Well 1984 is finally here. Our wonderful US Dept of Injustice has decided it will now design our computer systems and software. The Dept of Injustice says Microsoft is trying to monopolize the computer industry and the Internet. Well there is a chance that they are thinking along those lines but, since when, is THOUGHT a crime? Of course, if you believe in totalitarian government, THOUGHT can be a crime as shown by the famous novel 1984 written by George Orwell. Hopefully we still live in a free republic however. Microsoft is a long, long way from ever achieving a complete monopoly. The only time that the government should interfer in our great free economy is when a TRUE monopoly is imminent. Government BULLIES should stay out of our lives! We don't want government to design our computer systems and software! Remember the fiasco when they, in effect, designed our toilets by mandating Low Flow Toilets! Also remember the murderous results at Waco and Ruby Ridge when the government tried to put down independent thought just because it wasn't government approved. We now have the most corrupt executive branch of the government in our history. They want to run every aspect of our lives. Do we want a government that's composed of dozens of bureaucratic departments run like the IRS? It's time, Americans, to protest to our congressmen about these government abuses of power or we will wind up either slaves or inmates in soviet style prisons and insane asylums! For our own protection of course! By the way I don't work for Microsoft or any associated company. As a matter of fact I probably won't even buy W98 for a year. I simply want the free America that our forefathers fought and died for!
On Mon, 18 May 98 15:35:01 GMT, ro...@pipeline.com (BOB) wrote: } }Well 1984 is finally here. Our wonderful US Dept of Injustice has }decided it will now design our computer systems and software. The Dept }of Injustice says Microsoft is trying to monopolize the computer }industry and the Internet. Well there is a chance that they are }thinking along those lines but, since when, is THOUGHT a crime? Of }course, if you believe in totalitarian government, THOUGHT can be a }crime as shown by the famous novel 1984 written by George Orwell. }Hopefully we still live in a free republic however. }Microsoft is a long, long way from ever achieving a complete monopoly. }The only time that the government should interfer in our great free }economy is when a TRUE monopoly is imminent. Government BULLIES should }stay out of our lives! We don't want government to design our computer }systems and software! Remember the fiasco when they, in effect, }designed our toilets by mandating Low Flow Toilets! Also remember the }murderous results at Waco and Ruby Ridge when the government tried to }put down independent thought just because it wasn't government }approved. We now have the most corrupt executive branch of the }government in our history. They want to run every aspect of our lives. }Do we want a government that's composed of dozens of bureaucratic }departments run like the IRS? }It's time, Americans, to protest to our congressmen about these }government abuses of power or we will wind up either slaves or inmates }in soviet style prisons and insane asylums! For our own protection of }course! }By the way I don't work for Microsoft or any associated company. As a }matter of fact I probably won't even buy W98 for a year. I simply want }the free America that our forefathers fought and died for!
I didn't know our forefathers fought and died so that every computer would be shipped with Internet Explorer as the mandatory browser. The things you learn on Usenet.
}I didn't know our forefathers fought and died so that every computer }would be shipped with Internet Explorer as the mandatory browser. }The things you learn on Usenet. }
How could you, you thought they were Communists. That aside, how is it that Netscape has the majority share of the browser market?
On Mon, 18 May 98 23:50:00 GMT, "Gravy Train" <no...@today.net> wrote: } } }Mark Pitcavage wrote in message }<895514701$2...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>... }} }}On Mon, 18 May 98 15:35:01 GMT, ro...@pipeline.com (BOB) wrote: } } }[clipped] } }}I didn't know our forefathers fought and died so that every computer }}would be shipped with Internet Explorer as the mandatory browser. }}The things you learn on Usenet. }} } }How could you, you thought they were Communists. That aside, how is it that }Netscape has the majority share of the browser market? }
A majority that has dropped 20% in the space of only one year.
On Tue, 19 May 98 4:20:05 GMT, "Gravy Train" <no...@today.net> wrote: } } }Mark Pitcavage wrote in message }<895548003$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>... }} }}On Mon, 18 May 98 23:50:00 GMT, "Gravy Train" <no...@today.net> wrote: }} }}} }}} }}}Mark Pitcavage wrote in message }}}<895514701$2...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>... }}}} }}}}On Mon, 18 May 98 15:35:01 GMT, ro...@pipeline.com (BOB) wrote: } } }(nipped) } }}A majority that has dropped 20% in the space of only one year. }} } }They need to make a better browser don't they? Why don't they develop a }better operating system too? Someone is going to do that someday.
Why should they bother making a better browser if Microsoft uses its monopoly to insure that it never gets installed. Someone may develop a better operating system, too--indeed, in my opinion, it's been done already--but what does that matter? "Better" does not mean "successful" when monopolies are involved.
} } Well 1984 is finally here. Our wonderful US Dept of Injustice has } decided it will now design our computer systems and software. The Dept } of Injustice says Microsoft is trying to monopolize the computer } industry and the Internet. Well there is a chance that they are } thinking along those lines but, since when, is THOUGHT a crime? Of } course, if you believe in totalitarian government, THOUGHT can be a } crime as shown by the famous novel 1984 written by George Orwell. } Hopefully we still live in a free republic however. } Microsoft is a long, long way from ever achieving a complete monopoly. } The only time that the government should interfer in our great free } economy is when a TRUE monopoly is imminent. Government BULLIES should } stay out of our lives! We don't want government to design our computer } systems and software! Remember the fiasco when they, in effect, } designed our toilets by mandating Low Flow Toilets! Also remember the } murderous results at Waco and Ruby Ridge when the government tried to } put down independent thought just because it wasn't government } approved. We now have the most corrupt executive branch of the } government in our history. They want to run every aspect of our lives. } Do we want a government that's composed of dozens of bureaucratic } departments run like the IRS? } It's time, Americans, to protest to our congressmen about these } government abuses of power or we will wind up either slaves or inmates } in soviet style prisons and insane asylums! For our own protection of } course! } By the way I don't work for Microsoft or any associated company. As a } matter of fact I probably won't even buy W98 for a year. I simply want } the free America that our forefathers fought and died for! } } Bob } }
<patri...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote: } }Well Done. I agree with all of your statements. It is NOT the governments }place to dictate the directions of peoples ideas. BIG BROTHER KEEP OUT!!!
So it is Microsoft's place to dictate the directions of people's ideas?
If you were in charge we'd still have just one phone company and the only place we could buy gasoline would be at Standard Oil.
}On Tue, 19 May 98 14:20:01 GMT, "Patriot" }<patri...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote: } }} }}Well Done. I agree with all of your statements. It is NOT the governments }}place to dictate the directions of peoples ideas. BIG BROTHER KEEP OUT!!! } }So it is Microsoft's place to dictate the directions of people's }ideas?
Obviously not, since you and I are both free to run Linux on our computers, or BEOS, or even buy from Apple if we choose. How, precisely, do you suppose my choice is being dictated? Heck, MS doesn't even raise sales taxes when it wants to manipulate behaviour.
}If you were in charge we'd still have just one phone company and the }only place we could buy gasoline would be at Standard Oil.
Funny you should mention that: Mobil Oil (with whom I have to interface frequently) uses Netscape as part of its wholesale ordering system. Apparently the oil barons don't need to bow to Microsoft the Merciless.
}Why should they bother making a better browser if Microsoft uses its }monopoly to insure that it never gets installed. Someone may develop }a better operating system, too--indeed, in my opinion, it's been done }already--but what does that matter? "Better" does not mean }"successful" when monopolies are involved. } } }Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org }The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org
It figures you'd think Microsoft had a monopoly, Dr.
In the first place, it is simply stupid to argue that anyone can monopolize what is, at its roots, intellectual property. That's all software is, an idea expressed in binary code. Microsoft can't buy all the good programmers and idea people (obviously), and so can not "monopolize" what is essentially an infinite resource: human ingenuity.
What they can do is create an environment in which said creativity can not succeed in gaining a market share because it can not achieve default name recognition on a par with Microsofts browser, which ships with nearly every PC in the U.S. Unfortunately, here we have a problem. While I like free market economies as much as the next conservative, I'm leery of using government (the opposite of free anything) to help even the playing field. Our government has demonstrated all too clearly (by way of the Communications Decency Act and the Telecommunications Bill) that they have no idea how all this techy stuff works, and even less idea how to control the information that runs rampant and, yes, free on it). Now they are going to try to prove, in court, that Microsoft's OS, simply by being the most popular brand of OS in the world, is being unfair. If find that telling.
It is not as if Microsoft has been kind and gentle to its competitors, or fair in using its leverage to get on board 99.9999% of the PCs in use, but these specific violations, if proven, are separate issues from what the lawsuit is about. What this lawsuit is about is punishing success. Netscape is not as good a browser as Microsoft's explorer, so it doesn't sell as well. It does, however, sell, and it does act to keep Microsoft from charging too much money (as they could easily do if the charges of monopoly were true) for Explorer. Microsoft offers their browser in an integrated OS, which is optimal for present-day web browsing. Netscape does not have an OS on the market, but wants to hamstring Microsoft for having one. Microsoft's OS, last I checked, will use Netscape quite well (I run both Netscape and MS Explorer on PCs at work, and they both seem to get along just fine), so arguing that users are "forced" to use Microsoft products is preposterous. Not only can you use Netscape in MS Win 95(series), but you can use it in NT as well. There are other OSs (OS/2 Warp, Linux, BEOS, and Mac OS). Linux is free, and yet still not as popular as Windows 95. Care to explain that using the monopoly model?
I'm hoping Microsoft send the DOJ home with a real beating. There is no excuse for government to take a role in defending poor old Netscape, or tired old IBM (ironically once the victim of the DOJ itself). Sun Microsystems could start a "monopoly" with an OS, its own hardware, and a browser, but it hasn't. Intel's 64-bit R&D is causing Microsoft fits as it scrambles to catch up with the 64-bit OS architecture in the next year (or sooner). If MS the monopoly falls asleep at the helm, they will lose badly inside of six months.
In article <895602901$7...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) wrote: }}Well Done. I agree with all of your statements. It is NOT the governments }}place to dictate the directions of peoples ideas. BIG BROTHER KEEP OUT!!! } }So it is Microsoft's place to dictate the directions of people's ideas?
"My! That's a *big* one!" -- Scorpio, to Dirty Harry, upon seeing his gun.
I had no idea that Bill Gates might come after me some day with his big, bad .44 magnum revolver for buying a G3 Macintosh running Netscape Communicator. Tell me, Mark, exactly how Gates is "dictat(ing)" the direction of my ideas.
}If you were in charge we'd still have just one phone company and the }only place we could buy gasoline would be at Standard Oil.
Now tell me exactly how those *incorporated* monopolies would manage that in a REALLY free market, without government assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- To prevent email spam, my email address is altered. To reach me, you must replace everything before the @ with "mike" and delete any CAPS.
Covet: To desire that which the owner wickedly withholds. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary
In article <895560603$6...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) wrote: }}They need to make a better browser don't they? Why don't they develop a }}better operating system too? Someone is going to do that someday. } }Why should they bother making a better browser if Microsoft uses its }monopoly to insure that it never gets installed.
Pray tell, exactly how does MS "insure" (sic) this, without *force*?
}Someone may develop }a better operating system, too--indeed, in my opinion, it's been done }already--but what does that matter? "Better" does not mean }"successful" when monopolies are involved.
From: gsw...@primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: We don't need your guns at all... Date: 18 May 1998 22:49:01 -0700 Organization: http://www.primenet.com/~gswann
We don't need your guns at all...
You say that I am hurting your government by trading the best I have for the best I can get, for paying my own way, not hurting anyone. If I hurt you by helping my customers, then what? My customers don't hurt me, they don't give me orders, they don't need men with guns to protect them and to force their orders. We don't need guns to get along. We don't need your guns at all.
There are too many ironies to iron out in this absurd anti-trust suit against MediocreSoft. The most amusing, of course, is that MS is _not_ to be prosecuted for selling bug-ridden trash that's long on features but short on value. Next, perhaps, is the fact that MS is by far the Fortune 500 company most heavily infiltrated by libertarians. Amazingly, none of them has had any influence on the inept legal strategy pursued so far.
The irony that scrapes like the rusty chains of slavery, though, is the one highlighted above. The federal and state persecutors who have brought this awful lawsuit bent over backwards to use the word "force" with respect to MS. This is a scurrilous lie. MediocreSoft products are crap and the people who use them are unsophisticated at best, _but everyone involved IS A VOLUNTEER._ There is NO force in use by MS, and, if there were, it would be a matter for the criminal courts of the State of Washington.
The _only_ force in play in this matter is the force--physical force deployed by armed functionaries--that is to be brought to bear by the federal and state governments.
We are each of us monopolists of labor. I sell my time and only my time and only on my terms. If you don't like my terms, you seek elsewhere. If you insist that you must have my time, you must meet my terms. Trade is only trade when it is _mutually_ voluntary. When you attempt to take my labor by force or the threat of force, that's slavery. When you attempt to impose terms unilaterally--which is what the federal and state attorneys general are attempting to do--you are committing a crime. A "trade" that is not _mutually_ voluntary is slavery--or rape.
MediocreSoft plays bullyboy negotiating games because its products stink. It has a temporary market dominance based on the irrational fears of ignoramuses. This will not last. Like IBM before it, it appears to be an ominous threat, but in fact it's just a dinosaur. Sic semper tyrannosaurus.
The _real_ threat is the state, the wielders of _actual_ force, the flailers of _genuine_ guns. I doubt that the principals of Netscape and Novell and Sun Microsystems are wise enough to recognize the awful dogs they've loosed; if they had any brains they'd compete in the marketplace rather than try to steal market share by force of arms. But it seems clear that the personal computer industry--the only free industry left in America--will have good cause to lament this awful suit.
Some people want to portray MediocreSoft and its chairman, Bill Gates, as persecuted geniuses. This seems wide of the mark. MediocreSoft preys on the irrational fears of the irrationally fearful--just as IBM did--and this is the extent of any genius it has displayed. But if _any_ one of its mutually voluntary transactions is lawful and just, then _every_ one of them is, and there is no justice whatever is calling MediocreSoft criminal for being good at selling bad software to people who don't know any better and don't want any better. Everyone involved is a volunteer.
The point is this: it goes for you, too--you craven, greedy, evil, spiteful labor monopolist. The armed functionaries of the amassed attorneys general won't be bringing an anti-trust suit against you, but there's no reason why they couldn't--using exactly the same "logic" they're using against MediocreSoft. We were promised less government, not more, and we certainly don't need _actual_ monopolists wielding _actual_ force to "protect" us from the greatest has-beens of the next century: MediocreSoft and Bill Gates.
Can the people who screwed up the mails and transportation and communication and heavy industry and education and national security and criminal justice somehow do something _other_ than screw up the computer revolution? If Bill Gates were really a genius, he'd vow not to release any new software while this suit is pending. That way, millions of end-users desperate for the latest batch of new bugs--Windows 98--would scream for the dead hand of the state--the death-dealing hand of the state--to get the hell out of the way. We don't need protection from MediocreSoft. We need protection from "sanctioned" criminals with guns.
We don't need guns to get along. We don't need your guns at all...
What's shown below is me writing twelve years ago. The issues are exactly the same, and so are the consequences. I was amazed and delighted by the ruling in the net censorship case, and all I have left to hope for is another judge as wise and as penetrating. It's a shame that the "geniuses" at MediocreSoft and Netscape and Novell and Sun are not themselves wise, but--all to the spite of pouting losers and gloating winners and "sanctioned" gun-thugs--the world runs by itself. The sky doesn't fall, bad ideas do.
A mantrap... Is that what it is? As Curtis sat in the courtroom, he reflected on all he'd seen, all he'd thought about since coming to Dalton. Is that what it is? A giant trap for men...? But it's the same all over the country, not just here. It's the same all over the world, where it isn't worse...
Curtis was watching a man pleading for his life. A man who cared enough for his values to fight for them, to fight the mightiest and most fearsome gang of all, the gang of the state, with its armies and warheads. Was he fighting for the right to commit murder, theft, rape? No. He was fighting for the right to commit commerce. Curtis had fought a losing battle with disgust as he watched case after case of men convicted of loving their lives, their families and their values. Commerce was by far the most common crime in Dalton...
There was a man convicted of installing a new freezer in his store without having the state inspector certify that he was not deliberately ruining his inventory.
There was an elderly gentleman declared a criminal for closing off part of his house without getting the state's construction permit.
There was a child of perhaps fifteen, a true juvenile delinquent, who had committed the heinous deed of selling magazine subscriptions door to door without a work permit.
There was an Asian man who might have been twenty-five or fifty. His crime was pushing a quarter-ton cart through the streets of Dalton, sparing people the trouble of driving into town if they needed fresh fruits and vegetables.
There was a farmer with tired and defiant eyes. He'd sprayed his plants with a forbidden herbicide. The judge took account that the taboo substance had only recently been outlawed. But he said that just because the farmer had an unsellable stock of the stuff, that didn't give him the right to use it.
There was a blowsy young woman who was shown to have offended the gods by giving men pleasure for their money. The fact that her arrest proved that people wanted her product was not considered.
There was a man convicted of operating an unlicensed limousine. Out of pure spite and malice, he'd been victimizing his elderly neighbors by driving them to and from the supermarkets and laundromats.
Curtis fought to restrain himself when he saw a boy of ten declared truant and ordered to a state home. The child had been working as a dishwasher to help feed his family.
Compulsory dependency... Did any of these people _need_ this? In persecuting them, was the state doing anything besides hindering that which they did not need help to do? They were independent, totally free. And for _this_ crime, they were persecuted...
A mantrap. A system that enshrines those who seek to destroy values, such as this judge, these lawyers, these armed men, and their chattels on the state's plantations--the welfare system, the criminal justice system, the civil service. A system devised to destroy those who seek values. A god who would welcome and embrace you only if you declared yourself impotent, renounced both your mind and your body and gave him unlimited power over both. If you deny your ability to feed yourself, he feeds you. If you deny your ability to think for yourself, he tells you what to do. If you hate yourself, he will love you. But if you love yourself, he will hate you. He will destroy you...
A mantrap... A machine that rewards you to the extent that you do not deserve to live, and punishes you to the extent that you do. He thought of Ayn Rand, the philosopher who spoke of "zero holding a mortgage over life." _This_ is what she was talking about; _this_ is the "anti-man, anti-mind, anti-life." To reward a man to the extent that he kills himself, and to kill him when he _does not_ kill himself--death is the only possible goal.
Does it matter that they don't go the whole way? Is a mass
...
In article <895548003$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) writes: }How could you, you thought they were Communists. That aside, how is it that }}Netscape has the majority share of the browser market? }} } }A majority that has dropped 20% in the space of only one year. } } }Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org }The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org } } } } }
Big Deal. Life is tough in the big, bad free market. If Netscape is losing market share, it should make a more competitive product.
As I recall, at one time, Apple dominated the computer industry. Justice never took after them. Microsoft came along and through innovation and shrewd marketting, took the market away from Apple. There is nothing stopping a company from coming up with a better operating system, and doing the same to Microsoft.
Making Microsoft include 2 competitors' browsers is completely ludicrous. Should we require all business to sell their competitors product?
This is all a political deal. Second, the States and feds are looking for revenue sources. They are after tobacco, why not the richest man on earth, Bill Gates. I doubt he was as good a contributer to Clinton as the Chinese and the Indonesians.
Finally I note the justice department is not going after the manufacturer of Pentium processors. Talk about no competition. What computer does NOT have a Pentium processor. Should all computers come with 3 different processors?
Robert
"Mr. President, truth is not always a pleasant thing"--Gen. "Buck" Turgidson (USAF) "Watch out for snakes!" -- Tom Servo "Bite me, its fun"-- Crow T. Robot
RoboTorgo wrote: } Finally I note the justice department is not going after the manufacturer of } Pentium processors. Talk about no competition. What computer does NOT have a } Pentium processor. Should all computers come with 3 different processors? } } Robert
Robert,
How about anyone with an AMD or Cyrix processor, to name but two?
Lyan wrote: } } } It figures you'd think Microsoft had a monopoly, Dr. } } In the first place, it is simply stupid to argue that anyone can monopolize } what is, at its roots, intellectual property. That's all software is, an } idea expressed in binary code. Microsoft can't buy all the good programmers } and idea people (obviously), and so can not "monopolize" what is essentially } an infinite resource: human ingenuity.
No, but what Microsoft can and does do is use predatory licensing schemesto force you to buy exlcusively Windows. In essence, you get the best discount by preloading only Windows. If you preload even a small percentage of your systems as non-Windows, then your price per unit goes way up. That sure as heck *IS* a monopoly, and it is a violation of the Sherman Act.
} What they can do is create an environment in which said creativity can not } succeed in gaining a market share because it can not achieve default name } recognition on a par with Microsofts browser, which ships with nearly every } PC in the U.S. Unfortunately, here we have a problem. While I like free } market economies as much as the next conservative, I'm leery of using } government (the opposite of free anything) to help even the playing field. } Our government has demonstrated all too clearly (by way of the } Communications Decency Act and the Telecommunications Bill) that they have } no idea how all this techy stuff works, and even less idea how to control } the information that runs rampant and, yes, free on it). Now they are going } to try to prove, in court, that Microsoft's OS, simply by being the most } popular brand of OS in the world, is being unfair. If find that telling.
I happen to agree with Justice on this one. They have all sorts of memos fromGates et al telling how they were going to squash the competition by giving away products, etc, etc. Free market capitalism only works when a company that has a
dominant market position does not attempt to freeze out competition by using that monopoly power.
} It is not as if Microsoft has been kind and gentle to its competitors, or } fair in using its leverage to get on board 99.9999% of the PCs in use, but } these specific violations, if proven, are separate issues from what the } lawsuit is about. What this lawsuit is about is punishing success. } Netscape is not as good a browser as Microsoft's explorer, so it doesn't } sell as well. It does, however, sell, and it does act to keep Microsoft } from charging too much money (as they could easily do if the charges of } monopoly were true) for Explorer.
Not any more. Since MS has decided to include a browser in Windows98,Netscape layed off all its Navigator programmers and gave away the source code. It's tough to compete against a free product. I've used both products, and I would say they're roughly about the same in terms of functionality.
} Microsoft offers their browser in an } integrated OS, which is optimal for present-day web browsing. Netscape does } not have an OS on the market, but wants to hamstring Microsoft for having } one. Microsoft's OS, last I checked, will use Netscape quite well (I run } both Netscape and MS Explorer on PCs at work, and they both seem to get } along just fine), so arguing that users are "forced" to use Microsoft } products is preposterous.
Not at all. If you buy Windows98, you get Explorer for free. Unless Explorer isreally shit, why would you spend money for a competing product? Further, what's going to happen if Microsoft decides to include business applications, like word
processors and spreadsheets in with the OS? Would you complain then?
} Not only can you use Netscape in MS Win } 95(series), but you can use it in NT as well. There are other OSs (OS/2 } Warp, Linux, BEOS, and Mac OS). Linux is free, and yet still not as popular } as Windows 95. Care to explain that using the monopoly model?
Easy. OEMS are forced to preload Windows. Not to preload Linux.
} I'm hoping Microsoft send the DOJ home with a real beating. There is no } excuse for government to take a role in defending poor old Netscape, or } tired old IBM (ironically once the victim of the DOJ itself). Sun } Microsystems could start a "monopoly" with an OS, its own hardware, and a } browser, but it hasn't. Intel's 64-bit R&D is causing Microsoft fits as it } scrambles to catch up with the 64-bit OS architecture in the next year (or } sooner). If MS the monopoly falls asleep at the helm, they will lose badly } inside of six months. } } How can that really be a monopoly? } } Lyan
Because OEMS have no choice but to offer 100% Windows only.
Mark Pitcavage wrote: } } On Tue, 19 May 98 4:20:05 GMT, "Gravy Train" <no...@today.net> wrote: } } } } } } }Mark Pitcavage wrote in message } }<895548003$5...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>... } }} } }}On Mon, 18 May 98 23:50:00 GMT, "Gravy Train" <no...@today.net> wrote: } }} } }}} } }}} } }}}Mark Pitcavage wrote in message } }}}<895514701$2...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>... } }}}} } }}}}On Mon, 18 May 98 15:35:01 GMT, ro...@pipeline.com (BOB) wrote: } } } } } }(nipped) } } } }}A majority that has dropped 20% in the space of only one year. } }} } } } }They need to make a better browser don't they? Why don't they develop a } }better operating system too? Someone is going to do that someday. } } Why should they bother making a better browser if Microsoft uses its } monopoly to insure that it never gets installed. Someone may develop } a better operating system, too--indeed, in my opinion, it's been done } already--but what does that matter? "Better" does not mean } "successful" when monopolies are involved. } } Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org } The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org
IF DOJ breaks up Microsoft, will we have a lot of Baby Bills?
}No, but what Microsoft can and does do is use predatory licensing schemesto }force you to buy exlcusively Windows. In essence, you get the best discount }by preloading only Windows. If you preload even a small percentage of your }systems as non-Windows, then your price per unit goes way up. That sure as }heck *IS* a monopoly, and it is a violation of the Sherman Act.
Microsoft inarguably engages in unfair practices. So do many companies who are not monopolies. However, to have a monopoly one must control the resources. Microsoft can not control the choices of end users, can not stop or infringe on competitive innovation, and behaves in every way like a competitor in a free and volatile market.
If MS is unfair in bundling its software for extreme price reduction, than why isn't Intel also being sued for doing the same with their chips?
}I happen to agree with Justice on this one. They have all sorts of memos }fromGates et al telling how they were going to squash the competition by giving }away products, etc, etc. Free market capitalism only works when a company that has a }dominant market position does not attempt to freeze out competition by using }that monopoly power.
Eric I'm shocked. You of all people are unswervingly suspicious of a government that wants too much control, yet here you are arguing for just that. In-house memos make nice press, but they are no more evidence of criminal intent (assuming boardroom enthusiasm is still legal) than a football coaches speech inciting his players to "kill" the other team is indicative of a consiracy to commit murder. Microsoft's practices, when they are uncompetitive, need to be sanctioned, but they are simply not behaving like a monopoly at this time. They offer a program to other vendors (of PCs) as OEM software. If those vendors had something better to choose, the better to market their own machines, why wouldn't they choose it. If Linux (which is really cheap, even with the commercial add-ons) is so great, why isn't it out there? If OS2 Warp were so great, why couldn't IBM at least put it on their own machines--at cost? This monopoly thing just isn't holding up.
}Not any more. Since MS has decided to include a browser in }Windows98, Netscape layed off all its Navigator programmers and gave away the }source code.
That's their problem, not Microsofts. They could have just made a better browser, or an OS to go with it, or linked up with Java. They had choices and opportunities, just like Bill Gates did when he had to come up alongside Big Blue.
}It's tough to compete against a free product.
Is it? Microsoft's OS has to compete with Linux. Microsoft didn't have the first browser out there either, and any of those companies marketing the earlier browsers could have struck deals to get their browser out as OEM (some did), or integrated with OSs. Just because MS is ahead now does not mean they are unfair. They've just won the race.
}I've used both products, and I would say they're roughly about the same in
terms of functionality.
If you had the opportunity to use both products, then the word "monopoly" doesn't really apply, does it? "Mono" implies one, one product.
} }} Microsoft offers their browser in an }} integrated OS, which is optimal for present-day web browsing. Netscape does }} not have an OS on the market, but wants to hamstring Microsoft for having }} one. Microsoft's OS, last I checked, will use Netscape quite well (I run }} both Netscape and MS Explorer on PCs at work, and they both seem to get }} along just fine), so arguing that users are "forced" to use Microsoft }} products is preposterous. } } Not at all. If you buy Windows98, you get Explorer for free. Unless }Explorer isreally shit, why would you spend money for a competing product? }Further, what's }going to happen if Microsoft decides to include business applications, like word } }processors and spreadsheets in with the OS? Would you complain then? } }} Not only can you use Netscape in MS Win }} 95(series), but you can use it in NT as well. There are other OSs (OS/2 }} Warp, Linux, BEOS, and Mac OS). Linux is free, and yet still not as popular }} as Windows 95. Care to explain that using the monopoly model? } } Easy. OEMS are forced to preload Windows. Not to preload Linux. } }} I'm hoping Microsoft send the DOJ home with a real beating. There is no }} excuse for government to take a role in defending poor old Netscape, or }} tired old IBM (ironically once the victim of the DOJ itself). Sun }} Microsystems could start a "monopoly" with an OS, its own hardware, and a }} browser, but it hasn't. Intel's 64-bit R&D is causing Microsoft fits as it }} scrambles to catch up with the 64-bit OS architecture in the next year (or }} sooner). If MS the monopoly falls asleep at the helm, they will lose badly }} inside of six months. }} }} How can that really be a monopoly? }} }} Lyan } } Because OEMS have no choice but to offer 100% Windows only. } }Eric Pinnell }
In article <895691110$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Eric Pinnell
<epin...@ibm.net> writes: } Robert, } } How about anyone with an AMD or Cyrix processor, to name but two? } }Eric Pinnell } }
What is the market share of a Pentium processor? 80%, 90%? Netscape still has the majority of browser market share, yet they are calling microsoft a monopoly.
Robert
"Mr. President, truth is not always a pleasant thing"--Gen. "Buck" Turgidson (USAF) "Watch out for snakes!" -- Tom Servo "Bite me, its fun"-- Crow T. Robot
RoboTorgo wrote: }What is the market share of a Pentium processor? 80%, }90%? Netscape still has the majority of browser market }share, yet they are calling microsoft a monopoly.
I agree with you on all your points, RoboTorgo. But I'll admit I kinda like this lawsuit, but only for selfish reasons. Stripping the IE browser from Windows '98 will hopefully keep Micro$oft from building their entire operating system around it. That's what infuriates me about Micro$oft's products--they *assume* that they know what your needs are and what you want your computer to do, and set up all the defaults that are not easily changed (or in some cases, aren't changeable at all). Each new version seems to deny you flexibility for "convenience". Their motto should be "We Know Where You Want to Go Today".
Ok, rant's over. Welcome back to MAM! We missed our lawyer contingent for a while (like I haven't seen Wugga for ages, either).
In article <895770303$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, roboto...@aol.com
(RoboTorgo) writes: }What is the market share of a Pentium processor? 80%, 90%? }Netscape still has the majority of browser market share, yet they }are calling microsoft a monopoly.
They just smell blood in the water because Gates has money. They're out for pillage.
"Do one thing every day that scares you." --Kurt Vonnegut, MIT Graduation Speech '97
Lyan wrote: } Microsoft inarguably engages in unfair practices. So do many companies who } are not monopolies. However, to have a monopoly one must control the } resources. Microsoft can not control the choices of end users, can not stop } or infringe on competitive innovation, and behaves in every way like a } competitor in a free and volatile market.
Microsoft *DOES* control the reasources. For giggles, try calling up a majorPC maker and asking them if they can ship you a PC *WITHOUT* Windows. And then ask how much it'll save you. Either they won't ship without Windows or they won't reduce your price. Either way, Bill gates gets paid for every PC shipped.
} If MS is unfair in bundling its software for extreme price reduction, than } why isn't Intel also being sued for doing the same with their chips?
Intel is about to be hit by an anti-trust suit.
} Eric I'm shocked. You of all people are unswervingly suspicious of a } government that wants too much control, yet here you are arguing for just } that. In-house memos make nice press, but they are no more evidence of } criminal intent (assuming boardroom enthusiasm is still legal) than a } football coaches speech inciting his players to "kill" the other team is } indicative of a consiracy to commit murder.
If you don't mean what you say, then you sure as heck better not say it, particularlyif you're CEO of a Fortunate 100 company.
} Microsoft's practices, when } they are uncompetitive, need to be sanctioned, but they are simply not } behaving like a monopoly at this time.
Oh, yes they are. Try to order a PC without Windows.
} They offer a program to other } vendors (of PCs) as OEM software. If those vendors had something better to } choose, the better to market their own machines, why wouldn't they choose } it.
Because they'd end up paying a fortune to ship Windows on all their machines.A couple of German Companies (one of which was Vobis) got so pissed of at MS that they started to ship all their machines preloaded with OS/2. In the end, MS caved in and gave them a better deal on Windows. When was the last time you saw *ANY* PC in the US offering anything but Windows preloaded?
} If Linux (which is really cheap, even with the commercial add-ons) is } so great, why isn't it out there? If OS2 Warp were so great, why couldn't } IBM at least put it on their own machines--at cost? This monopoly thing } just isn't holding up.
Linux market share is growing. OS/2's market share is shrinking. As for whyIBM PC Company didn't preload OS/2, well, it's economics again. It would cost them too much to have anything but 100% pure Windows.
} That's their problem, not Microsofts. They could have just made a better } browser, or an OS to go with it, or linked up with Java. They had choices } and opportunities, just like Bill Gates did when he had to come up alongside } Big Blue.
A better browser doesn't help when Microsoft's product is being preloaded onevery machine FOR FREE.
} Is it? Microsoft's OS has to compete with Linux. Microsoft didn't have the } first browser out there either, and any of those companies marketing the } earlier browsers could have struck deals to get their browser out as OEM } (some did), or integrated with OSs. Just because MS is ahead now does not } mean they are unfair. They've just won the race.
What MS did was strongarm OEMs into taking Explorer over Navgator, which iswhy there is an anti-trust suit. MS has *ALWAYS* used unfair practices in its
licensing schemes. For example, OEMs are forbidden to talk about their contracts, and must notify MS is there's any legal questions ask of OEMs.If you had the opportunity to use both products, then the word "monopoly"
} doesn't really apply, does it? "Mono" implies one, one product. } } Lyan
RoboTorgo wrote: } What is the market share of a Pentium processor? 80%, 90%? Netscape still has } the majority of browser market share, yet they are calling microsoft a } monopoly. } } Robert
Intel has roughly 80% market share. And they too are about to be hit by an anti trust suit.
Clinton and all those other corrupt politicians across the USA are looking to line their pockets with ill-gotten $$$$$!!! !!!!!Bunch of Unibomber clones!!!!!!
---------------------------------------- Here in the United States, children,..... it's now 1984, forever.
!!!! Who cheers for the criminals is as GUILTY as them !!!!!
!!!Your "radio" is trying to KILL you!!!
The Government as enemy of the people. ----------M 16-------AK 47-------------- (Spam the CIA & British Intelligence)
White America: They "conquered the world" but are becoming extinct (dinosaurs). Every day the future of the USA is getting blacker and blacker........
Favorite advertisement all over England?: A Bust of Gen. George Washington with hangman's noose around neck. It reads: A Revolution that failed!
}Microsoft *DOES* control the reasources. For giggles, try calling up a }majorPC maker and asking them if they can ship you a PC *WITHOUT* Windows. And }then ask how much it'll save you.
I don't do it for giggles, I do it as part of my job. How about a Dell PC running VMS? How about Polywell, using an Alpha processor, running Unix or VMS? How about no OS for sale, just the box--and load Linux on myself?
}Either they won't ship without Windows or they won't reduce your price. }Either way, Bill gates gets paid for every PC shipped.
Gateway reduced my price when I asked them to take off the software bundle on a PC my company ordered.
}} If MS is unfair in bundling its software for extreme price reduction, than }} why isn't Intel also being sued for doing the same with their chips? } } Intel is about to be hit by an anti-trust suit.
Assuming the Microsoft one doesn't fizzle?
}If you don't mean what you say, then you sure as heck better not say it, }particularly if you're CEO of a Fortunate 100 company.
Pretty feeble argument--and yes, I know you aren't the source of it. I don't want to condone a system in which that is true, and I'd be surprised if you did, considering some of your past posts.
}Oh, yes they are. Try to order a PC without Windows.
As I've pointed out, I do so with aplomb.
}} They offer a program to other }} vendors (of PCs) as OEM software. If those vendors had something better to }} choose, the better to market their own machines, why wouldn't they choose }} it. } } Because they'd end up paying a fortune to ship Windows on all their }machines.A couple of German Companies (one of which was Vobis) got so pissed of }at }MS that they started to ship all their machines preloaded with OS/2. In the }end, }MS caved in and gave them a better deal on Windows.
MS caved in? You mean _competition_ caused them to cave? Wouldn't that indicate they don't have a monopoly?
}When was the last }time you saw *ANY* PC in the US offering anything but Windows preloaded?
Last Friday.
}Linux market share is growing. OS/2's market share is shrinking. As for }why IBM PC Company didn't preload OS/2, well, it's economics again. It would }cost them too much to have anything but 100% pure Windows.
I think it had more to do with the fact that Windows and DOS have been the established favorites for some time, and that most games and business applications were written for them. OS/2 had little backward/cross compatibility for Windows programs, and what little it did have necessitated loading Windows on the PC. Perhaps someone at IBM woke up and realized that IBM did not have the influence to make every user by completely new software just for the privilege of using their OS.
}A better browser doesn't help when Microsoft's product is being preloaded }on every machine FOR FREE.
Sure it would. If I had a better browser, I'd go to a number of PC companies and offer it cheaply if they'd preload it at the factory. If people like it better than the "free" MS browser, I'm competitive. If they don't, I lose. The preloading is not the issue; the user doesn't see the loading, it's transparent once the PC leaves the factory. I've requested Gateway machines without browsers before, btw--including MS Explorer. I still get the irritating MSN and Internet Wizard install programs, but they can easily be deleted.
}What MS did was strongarm OEMs into taking Explorer over Navgator, which }is why there is an anti-trust suit. MS has *ALWAYS* used unfair practices in its }licensing schemes. For example, OEMs are forbidden to talk about their }contracts, and must notify MS is there's any legal questions ask of OEMs.
Remember that such claims are a) allegations and b) not the thrust of the current suit. One might wonder why, if they were well founded.
}MS has 90% market share. That is a monopoly.
Not according to my Economics textbooks. Merely winning in a competition is not anti-competitive. To interfere with fair competition is anathema to laissez-faire capitalism (such as it is today).
Lyan wrote: } I don't do it for giggles, I do it as part of my job. How about a Dell PC } running VMS? How about Polywell, using an Alpha processor, running Unix or } VMS? How about no OS for sale, just the box--and load Linux on myself?
You miss the point. Price a box with Windows, and one without. You'll findout you end up paying the same. It's the way MS has written OEM contracts.
} Gateway reduced my price when I asked them to take off the software bundle } on a PC my company ordered.
Was that software Windows?
} Assuming the Microsoft one doesn't fizzle?
I doubt the MS suit will fizzle. MS is in deep guano as far as I can tell. Thebiggest and most daming thing the feds plan to use it MS own email messages and memos. Bill's frat boys haven't learned how to behave like adults, and their arrogance shows pretty much in their memos.
} Pretty feeble argument--and yes, I know you aren't the source of it. I } don't want to condone a system in which that is true, and I'd be surprised } if you did, considering some of your past posts.
You miss the point. Bill's memos are a smoking gun, and frankly, any jurythat reads them isn't going to be too sympathetic to Microsoft.
} MS caved in? You mean _competition_ caused them to cave? Wouldn't that } indicate they don't have a monopoly?
MS caved in because they didn't want to have Germany's two largest PC makersrunning only OS/2. I suspect that some twit in Microsoft Germany realized that if the situation continued, they'd be looking for a new job.
} Last Friday.
Which OS was offered for preload?
} I think it had more to do with the fact that Windows and DOS have been the } established favorites for some time, and that most games and business } applications were written for them. OS/2 had little backward/cross } compatibility for Windows programs, and what little it did have necessitated } loading Windows on the PC. Perhaps someone at IBM woke up and realized that } IBM did not have the influence to make every user by completely new software } just for the privilege of using their OS.
Nope. I happen to know folks in both PSP and PC Company, and basically,IBM's own computer makers did not want to preload OS/2 AT ALL, and finally Gerstner told them they'd better or else. Even when that was done, PC Co didn't write much drivers, and didn't market OS/2 at all. It was always Windows, Windows, Windows.
} Sure it would. If I had a better browser, I'd go to a number of PC } companies and offer it cheaply if they'd preload it at the factory.
And if the OEM contract for Windows REQUIRED you to preload Explorer, you'dbe SOL.
} If } people like it better than the "free" MS browser, I'm competitive. If they } don't, I lose. The preloading is not the issue; the user doesn't see the } loading, it's transparent once the PC leaves the factory.
Yes, but the user sees what OS or applications is preloaded. And he or she willuse that product.
} I've requested } Gateway machines without browsers before, btw--including MS Explorer. I } still get the irritating MSN and Internet Wizard install programs, but they } can easily be deleted.
One of the points that DOJ is making is that they want MS to be enjoined fromREQUIRING Explorer to be preloaded. In addition, they want it removed from the OS and sold separately.
} Remember that such claims are a) allegations and b) not the thrust of the } current suit. One might wonder why, if they were well founded.
I know OEMs who have been strong armed by MS. For allegations, they seempretty real to me. And yes, they ARE part of the current suit, which combines state and federal actions.
} Not according to my Economics textbooks. Merely winning in a competition is } not anti-competitive. To interfere with fair competition is anathema to } laissez-faire capitalism (such as it is today). } } Lyan
Trouble is, MS is using unfair tactics to MAINTAIN that monopoly. And that isnot good.
