W98 AND DEPT OF INJUSTICE
BOB
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
Mark Pitcavage
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.
Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org
The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org
Gravy Train
Mark Pitcavage wrote in message
<895514701$26...@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?
GT
Mark Pitcavage
On Mon, 18 May 98 23:50:00 GMT, "Gravy Train" <no...@today.net> wrote:
}
}
}Mark Pitcavage wrote in message
}<895514701$26...@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.
Gravy Train
Mark Pitcavage wrote in message
<895548003$51...@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$26...@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.
GT
Mark Pitcavage
On Tue, 19 May 98 4:20:05 GMT, "Gravy Train" <no...@today.net> wrote:
}
}
}Mark Pitcavage wrote in message
}<895548003$51...@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$26...@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.
Patriot
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!!!
BOB <ro...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<895505701$19...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
} the free America that our forefathers fought and died for!
}
} Bob
}
}
Mark Pitcavage
On Tue, 19 May 98 14:20:01 GMT, "Patriot"
<patr...@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.
Lyan
Mark Pitcavage wrote in message
<895602901$75...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}On Tue, 19 May 98 14:20:01 GMT, "Patriot"
}<patr...@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.
Stick to history, Doc, 'puters ain't your thing.
Lyan
Lyan
Mark Pitcavage wrote in message
<895560603$61...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}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.
How can that really be a monopoly?
Lyan
Mike\Schneider
In article <895602901$75...@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
Mike\Schneider
In article <895560603$61...@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.
I wish you peace,
Greg Swann
5/18/98
From "Mantrap" (http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Mantrap.html):
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
murderer more of a murderer than a spouse killer? Isn't the
thing that lets them say that you can't earn a living without a
useless piece of paper, isn't that the same thing that was used
to forbid life to the Jews of Hitler's Germany, to the Kulaks,
to the Ukrainian peasants, to the Kampucheans and the Mikitos?
Is a difference of degree a difference of kind? If two men are
headed for Chicago and one is closer, is the other headed
someplace else...?
No. The same goals are served by the same defense. The issue is
values, with the first being the value of life. Mine is the way
of serving it--to think, to work, to live. The things that stand
opposed to that are anti-life, whether they admit to it or
not...
A man pleading for his life, except that men who are compelled
to this place are unqualified to plead. The god of death does
not hear their prayers.
He was a stubby man, short and stocky. His thick black hair was
streaked with gray. Curtis admired the bright beacon in his
proud dark eyes. "Is this what I pay taxes for?," he demanded of
the judge. "What have I done wrong? Who is injured by what I
have done?" The man was a Mediterranean, a Greek or a Turk; he
spoke with a thick accent.
"You were operating your business after hours," the judge said.
"Your license specifically prohibits you from operating after
sundown. I believe the restriction results from the noblest of
purposes. The City Council wished to protect your competitors
from you."
"First," said the man. "My competitors can get protection from
me any time they want it. All they gotta do is do what I do
better than I do it. I know it works, because that's how I
protect myself from them!" The audience in the courtroom
laughed. "Second, the competition you are protecting from me has
failed. He's out of business. You protected him to death!"
"The witness is ordered to restrain himself."
"Yeah," said the man, shaking his head in disgust. "You like
giving orders, don't you? Do you know anything about earning a
living? Do you think it's safe to order a man to commit suicide,
or else you'll kill him?"
"I don't know _what_ you are talking about!"
"No? Am I mistaken? When I was a boy, there was man in our
village--maybe you have this type of man in America? In exchange
for money and obedience, he would protect you from his gang. So
long as you paid money, made way, he wouldn't break your legs or
wreck your shop or rape your woman. The night before I came
here, I got him alone and told him what I thought of him. He
didn't know what I was talking about, either..."
"Do I understand that the witness is threatening me?," the judge
demanded.
"No," said the man. "Just telling a story. Do you know about my
business? Do you know what I do to feed my wife and children? Is
there any part of what I have that I owe to you, that I have
stolen from you?"
"It is not claimed that you have stolen anything."
"No? Then why am I here? This is court, place for thieves. I
have stolen nothing. I have hurt no one. Do you know why I was
arrested?"
"As I say, you're charged with violating the terms of your
license."
"Yes. You know what this means? I have a food truck, you know
what that is? Do judges eat from food trucks? It's a pick-up
truck with a refrigerator. I fill it with food and take it out
to the factories. Men in factories, they don't have the choices
of judges downtown, they eat from home or eat from machines or
they don't eat. I bring other food--good sandwiches, good fruit,
candy, cake, hot coffee.
"Men at the factories, they like me. Women too. I work four
plants every day, four lunches, eight breaks. I do a good
business, maybe a hundred a day, after everything. Including
taxes to pay so judges can eat in restaurants...
"In town, I have one competitor. Young kid taking over his
father's truck. They used to have two trucks, worked the late
shifts at five different places. But between the shutdowns and
the taxes and everything, they couldn't make it. They sold one
truck. It's in Cleveland now. The kid starts driving the other,
he's on the road twelve hours a day. He makes his runs at the
shops they have left, starts at six at night, doesn't finish
until six in the morning. Do judges ever have to work that hard?
But still he can't make it. Two shops shut down their night
crews, and my competitor, he goes down with them. That truck is
now in Dayton.
"So I'm left. There's one crew still working of those he served.
So what do I do? I get up at four in the morning to take them
some lunch. I don't work their breaks. They can bring their own
coffee. And I don't make much on their lunch trade, just enough
to get me out of bed. For what you cost me today, I've been
getting up for nothing for the last month...
"But think! Think! There were three trucks, now there is one.
Those two trucks that are gone will not come back without new
capital. Do you see people rushing to town to invest their
money? There is now just my one truck, and when you have
destroyed me, made me sell my truck in Dayton or Columbus, who
will feed the men?
"Do you see? You tell me I am evil. Why? For selling people what
they want, where and when they want it. You tell me I am
selfish. Why? Because I get out of a nice warm bed to sell food.
You tell me I am exploiting the men by selling them food. 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.
"And yet, here I am... So you must be like that man in my
village. How much do you charge to not break my legs--or is it
my neck this time?"
The judge said, "Are you through?"
"Yes."
"Fifty dollars or five days."
The man paid his fine, swearing softly in a language Curtis
couldn't identify.
His case was called next. The state briefly presented its
evidence. The judge agreed that the state had enough to warrant
the charge. He ordered Curtis held over for trial. Bail was
foregone; the judge said he feared Curtis might run. He asked if
Curtis wished to speak for the record.
No bail... Curtis was stunned. This was worse than anything he'd
considered, worse than the wildest nightmare. It took him a
moment to collect his thoughts. "I'd like to underscore what was
said by the man who just spoke," he said. The dark headed man
had been walking out, but now he turned to watch. "You claim
that you are acting in the service of values, but where you have
a chance to serve the values needed to live, you ignore it. I am
today charged with having set fire to my own property. If you
knew what I did to get my factory operating, you would know I
did not destroy it. But since you do not know this, or refuse to
take account of it, you charge me with this crime. Fine. I will
be proved innocent. But I will have been innocent the whole time
that you will have slandered my name and stolen my time. My
factory burned this morning. In order to get it producing again,
I need to give it my full time and attention. By locking me up,
you are damaging my own financial interest and the financial
interests of my employees. You are wasting our money on a
fruitless trial, and at the same time forbidding us to make more
money. What value is it that you hope to serve by this?"
"Young man," said the judge. "I have a hard-won reputation of
standing for the common good."
"...by standing _against_ those who are _un_common?"
"I don't know what you're talking about!"
"Yes, you do. Tell me, your majesty, whom do you propose to eat
after the producers of Dalton are picked to the bone...?" The
dark man burst into applause.
The judge said, "Take him out."
The chief stayed with Curtis all the way to his cell. When they
got there he said, "Listen, Mr. Randolph. After what you said in
there, I'm not sure if you belong in here, or if Judge Rollins
does. I think that no bail business is just plain spite, and I
have a good idea where it came from... Anyway, you can do some
of your business from here, can't you? I can't put a phone in
here, it would cause talk. But I can give you unlimited
visitors, and they can bring whatever you need to work on."
"That's decent of you, Chief. But aren't you afraid I'll get
hold of a revolver and make my escape?"
Chief Nelson smiled. "I can afford a few bullets to save the
taxpayers the cost of a trial. But I don't think you'll try to
escape."
"Hmm," said Curtis. "Does that you mean you think I'm innocent?"
"That means, come what does, you're the kind of man I can get
along with. I'm not going to go out my way to hurt you."
_____________________________________________________________________________
gsw...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 3/3/98)
70640...@compuserve.com
Permission is explicitly granted to repost/republish unmodified.
We are what we do, not what we say we do.
- Janio Valenta
_____________________________________________________________________________
RoboTorgo
In article <895548003$51...@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
Eric Pinnell
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?
Eric Pinnell
Eric Pinnell
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.
Eric Pinnell
Kaa Byington
Mark Pitcavage wrote:
}
} On Tue, 19 May 98 4:20:05 GMT, "Gravy Train" <no...@today.net> wrote:
}
} }
} }
} }Mark Pitcavage wrote in message
} }<895548003$51...@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$26...@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?
Lyan
Eric Pinnell wrote in message
<895691105$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}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.
Lyan
RoboTorgo
In article <895691110$12...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Eric Pinnell
<epi...@ibm.net> writes:
} Robert,
}
} How about anyone with an AMD or Cyrix processor, to name but two?
}
}Eric Pinnell
}
}
What is the market share of a Pentium processor? 80%, 90%? Netscape still has
the majority of browser market share, yet they are calling microsoft a
monopoly.
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
RoboTorgo wrote:
}What is the market share of a Pentium processor? 80%,
}90%? Netscape still has the majority of browser market
}share, yet they are calling microsoft a monopoly.
I agree with you on all your points, RoboTorgo. But I'll
admit I kinda like this lawsuit, but only for selfish
reasons. Stripping the IE browser from Windows '98 will
hopefully keep Micro$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).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNWVBOcyPOTvd59tlAQEs2gQAmMxFn50s0KPojGvmGdfUM4pR8NnxysiY
mMjrLAmzrZOLzov9mi7rzwtFHYdn76In1Tf4BqpynvIk1NScJh8fkweWg1/fLPxa
sr+fMxEV3WS+hXAfFCWV8lPMoWmPtaKfwX9EnfuMdnPWwC4XHwH7OkPIphHQOPMo
qAZGxl0R19I=
=ahxR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stewart Millen
Remove the "-tain-" in the e-mail address for
sending e-mail
PGP Key on Keyservers
Key ID: DDE7DB65
Key Fingerprint: 66 C0 E9 25 4F EB 46 1A
7E B9 04 EE AE F6 38 29
Guru165871
In article <895770303$17...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, robo...@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
Eric Pinnell
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
MS has >90% market share. That is a monopoly.
Eric Pinnell
Eric Pinnell
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.
Eric Pinnell
Patrick V. Cheatham
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!
----------------------"Z"--------------------------
Lyan
Eric Pinnell wrote in message
<895930479$26...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}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
Eric Pinnell
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.
Eric Pinnell
Secret Squirrel
In article <895514701$26...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com> you write:
}
}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.
<snip>
Gee, governments themselves are monopolies over their jurisdictions.
Despite the goofiness that common-law courts have engaged in so far, I'm
damn glad someone is challenging govco's stranglehold on legitimate
authority.
}I didn't know our forefathers fought and died so that every computer
}would be shipped with Internet Explorer
You wouldn't, would you?
as the mandatory browser.
}The things you learn on Usenet.
"mandatory"???
}Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org
}The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org
A.
.
HCCRR
In article <896207704$98...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>, Secret Squirrel
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
}
}Gee, governments themselves are monopolies over their jurisdictions.
}Despite the goofiness that common-law courts have engaged in so far, I'm
}damn glad someone is challenging govco's stranglehold on legitimate
}authority.
Of course governments are monopolies in their jurisdictions. This case has
nothing to do with the legitimacy of government.
x12
Lyan
Eric Pinnell wrote in message
<896141101$65...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}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.
I disagree, and I didn't miss the point, I just don't buy it.
}} Gateway reduced my price when I asked them to take off the software
bundle
}} on a PC my company ordered.
}
} Was that software Windows?
The OS was, yes--with a coupon for Win98.
}I doubt the MS suit will fizzle. MS is in deep guano as far as I can tell.
}The biggest 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.
So arrogance is a civil offense now? Were I a juror, I wouldn't be awfully
impressed by Bill's CEO hype in what they mistakenly thought was fairly
private (or at least discreet), unless there were some indication that they
meant some of their hype literally.
}You miss the point. Bill's memos are a smoking gun, and frankly, any
}jury that reads them isn't going to be too sympathetic to Microsoft.
Again, you are confusing disagreement with missing your point. I don't
agree with your assessment of the impact of boardroom rhetoric. All it will
take to undermine that is to review some comments made by DOJ lawyers,
Netscape CEOs, etc.
}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.
That is competition at work.
}Which OS was offered for preload?
NT, VMS, or no preload (for those with site licensing agreements).
}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.
And you are blaming Microsoft for the bad decisions of its competitors.
Eric, for someone who waxes anti-government, you sure think like a lawyer or
bureaucrat.
}} 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'd be SOL.
Newsflash: no OEM contract requires Explorer to be preloaded fully
installed; only the installation program is installed on most new computers,
along with that for AOL, Compuserve, MSN, AT&T, and my own browser should I
suddenly become a programming genius.
}Yes, but the user sees what OS or applications is preloaded. And he or she
}will use that product.
Not by force, by choice. When I get a new PC, I request it with nothing
installed; a clean drive. Guess what? I get it that way, which kills your
theory about OEM contracts. I got my last home PC that way. If a user has
more than one setup icon for more than one browser, choice is available,
which undermines any monopoly theory. If most users still choose Explorer
4.01, then so be it. That's business.
}One of the points that DOJ is making is that they want MS to be enjoined
}from REQUIRING Explorer to be preloaded. In addition, they want it removed
from
}the OS and sold separately.
If the first part were true (it isn't), then DOJ would be behind the power
curve, or way ahead of the game. No OEMs require anything be installed that
I have noticed. Gateway, Dell, and Quantex have sold me computers recently,
and none of them seemed to balk at giving me clean machines, or even
dropping the price if I didn't want the bundled software.
}} 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
}seem pretty real to me. And yes, they ARE part of the current suit, which
}combines state and federal actions.
Ah, no. The federal suit is almost purely in regard to MS Explorer, using
the tactics and other issues as support for its case. All other trade
practice issues, as far as I can find, have already been dropped or settled.
State suits are so primordial right now, who knows what they are about.
}Trouble is, MS is using unfair tactics to MAINTAIN that monopoly. And that
}is not good.
As I said, those issues (and they did exist, I'll readily grant) have been
settled and are not justiciable. Again, there is no monopoly, and you
yourself have given testimony of existing heated competition to refute such
claims.
Lyan
Lavos999
}}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.
Try to do something other than repeat the party line, Shitcabbage.
Lavos999
}}
}}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?
No. If you believe Windows is a crappy OS, buy a Mac or install Linux or one of
the other OS'es, many of which are free. If you use Windows, you have chosen to
do so. No one forced you and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
}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.
That argument displays an abysmal level of ignorance of how the free market
works. I suggest you read some of the policy analyses at www.cato.org, a
respected free-market think tank. You may learn something. But of course, I
doubt that's your intention, is it Shitcabbage?
cal...@wavenet.com
RoboTorgo....A devout MST 3K viewer!...I purchased a copy of Manos..The Hands
of Fate and have viewed it numerous times...It is the Van Gogh of bad movie
making... :) Hilarious.
I've read that Intel has a 90% share of the market. The DOiJ really has them
in thier sights than for no other reasons than to give something for our
crappy bureaucrats in WA something to do. I have already posted a rant on
tha subject...you may want to read it...though some people condemned
it...probably didn't understand a word of it...
But it is true (a horrible word to speak around a preacher and a
politician)...The DOiJ and the FTC only see $$$ here...Intel is not a true
monopoly...for it consists of intellectual property and tech. and not
physical resources (which are de facto limited)...That is mute avenue unless
you think there isn't enough silicon to make a godzillion of those
things...Lets face it, the public wanted Intel chips eventhough they new of
many substitutes....Were they as good?...Well if you could fork out 3x as
much on an Alpha or a Fujitsu or a Samsung processor then maybe not...And if
you wanted to learn UNIX or become a Sysop...But certainly Cyrix and AMD and
NextGen and IDT have offer for some time lower priced products which were
designed to accomplish the same thing. In fact, the price differences
between these processors and Intel is/was wide enough to warrant
substitution. PowerPC and other Mac processors are just as easily bought
and found.
So now we all have our Renderers/Workstations and Intel has a monopoly! INTEL
probably has do more for the IQ of Americans than the sum of every PTA group
on the planet.
Intel is guilty solely of superior brainwashing... the general public into
thinking they needed a Pentium Inside logo somewhere onside the cardboard box
or printed on the reciept which they walked out the Computer Shop with. If
the DOiJ wanted to prevent this monopoly (which they didn't) they could have
placed limitations on how much advertising Intel did to make thier chips so
popular...but they didn't...because you Don't do that in
America...why?...because advertising and selling your fucken product IS THE
AMERICAN WAY! It called having a license to sell your product...supply and
demand. Its not a conspiracy.
Now aside from all the taxes and perks that our states received for all those
purchases of the Intel Inside Cardboard boxes, along with all the computer
peripherals they helped sell, the Feds want now to step in and excise MORE
money from yet another legitimate... Tobacco...Software...American-Made in
the USA...(well mostly) legal invention and enterprise...And for no other
reason than to eventually file suit...This is called the Frat. Club of
Superior Pencil Necks to which many of these money hungry lawyers belong.
Pulling the stings of these lawyers are family politician/cliques who have
been running the show for a long while...And though I myself am a
honky...they are all white Folk.
BECAUSE FALLIBLE HUMANS ALONE ARE RUNNING THE DAMN SHOW...NOT GOD...NOT "MUST
SEE TV" NOT BRUCE WILLIS OR THE MYTH OF THE BENEFICIENT FOREFATHERS...JUST
PEOPLE...WHO ARE FUNDAMENTAL EVIL AT HEART!...UNLESS THEY ARE RECOGNIZANT.
Come on folks...You should be able to see right through this one...With
Microsoft they might have good reason to file Anti-trust, Bill Gates is by
far a better entrepeneur than most...but with Intel...you and I are the ones
responsible for choosing the Pentium over the other chips...why? because we
called for it....we watch too much TV...we know all to little Electrical
Engineering....I know, I've seen enough of those machines.
What's (again) going on in the lawyer elite circle in this country...nepotism
and conspiracy to historically plunder... Some Joe wants to have as much
green as possible so he can spend it on his new car or mistress, or new work
of art... so he can end up dead with those hidden smiles on his kids
faces...He knows this certain asshole and that one... and they are using
thier position...which of course defines the phrase "behind the scenes"...
Were else youthinks they will end up, these ignoble creatures?... A place
with easy access to perform all this "meritorious" litigation... and for no
more than the they sake of thier penchant to sum Zer0s. Or maybe its just to
help convince themselves, that their lawyer degrees (to me a law degree is
tantamount to a handicap) are actually allowing them to go someplace in this
world. As if they weren't going die anyway.
How dispicable!...two or three geniuses invent the Warez and some half wit
liberal arts goof goes and tries to match this wit in a mahogany court
room. I've seen enough of these dorks to sum approximately "0" in authentic
usefulness. One the one hand they are not bright enough or willing to
dianose the epidemiology the mechanism of motion in this
society...brainwashed themselves....and then, when the virus hits the
fan...they start running out making money screwing the same people which they
invariably forced into a possition of subjugation through thier true latent
intent.
Do we American's think that just because we have passed civil rights statutes
and Internation trade acts... to mop up the sweat this morally bereft
business world....that The Jerk, or the son of The Jerk, has disappear and
stopped pushing his Wizard of OZ buttons, in turn enslaving us...The American
way is, it seems, to cultivate, to scatter, to construct...then to divide, to
conquer, and then screw up everything in our path from lack of insight.
There is such a huge engine of deception and lies out in this world that to
catalog all these petty sypmtoms...post facto...is absolute and utter
futility and foolishness.
I have some good advice for anybody in the DOiJ who wants to become an
economist...IF IS ISN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!
Ble!
Donald
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
HCCRR
In article <897040200$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
cal...@wavenet.com writes:
}
}RoboTorgo....A devout MST 3K viewer!...I purchased a copy of Manos..The Hands
}of Fate and have viewed it numerous times...It is the Van Gogh of bad movie
}making... :) Hilarious.
Another candidate for such is "Skydivers" or whatever that film was called.
Dr. Forester said that movie was like "Manos", just not as lucid.
RoboTorgo
In article <897040200$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
cal...@wavenet.com writes:
}RoboTorgo....A devout MST 3K viewer!...I purchased a copy of Manos..The Hands
}of Fate and have viewed it numerous times...It is the Van Gogh of bad movie
}making... :) Hilarious.
}
ThE MaStER WiLl SeE YoU NoW.
You should check out the Torgo screen saver. It plays the Haunting Torgo theme
while Torgo dashes across your screen. Well blunders across, actually.
cal...@wavenet.com
"I am Torgo, I take care of your screen while The Master is away. The Master
would not approve of burn in."
:)
Thx, Am surprised anyone would make the effort...actually its a pretty cool
SS...very close to the voice of Torgo.
‰
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum