Subject:
|
Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:04:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
754 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:32:06 GMT, "Scott E. Sanburn"
<ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > Irrelevant to a court case. The law is the law, and if it is being
> > broken, it must be prosecuted. Not just ignorerd because some
> > politicians feel the law is unjust.
>
> Well, considering the law in this case is something crafted against
> monopolies, which IMHO, Microsoft did not do. When you lower prices on
> items, and produce a product, instead of raising prices, it is bad law.
> I think this whole case is government going after companies which they
> do not like. It is a political case, not a law breaking case.
Microsoft has 80%+ market share in the consumer OS market.
It is _by_bloody_definition_ a monopoly.
> > How would you feel if the second was effectively repealed in the way
Amendment, BTW.
> > you're apparently trying to get the antitrust laws to effectively be
> > repealed?
>
> I don't know what you are asking here. If it is truly an monopoly case
> or whatever, go for it. I don't think it was. It was all politics. The
> Justice department has been out of control, doing things it was never
> intended to, run by a woman who should not be there and an
> Administration that favors political minorities over qualifications.
> Janet Reno should have been ousted a long time ago, and shame on the
> Republican majority that did not do so. (I.E. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.)
> this whole Microsoft thing is the same.
Kenn Starr should have been fired a long time before all the trouble
started. If I didn't know better, I'd think he did it all just to get
rid of the office of independent DA.
> > But it isn't. Lego is not a monopoly, and what's a lot more important,
> > it doesn't do monopolistic practices.
>
> That was just a joke, BTW!
Yes... and that's just why it's so good to go deadpan ahead and
disprove it pereferably while making other point(s).
> Well, that is another area, I was referring to the Justice Department
> going after Microsoft for a Monopoly. The market made Microsoft what it
> is today, brought about by the need for a standard. If Microsoft did do
> some things wrong, that is one thing, as mentioned above. I don't think
> they have.
It is impossible to deny that MS have a monopoly, right? Don't come
back with "the market made them what they are" or "there's nothing
wrong with that", please. I know all that.
A monopoly is not evil in and of itself. However, a monopoly position
givces you great power. If you abuse that power to strangle the
market, that is a bad thing for gross overall productivity, GNP, and
the economy.
Can you agree that these are true? Then we can go argue over the only
real issue, namely, "did microsoft abuse its monopoly?".
> Tell me a product that does better than Microsoft, who can compete with
> them, and have all the software to support it. UNIX? Linux? Computer
There is none. That is exactly the problem.
> software is an instance where you need a universal standard. An IBM-PC
> Clone and Microsoft are it. I have been working on computers since I was
But that's just it. You _don't_ need a universal standard. I refer you
to dozens of varieties of UNIX, produced by companies and individuals
across the globe, across social strata, etc, which all interoperate
_better_ than Windows NT does with Windows 98.
Why can't Microsoft's OS interoperate on the internet, following the
established standards for communication? Because they _deliberately_
and _maliciously_ introduce variations from the standard into the way
they communicate.
> 4, and I can remember the days when there was IBM DOS, Radio Shack DOS,
I first operated a computer when I was 2. It was a Z80 at 1 MHz with
64 Kbyte of memory and two single-sided-single-density 5 1/4" drives,
which ran CP/M. That was state of the art in business PCs for the
time, in 1981.
I know I certainly don't beat _everyone_ on the
"when-I-first-used-computers" DSW, but I seem to have you beat.
> OS/2, Apple IIe BASIC, Commodare 64, etc. etc. etc. I also remember the
> nightmare of configuring boot disks, operating systems, autoexec.bat and
> config.sys, for multiple software packages just to run it. A total
Which was pretty simple, actually.
> nightmare. Microsoft came in, and took care of that. I don't seem a
> quarter of the time doing that anymore.
Microsoft came in, made like they had a solution, had everyone switch
to it, and then 5 years later they finally had a solution.
I've never seen any UNIX need to be reconfigured for a new software
package, BTW. And may I remind you that MS-DOS, well, wasn't exactly
from anyone else than MS?
> > And well she should be. Microsoft has been doing Evil things.
>
> Oh yes, "EVIL" things. It makes me really sad when people, such as you,
> are HAPPY when the government can effectively destroy one of the most
> successful companies ever made. It is really sad.
MS has been successful over the backs of _everyone_ in the western
world. They have essentially stolen money (in the form of labour as
well as direct costs) from us all.
> Yeah, like what? All the programs I have been using for years have
> vastly IMPROVED since the Microsoft Windows standard came into place,
> like AutoCad, for instance. And others.
Oh, yeah. Next you're going to tell me that there's a causal link.
Well, I've got news for you: up til version 12 or so, AutoCADs *nix
version worked a hell of a lot better than the DOS one.
I've worked with both.
After that, I don't know, cause I don't use it anymore.
> How? I don't see this, I see a boom in software readiness and
> reliability, and better and faster programs. Maybe you are referring to
> something I don't notice.
Software readiness and reliability is _way_ lower on NT, let alone
Win9x, than on DOS. The programs are _not_ faster, far from it, they
are running on far faster hardware and are _still_ slower in real
measurements (saving a file, opening one, etc.) than, for example, WP
5.1 on DOS. My father has used WP 5.1 DOS, and before that 4.2 on DOS
3.3, for literally well over a decade. In that time he's had the
program crash on him maybe a dozen times.
MS Word on Windows NT Workstation crashes how often?
> Well, lets see, Al Gore "Whose FINGER do you want on the
> CONTROL-ALT-DELETE Button, for starters.
What's your problem? Gore is for one not involved with the trial,
being neither attorney, nor prosecutor, nor judge, nor jury, and for
another I see no problem with that statement.
Yes, he says finger and button instead of plurals. So plodding what?
He's speaking conversationally, not writing a technical manual.
> The judge in this case, when it
> started (Saw it on CNN), had to have the attorneys demonstrate how to
> operate and use a computer. And yet he is supposed to understand the
> dynamics of this case? I'm sorry, that is a factor to consider.
The judge is not _required_, or even _supposed_, to know about things
like that. That's what expert witnesses are for. And believe me,
Microsoft has some _great_ expert witnesses on their side.
> > The judge? If you're saying he doesn't
> > know how to use computers, and how that is relevant to the case, I'd
> > like to see documentation.
>
> See above.
How is it relevant?
> Well, Jasper, leftists like you seem to be in love with the idea of
> government officials blasting away at corporations for anything, from
> the environment, to wages, etc. but for me, it is a scary presedent, and
Nitpick: Precedent.
> This whole case was involving, initially, Microsofts addition of
> Internet Explorer to the Windows 95 / 98 platform, started by Microsofts
Actually, it was about Microsofts' attempts to claim that it was
_impossible_ to remove it without removing functionality from the OS,
and its blatant abuse of its monopolistic powers in _not_ allowing
OEMs to sell PCs without Windows on them and not allowing them to sell
PCs with windows but without explorer.
MS has also at various times (as far as anyone can tell)
_deliberately_ sabotaged www.microsoft.com to be inaccessible with
Netscape or a Unix browser.
> competitors, namely Sun Microsystems, Netscape, and Corell
> (Wordperfect). The presidents of these firms also happen to be big
> contributors to the DNC and Clinton / Gore. Then it just happens to find
> Microsoft doing all these "EVIL" things, as you see. It's politics and
> government interference, plain and simple. Not cracking down on "EVIL"
> Corporations doing "EVIL" things. Selling out to the CHI-Comm's, adn
> giving them nuclear ballistic missile technology, I consider that EVIL.
This is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY irrelevant.
Jesus, man, get out of your bloody ivory tower and realise that a
court case has _nothing_ to do with politicians?
Oh, and get yourself a sig delimiter already.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| (...) Just a quickie here: This definition isn't "bloody": (URL) but I didn't see 80% mentioned in it. Rather, I saw the use of "exclusive" pretty much exclusively. 80% isn't exclusive, it isn't even close. So 80% share is NOT a monopoly. It's (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| Jasper, (...) Well, considering the law in this case is something crafted against monopolies, which IMHO, Microsoft did not do. When you lower prices on items, and produce a product, instead of raising prices, it is bad law. I think this whole case (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
