.
And since Microsoft did use force...
> If people freely choose to give all their business for a certain
> product to one company, that is not proof that there is not a free
> market.
If certain software is bundled to Windows, people do not freely choose
to buy it, they have to.
> If people are coerced to divide their business among two companies,
> the existence of the two companies is not evidence of a free market.
The possibility of such a situation is.
Studebaker Hawk
on Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:13:16 Jerry Watson wrote:
about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>
>> >Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
>> >against each other.
I think it would be more proper to say: their products competing
against each other. Billy the Boy's monopoly is company against
company. But NOT product against product. VERY IMPORTANT
distinction. We need to leave the ice-hockey and war analogies
behind. They are NOT accurate.
Chloe Pajerek
and...@netneurotic.de writes:
> And let's also say that these burgers are the only thing you can
> possibly eat on earth, much the same way you need to use Windows since
> only few people support other systems (buy an Atari and see what I
> mean).
This is an important point that is often overlooked in this whole
affair. The economics of software development are such that the
maintenance of multiple-platform versions of applications is
prohibitively expensive. Software companies are going to be strongly
biased toward supporting the smallest possible number of platforms.
The dominance of a single platform allows ISV's to basically
ignore other platforms (Mac, OS/2, Linux) because they can make
enough money supporting only one (Windows). This is simple
economics.
If that one platform were an open platform, and all application
vendors were truly competing on a level playing field, no one
would be complaining. The problem is that MS is uniquely able
to leverage its control of the OS and gain dominance in most
major application markets as well. The playing field is not level.
> Andrew J. Brehm
- Chloe
Studebaker Hawk
on Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:03 ROTF...@Republican.Losers.gov wrote:
about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>>Oh come on...not even a hint?
>
>silly economic arguments over what constitutes a monopoly or whether
>monopolies are good or bad! > ;->
No socio-poli-economics? It's our system. To talk about
one in extract is talking about something unreal.
For example, there are many brands of capitalism. Ours is
(loosely) democratic capitalism, as opposed to say; dictatorial
capitalism one might find in South America. The US system
of socio-poli-economics has built in checks and balances
that seem to work very well, at least in the economic arena.
(The political struggles are largely power struggles within
the system of checks and balances, not *IF* they should exist.)
The US system attempts to make capitalism (free trade) benefit
the consumer. The theory is; one product (not company) competing
truly and fairly against another will give the consumer the
best and cheapest product, besides being good for the general
economy (the best(?) system of resource allocation).
Remove competition between products and we quickly devolve into
something akin to a socialistic method of resource allocation,
only it's lazy inefficient huge companies instead of lazy
inefficient government that controls the means of production.
Being lazy, prices rise, and quality drops.
Billy the Boy's monopoly abuses was company vs. company, NOT
product vs. product. In fact his attempt is to bypass product
vs. product. That is NOT capitalistic theory.
Studebaker Hawk
on Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:15:16 and...@netneurotic.de wrote:
>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>
>> >Sure. If the market isn't free anymore, the others can just go away.
>> >But the same can be said about government intervention.
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean here ...
>
>The intervention of a powerful entity like a government is harmful for
>the free market. However, government is not the only powerful entity.
>The harmful entity can rise from the market and still be harmful to it.
Mostly true. But "government is harmful for the free market"
should be: ""government can be harmful for the free market".
Keep in mind that ALL economic systems are utterly dependent
on external regulation *for the long term*. This is one reason
it's the newbies like Billy the Boy break monopoly law. He
doesn't seem to grasp that regulation helped him get rich.
>> >No, it is revolving around the fact that a free market requires two or
>> >more products to compete against each other. Otherwise we can have a
>> >government providing us with the goods we need as well, if we don't have
>> >a choice.
Yep.
>> You don't have to have more than one product to have a free market .. you
>> only need to have the ability for a new product to come into the market
>> place and compete ...
Huh? expand please.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> Jerry Watson wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>
>> >Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>> >>
>> >> >Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
>> >> >against each other.
>> >>
>> >> When was the definition of "free market" changed to be based on the
>> >> results, rather than the process?
>> >
>> >Do you know how silly that question is? Reread it. I suppose your
>> >definition of a "free market" is a monopoly that arose from unfair trade
>> >practices?
>>
>> No, a definition of a "free market" is NOT ANY specification of
>> RESULTS.
>
>No, but the process should at least allow competition, otherwise your
>free market is not free enough for me.
The process allows competition. If one particular company is too
overwhelmingly good, the process allows everyone else to REFRAIN from
competing against it. It's their choice.
>> A "free market" is when force - government or otherwise - is not used
>> to constrain people from peacefully and honestly making and living up
>> to such economic agreements as they see fit to freely enter into.
>
>And since Microsoft did use force...
Really?
Who were they going to shoot or imprison?
Why have they not been prosecuted for this threat?
>> If people freely choose to give all their business for a certain
>> product to one company, that is not proof that there is not a free
>> market.
>
>If certain software is bundled to Windows, people do not freely choose
>to buy it, they have to.
Really? I've bought quite a number of computers without Windows.
I've also found that the fact of a particular product being shipped
with Windows is no impediment to running a competing product.
>> If people are coerced to divide their business among two companies,
>> the existence of the two companies is not evidence of a free market.
>
>The possibility of such a situation is.
The possibility of being COERCED is evidence of a free market?
Studebaker Hawk
on Fri, 19 Feb Bill Koehler wrote:
about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>Studebaker Hawk wrote:
>> What are you talking about? I'm talking about regulations
>> that preserve the free market. Anti-trust laws. Are you
>> advocating communism?
>Let's see you preserve the free market by abolishing it?
>What's wrong with this picture.
It seems you can't read. Try it again using dictionary
(real) definitions.
>PS If you have regulations you don't have a free market
>by definition. Regulations come under fascism.
Both of those definitions exist only as Libertarian
propaganda tools. They brainwash not by messing with
your "logic", but by redefining your vocabulary, and
therefore your unarticulated (therfore untested)
assumptions. This means anything I say will
sound like gibberish to you, and anything you
say to the outside world will sound like gibberish
to us. It's an extremely effective method of
brainwahing via isolation.
Other words they have re-defined for you are freedom,
socialist, free market, capitalism, Nazism, the Right-Left
continuum, and individual. Only in that twisted reality could
their world work. One must wonder why they can't assert
their position using the standard vocabulary.
Check it out. You owe yourself that much.
Studebaker Hawk
on Thu, 18 Feb (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote
Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>> I am not sure what you mean here ...
>
> ...However, government is not the only powerful entity. The
>harmful entity can rise from the market and still be harmful to it.
Very much so. That's just basic economic theory 101.
Tyranny can only come from extreme power. Extreme power
can come from extreme money or threat of extreme force.
And that's about it.
Very few good and thoughtful people will
say "greed is good." Yet capitalism functions very
well on a regulated system based on self-interest. Take
away the regulation, and you have nothing left but greed,
an ice hockey game with no rules. The movie "Roller Ball"
is based on that premise...("All now sing the Corporate Anthem.")
War. Mean nasty, destructive war. Eventually everybody loses
but one. That's basic economics. No regulation, no sustainable
market.
"...In a lawless market, entrepreneurs can get away with
privatizing the benefits of the market (profits), while
socializing its costs (like pollution or defense). Uncomfortable
with the concept of a lawless market? Some people will
try to reassure you with claims that the market could produce
its own laws, either as a commodity bought and sold on
the market, or through natural market mechanisms like the
"invisible hand" or the Coase theorem.
[The above] "..types of law remove the creation of law
from democratic legislatures and gives it to authoritarian
business owners and landlords. And since you get
what you pay for, "purchased law" will primarily benefit
its purchasers. Society might as well return to
aristocracy directly." --Steve Kangas
Extracted from:
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/tenets.htm
Included there are a glossary of political and economic terms,
charts, references, book reviews, a basic economics primer,
the Great Depression, and much more.
...still reading from the dying alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
and enjoying it.
Studebaker Hawk
on Fri, 19 Feb Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>Jerry Watson wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>>
>>> >Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
>>> >against each other.
Nope. Try two or more *products* competing against each other.
This is not a game, ice hockey, nor war. It's economics.
>No, a definition of a "free market" is NOT ANY specification of
>RESULTS.
Oh really? You mean the Libertarian definition don't you?
"Free market: The term "free market" is difficult to define.
A market, of course, is a place for buying and selling,
but no market is truly "free" -- all have laws constraining
their behavior.
Some are fundamental, like laws banning homicide, fraud, or
breech of contract. Some are more debatable, like laws banning
unsafe products, pornography or sub-poverty wages.
Most arguments about the "free market" really boil down to
where on the spectrum of lawlessness and lawfulness a market
should be.... (See meritocracy.) "
from political-economic glossery at
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/glossarydi.htm#free
>you assume I want to define it as a different result.
>
>Equivalent argument:
Well, that may have been his intention, I don't know.
But my argument is; YOUR definition is the arguable one.
>A "free market" is when force - government or otherwise -
"Force"??? I thought it was "coercion".
* COERCION (politics): To "coerce" is to compel one to act in
* a certain way either by promise of reward or threat
* of punishment. Two obvious examples of coercion are
* our system of laws and paychecks.
In the economics textbooks the polar opposite of "perfect
competition" is "monopoly". A vertical monopoly is also
called a "trust"...as in the Microsoft trustbusters. A typical
example of a vertical monopoly is a trust that controls coal
and iron mines, steel mills, railroads, factories, and...all
the points of production of a given product. Neither "perfect
competition" nor pure "monopoly" can exist, but in England
monopoly laws kick in at 30%.
>is not used to constrain people from peacefully
>and honestly making and living up to such economic
>agreements as they see fit to freely enter into.
Question. How can one freely enter into an economic
agreement if one has no choices? Oh, sure one could move
unobstructed like a train, -- but is that train "free"
to leave its pre-built, pre-programmed track?
"Free" implies choice, not unobstructed like a train.
No choice, no freedom. Monopoly = no choice. Banning
Netscape from new computers = reduced choice via monopolistic
power of coercion rather than Netscape vs. MS-Explorer
products (free market).
>If people freely choose to give all their business for a certain
>product to one company, that is not proof that there is not a free
>market.
Yep. That was not the case. Billy the Boy abused his
monopolistic powers to coerce Dell Computer etc, to ban
Netscape from new computers. This coercion was felt
as the removal of a free and equal choice to the end consumer
based strictly on merit of product.
>If people are coerced to divide their business among two companies,
>the existence of the two companies is not evidence of a free market.
Again, perhaps you are right. But again,
you do not describe reality, you merely
emphasize your world view.
You seem to be implying that a monopoly should not
be broken up just because it is a monopoly. That
position has enough merit that I will not debate it
here. However, when those monopolistic powers lead
abuses and to the destruction of product v. product
competition (free market) it should be dealt with swiftly.
Fact is, a free market never would have chosen
Billy the Boy's shoddy MS-Explorer if Netscape had
not been banned from new computers via monopolistic
coercion.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>
>on Fri, 19 Feb Bill Koehler wrote:
>about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>
>>Studebaker Hawk wrote:
>>> What are you talking about? I'm talking about regulations
>>> that preserve the free market. Anti-trust laws. Are you
>>> advocating communism?
>
>>Let's see you preserve the free market by abolishing it?
>>What's wrong with this picture.
>
>It seems you can't read. Try it again using dictionary
>(real) definitions.
Done. Anti-trust laws are a clear violation of free-market
principles.
Also, the existing anti-trust laws in the US are *very* badly worded.
Taken literally according to both standard definitions and legal
definitions, they prohibit *all* contracts which either require or
forbid some future lawful action in regard to goods, services, or
money - thus, in certain parts of Nevada, they prohibit marriage.
Naturally, it has never been enforced quite that way. Which means, we
are bound by a set of laws that prohibit SOMETHING, but we can't be
sure what, because we know that they aren't interpreted to mean what
we say. In practice, because the cost of defending against an
antitrust charge is so high in both legal fees and PR effects, the
antitrust laws mean whatever the government's antitrust attorney wants
them to mean at the moment.
This is NOT the rule of law.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>
>on Fri, 19 Feb Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>>Jerry Watson wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>>>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>>>
>>>> >Because a free market consists of two or more companies _competing_
>>>> >against each other.
>
>Nope. Try two or more *products* competing against each other.
>This is not a game, ice hockey, nor war. It's economics.
>
>>No, a definition of a "free market" is NOT ANY specification of
>>RESULTS.
>
>Oh really? You mean the Libertarian definition don't you?
The offered definition is two or more competing firms.
If the government orders you to open and run a restaurant (you'd
rather be a barber) under threat of imprisonment, and also orders your
neighbor (who'd rather be an accountant) to open and run a restaurant,
there are two competing restaurants. Is that a free market?
If there are two restaurants in town, but one of them is really bad,
everyone will prefer to go to the other one. If the government steps
in and orders people (under threat of serious fines) to eat one meal a
month at the bad restaurant "in order to preserve competition", is
that a free market?
If the government does NOT give such orders, and the bad restaurant
goes out of business, is the result not a free market? After all,
anyone who desires to can TRY to run a restaurant - they will be under
no legal penalty for the effort, but they will have no guarantee of
success. Even the people who did so badly the first time can, if they
can raise the money, try again (perhaps they'll have figured out what
they did wrong, and do better).
So we see here: the existence of multiple competing firms does not
prove the existence of a free market. The absence of multiple
competing firms does not prove the absence of a free market.
And yet some people want to define "free market" as "the existence of
multiple competing firms".
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
> Very few good and thoughtful people will
>say "greed is good." Yet capitalism functions very
>well on a regulated system based on self-interest. Take
>away the regulation, and you have nothing left but greed,
Actually, that latter statement is false. But to realize that, one
must realize where the basic regulation truly comes from.
Figure that out, and you realize that if you take away the regulation,
you have NOTHING left. Not greed, because there is no person to be
greedy. Not freedom, because there is no person to be free.
But the basic regulation does not come from government. It comes from
social interactions and personal conscience.
kenfran
>
>
> >
> >about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
> >
> >>Studebaker Hawk wrote:
> >>> What are you talking about? I'm talking about regulations
> >>> that preserve the free market. Anti-trust laws. Are you
> >>> advocating communism?
> >
> >>Let's see you preserve the free market by abolishing it?
> >>What's wrong with this picture.
> >
> >It seems you can't read. Try it again using dictionary
> >(real) definitions.
>
> Done. Anti-trust laws are a clear violation of free-market
> principles.
Quite the opposite, except for people, like libertarians, who
define a free market as one where big companies are free to loot,
pillage, and plunder the economy as they wish.
A free market is actually one in which there is competition, and
companies are free to enter or leave the market as they choose,
with prices set by supply and demand rather than monopoly price
fixing.
>
> Also, the existing anti-trust laws in the US are *very* badly worded.
> Taken literally according to both standard definitions and legal
> definitions, they prohibit *all* contracts which either require or
> forbid some future lawful action in regard to goods, services, or
> money - thus, in certain parts of Nevada, they prohibit marriage.
>
> Naturally, it has never been enforced quite that way. Which means, we
> are bound by a set of laws that prohibit SOMETHING, but we can't be
> sure what, because we know that they aren't interpreted to mean what
> we say. In practice, because the cost of defending against an
> antitrust charge is so high in both legal fees and PR effects, the
> antitrust laws mean whatever the government's antitrust attorney wants
> them to mean at the moment.
>
> This is NOT the rule of law.
More libertarian whining. The law doesn't let me do as I please,
so it is a bad law. Whine, whine.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
> any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
> is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
> US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Notice that this whiner doesn't want the free market to operate
when it means he might get spam in his mailbox.
--
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and
campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from
the other.
-- Oscar Ameringer (from Politicians and Other Scoundrels by
Ferdinand Lundberg)
Economics is war pursued by other means.
-- Raymond F. DeVoe Jr.
Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.
--Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.
In economics, the majority is always wrong.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith (b. 1908)
... the ideas of economists and political philosophers,
both when they are right and when they are wrong, are
more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the
world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe
themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual
influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices from the air, are
distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a
few years back.
-- John Maynard Keynes, 1935
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
slicer_1
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
<1dnfwpf.25...@dialup-148.germany.ecore.net>...
>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I'm not the one who is fully taken care of by Microsoft and who doesn't
>> >even consider using other products. Who was the guy who thought
>> >replacing a McDonalds Burger with a Wendy's Burger was the same thing as
>> >replcaing one copy of Microsoft Office with another copy of Microsoft
>> >Office???
>> >
12
>> running NT workstation, I have 2 running RedHat LINUX, I have 5 servers
>> running Windows NT (sp4), 2 running AIX, and I running RedHat LINUX ...
my
>> company would be far from being taken care of by Microsoft ....
>
>Not bad for someone who doesn't even know the very basics of the
>industry, at least according to what you said here.
The Basics of the industry? Thats okay, I stil have my MCSE+I and am
working on my Cicso Certs .... so if I don't know anything thats ok ...
>
>Didn't you also claim you were an OEM?
I apologize, I am NOT an OEM, my company is an OEM ..... Microsoft must be
slacking because my OEM agreement didn't say anything about not using other
OS's on my machines or the machines I sell ....
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>> =
>
>> Studebaker Hawk wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>> =
>
>> >
>> >on Fri, 19 Feb Bill Koehler wrote:
>> >about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>> >
>> >>Studebaker Hawk wrote:
>> >>> What are you talking about? I'm talking about regulations
>> >>> that preserve the free market. Anti-trust laws. Are you
>> >>> advocating communism?
>> >
>> >>Let's see you preserve the free market by abolishing it?
>> >>What's wrong with this picture.
>> >
>> >It seems you can't read. Try it again using dictionary
>> >(real) definitions.
>> =
>
>> Done. Anti-trust laws are a clear violation of free-market
>> principles.
>
>Quite the opposite, except for people, like libertarians, who
>define a free market as one where big companies are free to loot,
>pillage, and plunder the economy as they wish.
There are no libertarians with such a definition.
Libertarians, in determining whether a market is free, look for the
use of force to either compel transactions people don't want to be
part of, or to prevent transactions people do want to be part of.
They do NOT count the number of companies that are in the market.
Andrew J. Brehm
> There are no libertarians with such a definition.
>
> Libertarians, in determining whether a market is free, look for the
> use of force to either compel transactions people don't want to be
> part of, or to prevent transactions people do want to be part of.
>
> They do NOT count the number of companies that are in the market.
And they also don't count whether one or more of these companies make
use of force or not.
They only hate government, that's all.
One day, the world will be ruled by companies, no governments will be
active any longer. People working (or living) in the companies will want
to have the right to decide what will happen in their companies and
fight their bosses (=kings).
What then?
Milton Tinkoff
Warrl> Studebaker Hawk wrote in talk.politics.theory:
Studebaker> Very few good and thoughtful people will say "greed is
Studebaker> good." Yet capitalism functions very well on a regulated
Studebaker> system based on self-interest. Take away the regulation,
Studebaker> and you have nothing left but greed,
Warrl> Actually, that latter statement is false. But to realize that,
Warrl> one must realize where the basic regulation truly comes from.
Warrl> Figure that out, and you realize that if you take away the
Warrl> regulation, you have NOTHING left. Not greed, because there is
Warrl> no person to be greedy. Not freedom, because there is no person
Warrl> to be free.
Warrl> But the basic regulation does not come from government. It comes
Warrl> from social interactions and personal conscience.
Corporations, not being human beings, don't have personal consciences.
And the PR industry is what they use to try to deal with people who do.
-milt
pwenk
wrote:
>Good Response. Unfortunately, the virtues of a free market can be both
>extolled and denied by rhetoric. Which direction, and to what satisfaction,
>seems highly dependent on the considerer. But consider this:
>
>> A free market assumes that the market regulates the economy,
>>which it no longer can, if a monopoly exists.
>
>In the history of American business, what company ever became a monopoly
>without the help of government and remained one for long enough to torture
>its customers? (You may want to say Microsoft, find another)
>
>>"Free" implies
>>independence, independence from government _and_ monopolies. Do we need
>>a free market to defend economy against the government? Yes, we do.
>
>Amen, in the end I hope its the economy that wins this battle.
>
>>Do
>>we need a government to defend a free market against monopoly? Yes, I
>>think we do too.
On that sight you are correct, but as to what we assisting is worlds a
way.
In the past few months we assisted to some very important company
mergers ie:
Mercedes-Benz/Chrysler
Swiss Bank Corporation/Union Bank of Switzerland
just as example.
All are claiming these mergers will enhance competitively. This is
just a sort of a shameless joke. What ever they never want, is fierce
competition. In fact, they are doing everything in order eliminating
competitors, either in buying them up, proposing a sort of a joint
venture agreement or an inofficial agreement.
This is leading to real monopoly position.
As long as we are dealing with weak States, weak political leaders
having forgotten to be """ Servant of their Nation***, we will
continue assisting to such developments, beside the usual to be
followed inhuman restructure and re-engineering measures with a few
thousands employees/workers bluntly put out of work.
Sincerely
>
>
>If no answer is clear to my first question, would you reconsider your
>postion?
>
>>Bundling a software product with an operating system eliminates the free
>>market. A free market is two or more products competing against each
>>other. MSIE did not compete against Netscape Navigator.
>
>
>Bundling a software product with an operating system is a strategy decision
>of Microsoft for leveraging Window's dominance to make Internet Explorer
>compete effectively with a superior product(Navigator). This decision or its
>application does not step outside of a free market. A free market does not
>require a certain number of competing products.
>
>One should not cut a product out of its environment, and disregard
>everything that it is attached to. You can't pull a heart from the body and
>still check its pulse. Put a BetaMax next to a VHS VCR and compare and we
>got screwed. But we didn't get screwed when you consider everything that was
>involved. Consumers made decisions on a complicated set of criteria that
>extended beyond the quality of the product. And I tend to assume that
>consumers(since they're spending their own money) are pretty smart. VHS won.
>
>
Pieter Wenk
CH-1800 Vevey
Phone:++41[0]21 921 61 45
Fax: ++41[0] 922 15 81
pwenk
Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>>Adog <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Good Response. Unfortunately, the virtues of a free market can be both
>>> extolled and denied by rhetoric. Which direction, and to what satisfaction,
>>> seems highly dependent on the considerer. But consider this:
>>>
>>> > A free market assumes that the market regulates the economy,
>>> >which it no longer can, if a monopoly exists.
>>>
>>> In the history of American business, what company ever became a monopoly
>>> without the help of government and remained one for long enough to torture
>>> its customers? (You may want to say Microsoft, find another)
>>
>>Standard Oil?
>
>Standard Oil "tortured" its customers by insisting on selling its
>products at lower and lower prices.
>
>When it could no longer maintain that pattern, it lost market share.
>By the time the government acted to break up the "monopoly", it is
>questionable whether Standard Oil still had 50% of the national market
>or not.
>
>>IBM?
>
>The government tried for years to prove that IBM had a monopoly, and
>couldn't do it. Today, I believe, Compaq produces more sales dollars
>from computers than any other manufacturer.
>
>>Microsoft.
>
>Microsoft is very aware of how vulnerable it is. The fastest-growing
>operating system is not a Microsoft product and is almost completely
>immune to a corporate buy-out.
>
>I have examined the case the federal government is making against
>Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of
>the majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape,
>Novell, Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other
>large company; for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission,
>and so is the federal court system.
>
>>> >"Free" implies
>>> >independence, independence from government _and_ monopolies. Do we need
>>> >a free market to defend economy against the government? Yes, we do.
>>>
>>> Amen, in the end I hope its the economy that wins this battle.
>>
>>Well, no, I hope they' ll fight forever. I don't want one of them to win
>>and break the balance of power (or terror).
>
>It's interesting that you are terrorized by the thought of multiple
>companies desperately competing to offer you what you want with better
>quality at lower prices.
I am in favor of sound competitions, but yes we have reason to be
afraid of a governmental force 100% in the hand of the so called big
boys......
Sincerely
>
>>> >Do
>>> >we need a government to defend a free market against monopoly? Yes, I
>>> >think we do too.
>>>
>>> If no answer is clear to my first question, would you reconsider your
>>> postion?
>>
>>I will reconsider my position anyway, paying attention to what I read
>>here.
>>
>>> >Bundling a software product with an operating system eliminates the free
>>> >market. A free market is two or more products competing against each
>>> >other. MSIE did not compete against Netscape Navigator.
>>>
>>> Bundling a software product with an operating system is a strategy decision
>>> of Microsoft for leveraging Window's dominance to make Internet Explorer
>>> compete effectively with a superior product(Navigator). This decision or its
>>> application does not step outside of a free market. A free market does not
>>> require a certain number of competing products.
>>
>>Why would we need a free market if competition is not required?
>
>"Free market" is defined by processes, not by results. If one company
>simply produces products so good and so cheap that no competitor can
>make any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
>
>>> One should not cut a product out of its environment, and disregard
>>> everything that it is attached to. You can't pull a heart from the body and
>>> still check its pulse. Put a BetaMax next to a VHS VCR and compare and we
>>> got screwed. But we didn't get screwed when you consider everything that was
>>> involved. Consumers made decisions on a complicated set of criteria that
>>> extended beyond the quality of the product.
>>
>>Consumers would have bought Internet Explorer if it was as good as
>>Microsoft claimed it was.
>
>I know a lot of people who claim that Internet Explorer IS as good as
>Microsoft claims. Who say they prefer it because it runs better on
>their system. Who say that they like the user interface better. (I
>disagree on the first and last points; as for the second one, maybe
>there's something odd about their system.) And no, they aren't
>Microsoft devotees or employees.
>
>>> And I tend to assume that
>>> consumers(since they're spending their own money) are pretty smart. VHS won.
>>
>>I tend to assume that customers are pretty dumb. Or how would you
>>explain that in 1995 everybody dashed out and bought Windows 95, even
>>tho no applications were available for it at the time?
>
>Because previously existing apps mostly ran better with it than with
>previously existing operating systems?
>
>Because it was easier to install and configure?
>
>Because it networked better?
>
>(These last two are why I was involved in buying a couple hundred
>copies.)
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
>any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
>is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
>US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Pieter Wenk
pwenk
wrote:
>
>>>> > > I have examined the case the federal government is making against
>>>> > > Microsoft, and I have concluded that Microsoft is in fact guilty of
>the
>>>> > > majority of the acts it is accused of - but so are Netscape, Novell,
>>>> > > Oracle, McDonald's, Kroger's, and practically every other large
>company;
>>>> > > for that matter, so is the Federal Trade Commission, and so is the
>federal
>>>> > > court system.
>>
>>I see no similarities, other than they are all huge.
>>It's possible you don't understand what a monopoly is,
>>nor the specific charges against Microsoft. They were
>>forcing Dell Computer, Compaq, and the rest to squelch
>>competition against Microsoft thus squelching consumer
>>choice. There is probably nothing more important to a
>>free market than consumer choice.
>
>They never "forced" anyone .. they simoply said, if you choose to use our
>OS, then you must use our browser. These other companies, could have opted
>out and gone by the wayside.
>
>
>>
>>To use McDonald's as an example, if they produced all
>>the market-viable beef, and they refused to sell any to
>>say, Burger King -- that would be a violation of our
>>free market laws. Because they are killing competition
>>NOT with a superior product, but because of their monopoly
>>position. This is how Microsoft dealt with Netscape (and
>>others).
>>
>
>Not a good example, because Microsoft doesn't produce all of the
>market-viable OS's or browsers. All of you that support the DOJ's positions
>must assume that we the consumer are just plain stupid and can make make no
>desicions on our own. Even if IE is loaded on our PC we can still purchase
>Netscape's Navigator. Or is the whole thing revolving around the fact that
>MS gives it away for free?
>
>
>
>>>> > > "Free market" is defined by processes, not by results.
>>>> > > If one company simply produces products so good and so
>>>> > > cheap that no competitor can make
>>>> > > any money, what's the problem? What consumer is harmed?
>>
>>First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
>>Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
>>superior to MS-Explorer. So your scenario does not represent
>>the case against Microsoft. According to economic theory,
>>removing choice must harm the consumer. For example, not all
>>people have the same tastes or values.
>>
>
>They never tried to BAN it ... if they were to BAN it, it would simply be a
>matter of designing the OS to NOT ru the software .. a very simple procedure
>.. THAT my friend would have been wrong.
>
>
>>>> > > If one company simply produces products so good and so
>>>> > > cheap that no competitor can make any money, what's the problem?
>>
>>"Good product" was not MS's method, "monopoly" was.
>>Getting into McDonalds hypothetical monopoly
>>position, it is ALSO against the law...because economic
>>theory says they MUST maximize profit eventually.
>>JUST as Microsoft did by banning Netscape from new computers.
>>Keep in mind that most of the gouging monopolies of the
>>past got to be that way via good products. But monopolies
>>MUST kill free trade. Only real competition (and/or external
>>regulation) can keep products good and cheap.
>>
>
>are you saying Netscape sucks and is therefore NOT real competition for MS?
>Or are you just an advocate for the government regulations? Microsoft is a
>FARcry from being a monopoly .. there is nothing stopping anyone from
>writing and selling a good OS or a good browser .. peopl eare just lazy and
>don't want to do it .... Netscape did it(actually the founder stole the
>original source code, but that is not relevant) they wrote a good browser
>and put on the market .. that is why Netscape has the lions share of the
>market! they have better than 51% of the browser market IE is hovering
>around 29% with AOL having about 16% (imagine media poll, nov 1998)
I live in Switzerland. Fact remains, if I should like to buy a new PC,
usually the shop will sell it with a OEM Win98 version for Microsoft
will not give you any support. With OEM-Version, they leave this task
to the supplying shop.
Now, the problem is, I do not need any additional software version
neither from Win 98 nor Office 97. Try to get now a rebate from the
shop in order to get just an ordinary PC WITHOUT the imposed Microsoft
stuff.......you will find out, this is not so easy.
I am against such unfair, sales practices. Are such sales practices
legal in the USA ???
Sincerely
>
>
>>>> Methinks you're avoiding the point of the question. If one company
>>>> does manage to reach a monopoly by means of having a far
>>>> superior product, should they be allowed to make profits
>>>> due to their product, or should the government take it away
>>>> from them or spread around the methodology to ensure "fairness"
>>>> I think that the Cola market adequately covers this topic, with the
>>>> top 2 companies getting a sizable chunk of the world's non-
>>>> alcoholic drink market.
>>>
>>>The answer is NO, the government shouldn't.
>>
>>Agree. And the PepsiCo does not force stores
>>to ban Coke or Shasta from their shelves.
>
>PepsiCo and Coke do force resturants to choose .. they can only carry one
>product NOT both ..... IE McDonalds or Burger King ...
>
>
>>Logic? With Microsoft's legal Dream Team? Perhaps you
>>can do a better job yourself? All you need to know is that
>>competition (choice) is the foundation of foundations of a free
>>market (capitalism). Then ask if Microsoft by taking advantage
>>of its monopoly position by *forcing* Dell Computer etc. to ban
>>Microsoft's competition from new computers reduced competition
>>or choice.
>
>They NEVER forced anyone to do anything .. the computer manufacturer had the
>coice to not load Windows .. it was a choice they made (it just happened to
>be driven by the market ... people LOVE Windows!)
>
>
>
>
>>
>>--
>>Still lingering in the dying alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.
pwenk
wrote:
>
>Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
><1dne16i.2n...@dialup-68.germany.ecore.net>...
>>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>>
>>> They never "forced" anyone .. they simoply said, if you choose to use our
>>> OS, then you must use our browser. These other companies, could have
>opted
>>> out and gone by the wayside.
>>
>>Sure. If the market isn't free anymore, the others can just go away.
>>But the same can be said about government intervention.
>
>I am not sure what you mean here ...
>
>>
>>> Not a good example, because Microsoft doesn't produce all of the
>>> market-viable OS's or browsers. All of you that support the DOJ's
>positions
>>> must assume that we the consumer are just plain stupid and can make make
>no
>>> desicions on our own. Even if IE is loaded on our PC we can still
>purchase
>>> Netscape's Navigator. Or is the whole thing revolving around the fact
>that
>>> MS gives it away for free?
>>
>>No, it is revolving around the fact that a free market requires two or
>>more products to compete against each other. Otherwise we can have a
>>government providing us with the goods we need as well, if we don't have
>>a choice.
>
>You don't have to have more than one product to have a free market .. you
>only need to have the ability for a new product to come into the market
>place and compete ...
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> >First, the product in question is Netscape, and at the time
>>> >Microsoft tried to ban it from new computers, it was FAR
>>> >superior to MS-Explorer. So your scenario does not represent
>>> >the case against Microsoft. According to economic theory,
>>> >removing choice must harm the consumer. For example, not all
>>> >people have the same tastes or values.
>>> >
>>>
>>> They never tried to BAN it ... if they were to BAN it, it would simply
>be a
>>> matter of designing the OS to NOT ru the software .. a very simple
>procedure
>>> .. THAT my friend would have been wrong.
>>
>>They did that with Microsoft Windows 3.x in regards to DR-DOS. They also
>>banned Netscape from some of their OEMs.
>>
>WHAT?! I have been an MS OEM since Win 3.1 ans I have NEVER had any OEMS
>fail to install Netscape products! That is Balony
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> are you saying Netscape sucks and is therefore NOT real competition for
>MS?
>>> Or are you just an advocate for the government regulations?
>>
>>"just"??? I am an advocate of government regulations where the market
>>can't regulate itself.
>
>The market can ALWAYS regulate itself, it is just we have necver had a TRUE
>free-market, the government is ALWAYS meddling ....
NOPE.-Unless you are infected with the virus GLOBALISATION the
Governments will sooner or later be forced to put in law regulations
concerning the market. It is just a chimera to believe, that markets
are able to auto regulate.
Without interventions of the governments you will assist to standing
increasing unemployment figures, poor jobs etc.
It would go too far explaining all these mechanisms in this message.
But I gladly would do so on E-Mail. without bothering all the other
readers.
Sincerely
>
>
>
>>
>>> Microsoft is a
>>> FARcry from being a monopoly .. there is nothing stopping anyone from
>>> writing and selling a good OS or a good browser
>>
>>...except Microsoft's license agreements with computer makers.
>
>The agreements with computer manufacturers do not efect the ability of the
>end-user to purchase and use Netscape Navigator
>
>
>
>>
>>> .. peopl eare just lazy and
>>> don't want to do it .... Netscape did it(actually the founder stole the
>>> original source code, but that is not relevant)
>>
>>Actually no, the founder wrote the original browser and didn't steal
>>anything.
>>
>I will find and post the article in which Marc Andresen admitted he did not
>write the code .. he had partnered with some shmoo and then taken the hacked
>togther code and marketed it ...
>
>
>>> >Agree. And the PepsiCo does not force stores
>>> >to ban Coke or Shasta from their shelves.
>>>
>>> PepsiCo and Coke do force resturants to choose .. they can only carry one
>>> product NOT both ..... IE McDonalds or Burger King ...
>>
>>Nothing bad about it.
>
>WHAT .. it is okay for PepsiCo and Coke to do it but NOT Microsoft? You
>can't have it both ways ..either it is bad for everyone or it isn't bad for
>anyone
>
>
>>
>>> They NEVER forced anyone to do anything .. the computer manufacturer had
>the
>>> coice to not load Windows .. it was a choice they made (it just happened
>to
>>> be driven by the market ... people LOVE Windows!)
>>
>>People don't love Windows, they just insist on using it. People are
>>shmucks.
>>
>
>BULLSHIT .. the majority of people who are casual computer users love the
>interface ....
pwenk
Brehm) wrote:
>slicer_1 <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
>
>> >Sure. If the market isn't free anymore, the others can just go away.
>> >But the same can be said about government intervention.
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean here ...
>
>The intervention of a powerful entity like a government is harmful for
>the free market. However, government is not the only powerful entity.
>The harmful entity can rise from the market and still be harmful to it.
>
>> >No, it is revolving around the fact that a free market requires two or
>> >more products to compete against each other. Otherwise we can have a
>> >government providing us with the goods we need as well, if we don't have
>> >a choice.
>>
>> You don't have to have more than one product to have a free market .. you
>> only need to have the ability for a new product to come into the market
>> place and compete ...
>
>_How_ could a new product possibly compete against a free product that
>comes bundled with the operating system? Who would voluntarily pay more
>money to replace a product he already has and can use?
>
>Remember, today Netscape Navigator is also free. And I don't see many
>other browsers out there.
>
>Opera is the only one that stands a chance. Others only have a
>marketshare because they also come bundled with operating systems
>(NetPositive, WebExplorer) or run on operating systems Microsoft doesn't
>support (Crystal Atari Browser).
>
>> >They did that with Microsoft Windows 3.x in regards to DR-DOS. They also
>> >banned Netscape from some of their OEMs.
>> >
>> WHAT?! I have been an MS OEM since Win 3.1 ans I have NEVER had any OEMS
>> fail to install Netscape products! That is Balony
>
>I am somewhat surprised that you are an MS OEM, since you seemed not
>even to know what per-cpu-licensing meant. Also I didn't know Microsoft
>licensed their operating system to small vendors as well, I thought only
>to big ones. Note that I don't doubt your words, I am only surprised and
>would have bet against it.
Yes MS sales policy does include a very large number of larger/smaller
revendors selling PC's only with MS OEM versions.
Now, if you do not need neither a Windows XX or other MS applications
I feel it only to be fair, that such costs are in deduction to the
offered price.......Try to get from such vendors rebates......You will
soon find out, this is not easy.
I am NOT in favor of such sales practices. I just want to have to
possibility to buy what I require and NOT what MS believes to be good
for my health......
Sincerely
>
>> >"just"??? I am an advocate of government regulations where the market
>> >can't regulate itself.
>>
>> The market can ALWAYS regulate itself, it is just we have necver had a TRUE
>> free-market, the government is ALWAYS meddling ....
>
>If we never had a true free market, how would anyone possibly _know_ it
>could regulate itself? Or do you just _believe_ it would regulate
>itself?
>
>> >...except Microsoft's license agreements with computer makers.
>>
>> The agreements with computer manufacturers do not efect the ability of the
>> end-user to purchase and use Netscape Navigator
>
>No, but these agreements attack the freedom of the computer
>manufacturers to deliver their customers the software they want.
>
>It's a bit like government taxes. The argument usually goes taxes are
>theft and welfare could be privatized and based on voluntarily spent
>money. However, one could claim, the taxes you have to pay do not attack
>your freedom to voluntarily spend more money for the poor.
>
>> >Actually no, the founder wrote the original browser and didn't steal
>> >anything.
>> >
>> I will find and post the article in which Marc Andresen admitted he did not
>> write the code .. he had partnered with some shmoo and then taken the hacked
>> togther code and marketed it ...
>
>
>So he did write it himself, with a partner?
>
>Anyway, the Netscape source code is open. You can simply take a look at
>it and compare with the original code (was it Mosaic?).
>
>> >> PepsiCo and Coke do force resturants to choose .. they can only carry one
>> >> product NOT both ..... IE McDonalds or Burger King ...
>> >
>> >Nothing bad about it.
>>
>> WHAT .. it is okay for PepsiCo and Coke to do it but NOT Microsoft?
>
>Yes, since neither PepsiCo nor Coca Cola have a working monoply like
>Microsoft does.
>
>> You
>> can't have it both ways ..either it is bad for everyone or it isn't bad for
>> anyone
>
>The concept of the so called "different situations" might be new to you.
>
>Everybody could just go away from McDonals and to Wendy's (or whatever
>competition there is) and no harm would be done to them. However, in the
>software world, customers cannot as easily switch to anothe roperating
>environment, since they depend on compatiility. YOu can see there is a
>huge difference in situations here.
>
>> >People don't love Windows, they just insist on using it. People are
>> >shmucks.
>> >
>>
>> BULLSHIT .. the majority of people who are casual computer users love the
>> interface ....
>
>Really? The majority of people who are casual computer users don't even
>know other interfaces. How are they supposed to know whether they love
>Windows or not if they haven't seen anything else?
pwenk
(ROTF...@Republican.Losers.gov) wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:02:52 -0500, "slicer_1" <afn0...@afn.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
>>>ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
>>
>>
>>BS .. Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing fee, because people where
>>choosing OS's that didn't have that fee .. it was a purley captialist move
>>and NOTHING to do with 'Fair"!!
>>
>>
>
>Bullshit. Thay stopped the fee after the DOJ began an investigation
>and said "stop it or else".
I think you are correct. MS stopped their OEM practices only after the
DOJ intervention.
But only in the USA - Over here in Switzerland they continue with this
really nasty practice.
Regards
pwenk
wrote:
>
>
>
>ROTF...@Republican.Losers.gov wrote in message
><36cacf5...@news.supernews.com>...
>>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:02:52 -0500, "slicer_1" <afn0...@afn.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
>>>>ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
>>>
>>>
>>>BS .. Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing fee, because people where
>>>choosing OS's that didn't have that fee .. it was a purley captialist
>move
>>>and NOTHING to do with 'Fair"!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bullshit. Thay stopped the fee after the DOJ began an investigation
>>and said "stop it or else".
>
>BS .. my cousin works at Microsoft and I have asked him about that .... the
>plans were already in motion to end the fee, but so what? Why is it wrong
>to charge a fee for each CPU the OS controls? If I am the Network
>Administrator over 20 machines, is it not fair for me to charge more if I
>have to admin 150?
But it is IMHO absolute unfair to charge a buyer of a brand new PC for
a Windows OEM version he just does NOT require. Allow me to use
another word for such practices. I call this bluntly rubbery.
Sincerely
pwenk
(ROTF...@Republican.Losers.gov) wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:26:38 -0500, "slicer_1" <afn0...@afn.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>ROTF...@Republican.Losers.gov wrote in message
>><36cacf5...@news.supernews.com>...
>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:02:52 -0500, "slicer_1" <afn0...@afn.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
>>>>>ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>BS .. Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing fee, because people where
>>>>choosing OS's that didn't have that fee .. it was a purley captialist
>>move
>>>>and NOTHING to do with 'Fair"!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Bullshit. Thay stopped the fee after the DOJ began an investigation
>>>and said "stop it or else".
>>
>>BS .. my cousin works at Microsoft and I have asked him about that .... the
>>plans were already in motion to end the fee, but so what? Why is it wrong
>>to charge a fee for each CPU the OS controls? If I am the Network
>>Administrator over 20 machines, is it not fair for me to charge more if I
>>have to admin 150?
>>
>
>What we're talking about in this thread: As a condition of using MS
>operating systems, Microsoft used to charge manufacturers a fee for
>every system produced whether or not the system actually contained an
>Microsoft OS. So if a hardware manufacturer built 10,000 computers of
>which 5,000 had DR DOS and 5,000 one had MS-DOS, they still had to pay
>MS a licensing fee for 10,000 copies of MS-DOS. Naturally if a
>manufacturer is going to pay for 10,000 installations of a MS-DOS they
>don't want to pay someone else for another OS that is more-or-less
>functionally equivalent, so then they use MS-DOS on all the systems
>and refuse to purchase any copies of the competing product, in this
>example DR-DOS. Bye bye DR-DOS.
>
>The DOJ considered that anti-competitive and it was only after they
>got on MS's case that the per-system fee was dropped.
This is not only anti-competitive but has also a bitter taste of blunt
rubbery.
Sincerely
>
>The per-cpu fee is such a common topic that nobody who knows anything
>about this topic would mistake it for a network CPU fee. Every time
>you open your mouth you show how little you know about this subject.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>> There are no libertarians with such a definition.
>>
>> Libertarians, in determining whether a market is free, look for the
>> use of force to either compel transactions people don't want to be
>> part of, or to prevent transactions people do want to be part of.
>>
>> They do NOT count the number of companies that are in the market.
>
>And they also don't count whether one or more of these companies make
>use of force or not.
Actually, they do.
>They only hate government, that's all.
If a company is using force, it is the government's RESPONSIBILITY to
step in. A government which becomes aware of such a situation and
DOES NOT step in, forfeits all justification for its existence.
However, "using force" does not consist of declining to give someone
your stuff (or trade them your stuff for theirs) if they don't do
things your way. "Using force" consists of TAKING OR BREAKING THEIR
STUFF if they don't do things your way.
(It also includes BREAKING contracts, because the contract at some
level makes some stuff that was nominally yours, theirs instead - so
keeping it is taking their stuff. However, there is no moral or legal
obligation to enter into a contract in the first place - so refusing
to do so is not using force.)
>One day, the world will be ruled by companies, no governments will be
>active any longer.
Promise?
> People working (or living) in the companies will want
>to have the right to decide what will happen in their companies and
>fight their bosses (=kings).
As long as they are companies, not governments claiming to be
companies, this will automatically exist, because people can give
their "king" two weeks notice and take a job with another company - or
start their own company.
>What then?
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Corporations are a product of government. They are, specifically, a
grant of privilege by government.
If the business on one side of you, a non-corporate business, has an
accident that incidentally destroys your business, you can demand that
the owners reimburse you to the full extent of the damage - or the
full extent of their combined personal wealth, whichever comes first,
if they don't have sufficient insurance.
If the business on the other side of you, a corporation, has an
accident that incident that incidentally destroys your business, you
can demand that the owners reimburse you to the full extent of the
damge - or the full extent of the corporation's assets, but not the
owners'.
The original purpose of a corporation is to remove legal risk.
However, if the ACTUAL risk is unchanged, the LEGAL risk is simply
moved somewhere else. The people this risk lands upon are not
compensated for it, nor are they asked for permission.
This is a grant of privilege to the owners of the corporation, over
everyone who is not an owner (with a predominance of the risk falling
upon the corporation's nearer neighbors, as opposed to those far
away).
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >One day, the world will be ruled by companies, no governments will be
> >active any longer.
>
> Promise?
Yes. I mean this is how where governments come from.
> > People working (or living) in the companies will want
> >to have the right to decide what will happen in their companies and
> >fight their bosses (=kings).
>
> As long as they are companies, not governments claiming to be
> companies, this will automatically exist, because people can give
> their "king" two weeks notice and take a job with another company - or
> start their own company.
Same with today's states and governments. You can always leave and "take
a job" with another government. You don't even need to give two weeks
notice.
Doug Bashford
on Thu, 25 Feb pw...@swissonline.ch (pwenk) wrote:
about: Re: the Microsoft Trial..POW!!! Billy the Boy bytes one.
>>On Wed, 17 Feb "slicer_1" wrote:
>>>
>>>>You see Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing scheme a few years
>>>>ago, BECAUSE it was unfair.
>>>
>>>BS .. Microsoft stopped their per-cpu licensing fee, because
>>>people where choosing OS's that didn't have that fee ..
>>>it was a purley captialist move and NOTHING to do with 'Fair"!!
>>
>>Bullshit. Thay stopped the fee after the DOJ began an
>>investigation and said "stop it or else".
>
>only after the DOJ intervention.
>
>But only in the USA - Over here in Switzerland they continue
Is Switzerland so hyper-capitalistic (read anti-free trade)
that they have no anti-monopoly laws?
--Doug