Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:31:02 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: <davids@webmaster.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: <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCMEDOCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKMEJFIPAC.davids@webmaster.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:11 AM > To: tedm@toybox.placo.com; des@des.no > Cc: Rob; FreeBSD Chat; Andrew Falanga > Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use >=20 >=20 > =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. >=20 > That's funny because every source I have says that the Microsoft=20 > trial started because Microsoft was accused of leveraging its=20 > Windows monopoly to win the browser war. I could provide at least=20 > a dozen cites about this, including quotes from the lawyer who=20 > convinced the DOJ to bring the suit. But I know there's no point,=20 > because you'll say that even though he said X, that doesn't prove=20 > that X is really why he did it. >=20 > I'll bet you don't have one shred of evidence to support the=20 > claim that the trial wasn't primarily motivated by this alleged=20 > use of leverage. > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm "...II The Relevant Market Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the = near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could = substitute for Intel-compatible PC OPERATING SYSTEMS... ...Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the = relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC OPERATING = SYSTEMS..." ...Section 412...Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's = actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate = in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, = Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use = its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that = insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against = one of Microsoft's CORE PRODUCTS...." Now, was there a big hue and cry in the finding of fact concerning = browsers? Certainly. However, the web browser was never a Microsoft core product. = I will also point out that the fundamental argument in the fact finding = was that Netscape was charging and Microsoft started giving away a web browser = for free, forcing Netscape to give theirs away for free - all of this = completely ignores that the Netscape code was originally free code, copied from NCSA, and that there were other free web browsers besides Netscape and IE available a the time. In other words, the court was bashing = Microsoft for giving away a browser for free to compete against another company = that simply took free open source browser AND server code and started = charging money for it. That is why the fact finding DID NOT state that the most harmful was = that MS misused the so-called browser market. The entire "MS is bad because they pushed Netscape out of business" argument only makes sense in the context of the times - when a lot of people like you were running around claiming a web browser was an operating system. The original market was NOT defined as a browser market - it was defined as an OPERATING SYSTEM market - and the "most harmful" actions of Microsoft to the market = concerned their CORE PRODUCTS - which at the time were PC OPERATING SYSTEMS. Thomas Penfield Jackson knew at the time that a finding of fact that MS was a monopoly in the BROWSER market would not hold up. So he = carefully penned a finding that WOULD hold up - one that's foundations rested on anticompetitive behavior in the OPERATING SYSTEM market - with a lot of Netscape web browser window dressing merely as evidence that MS was a nasty company. The fact of the matter is that the succeeding judge Colleen = Kollar-Kotelly is ignorant of how the computer market works, and is merely a mouthpiece for conservatives. She didn't reverse the findings of fact since she did not have the knowledge of how the market works to understand them. Instead she just issued a remedy that did practically nothing. =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. >=20 > Why is that a problem exactly? >=20 You know, at this point I'm just going to end this. If you still don't understand why a single computer operating system being the dominant PC operating system is a problem, you are a lost cause, and frankly, your statement has almost certainly killed your credibility with anyone running an operating system other than Windows. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCMEDOCFAA.tedm>