Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:10:43 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, <des@des.no> Cc: Rob <bitabyss@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Chat <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>, Andrew Falanga <af300wsm@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKMEJFIPAC.davids@webmaster.com> In-Reply-To: <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCOEDMCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=20 > The real reason MS was there on trial was - da dum - that they were > price-setting the OPERATING SYSTEM prices. The argument was > that MS was a legal monopoly of operating systems and acting in > an anticompetitive fashion. Why the trial brought Netscape into the > trial at all is likely that it was a ploy to generate sympathy. That's funny because every source I have says that the Microsoft trial = started because Microsoft was accused of leveraging its Windows monopoly = to win the browser war. I could provide at least a dozen cites about = this, including quotes from the lawyer who convinced the DOJ to bring = the suit. But I know there's no point, because you'll say that even = though he said X, that doesn't prove that X is really why he did it. I'll bet you don't have one shred of evidence to support the claim that = the trial wasn't primarily motivated by this alleged use of leverage. =20 > It's still an open and shut case that MS is a monopoly of PC > operating system software. That's why they are currently regulated > by the EC in Europe. It's why the trial found them to be a monopoly. > Forcing them to "untie" the browser from the OS was a remedy that > was dreamed up - but, it really didn't answer the root problem > of removing their dominance in the OS market. Why is that a problem exactly? > Either way that MS would have responded to the assertion that the > IE push was to protect windows would have fucked them further. It's > a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. Please explain how responding "we gave IE away so we can charge for key = inclusion" would have harmed Microsoft. This seems like a perfectly = legitimate "give away the razor and sell the blades" approach. It = provides an explanation other than protecting Windows, which is exactly = what Microsoft would have watned. =20 > If MS claims that IE's push was to protect windows, then they > are just validating the opposition's thesis that a web browser > can make a computer operating system. If they deny it, then > the opposition says well then them giving away IE is illegal > dumping. This is a nonsensical argument. Selling a razor for less than cost to = make money on the blades or a printer for less than cost to make money = on ink is perfectly legitimate. Any argument that avoided a reference to = their Windows monopoly would have been a huge plus for MS. They raised = no such argument. You can argue that this could be because the secret was too valuable to = risk, but you can't argue that it wouldn't have helped MS. =20 > > The position I dispute: Microsoft pushed IE to get revenue from=20 > > root keys who pay millions to be listed. This is perfectly legal=20 > > and legitimate. > >=20 > > My position: Microsoft pushed IE because they saw Java and=20 > > Netscape as a threat to their Windows monopoly. =20 > Wrong. MS pushed IE to get money. Evidence? Oh right, you don't have any. (Although, of course, as stated = this claim is true. The question is by what mechanism this would make = money, and there's no evidence at all to support Ted's view.) It is amazing that you tie such a simple issue into such a crazy = conspiracy theory. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that anyone = recognized the revenue stream from root key inclusion during the browser = wars. If this is true, why can't Ted find a single mention of it?! Ted is arguing not just that someone recognized this but that it = actually motivated Microsoft. This despite no evidence from any source. DS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKMEJFIPAC.davids>