Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:04:04 -0800
From:      "David Schwartz" <>
To:        "Erick White" <>
Cc:        <>
Subject:   RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit"
Message-ID:  <000001bf2ff8$63026740$>
In-Reply-To: <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > "David Schwartz" <> writes:
> > >
> > > >         When you are dealing with an anti-trust case, you are
> > > > looking to find, and fix, monopoly harm. The theory is that a
> > > > monopoly is capable of doing things that a more competitive
> > > > market would not allow. The three chief types of monopoly harm
> > > > are reduced quality, reduced output, and increased prices.
> > > >
> > > >         The part that I was talking about was increased prices. So
> > > > the question is, is the price of Windows high because Microsoft
> > > > enjoys a monopoly position and could charge whatever it wants.
> > > > And my answer was, no, because the price of Windows is
> > > > reasonable considering the effort expended to develop it, market
> > > > it, maintain it, support it, and research future developments.
> > >
> > > Microsoft considered those factors, calculated a reasonable price,
> > > and then decided to nearly double that price simply because the
> > > lack of a competitive market allowed them to.
> >
> > 	Right, because if they don't maximize revenue, they won't
> be able to do the
> > research needed to keep Windows competitive. The software market is
> > sufficiently dynamic that Windows has to become almost an entirely new
> > product every two years to maintain its status as market leader.
> 	Excuse me. No really EXCUSE ME, as in listen what everyone is
> telling you and what is outlined in the findings of fact. Microsoft is not
> using there money on research for these products included in the OS, they
> are stealing the ideas, making a poor substitute for what they replace on
> MOST of their applications, programs, etc... The bar they are only meeting
> not raising and keeping others from raising it as well, in the equivelent
> of what someone so elequintly put it as racketeering on top of the anti
> trust.

	In other words, even though Microsoft's products suck, people still buy
them for some inexplicable reason. People are so stupid that they buy these
inferior products. Of course, you are smarter than everyone else and can see
through Microsoft's sham. So you will do everyone a favor by saving them
from their own stupidity. We should all be so grateful to you. Thank god we
have you and the government to save us from the crafty Bill Gates. You guys
are so much smarter than we are.

> Research? The feild test their products not even fully finish the
> job to begin with in the programming department. Their not spending their
> money by and large on research, their using it to cannibilize other
> threats to their products, and then crush them into powder as the company
> throws its money behind it. Their letting other companies do the research
> for them, then they try to crush them once they see what they need for a
> bare minimum to drive out the compitition with a cat o nine tails. What
> they have been doing, and doing for YEARS is letting the compition test
> the waters, once it realizes that it is a threat it comes up with a
> "solution" for what it did not think up did not create, and then continues
> on its merry way.. Nuh Uh.. not good.... Reread your facts.

	Yes, that's extremely efficient. That way they (and their customers) get
the benefit of the innovations without having to pay for them. That's great.
That's extreme market efficiency.

	A company can have all the ideas in the world, but if they can't turn it
into a product that consumers actually want to buy, it won't amount to a
hill of beans. Microsoft excels at turning ideas into marketable products.
And that's what the market wants -- products, not ideas.

	Ideas were once a dime a dozen, now they're $1 a bale in 10,000 idea bales.
The market doesn't buy ideas.

> > > Paragraph 62:
> > >      Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the
> > >      proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market
> > >      for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's
> > >      decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel-
> > >      compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of
> > >      Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. One
> > >      would expect a firm in a competitive market to pay much closer
> > >      attention to the prices charged by other firms in the
> market. [...]
> >
> > 	Actually, they Microsoft's pricing is consistent with a
> firm that needs to
> > spend massive amounts on research and development to keep its products
> > competitive. Yes, they maximize revenue (as every firm does)
> primarily to
> > allow them to maintain Window's competitiveness. This is far
> different from
> > the type of price raising that is monopoly harm.
> 	Refer to what I, and everyone else is telling you above this
> point. No research, just conquering.

	Excuse me. Do you happen to know how much money Microsoft spend developing
Windows 2000?

> It is monopoly harm, becouse what
> their taking credit for was actually researched, updated, run, and
> designed by someone else's brain.

	*sigh* What the hell does credit have to do with anything? Who designed

> 	I will grant you that they do do some research, and a few of their
> products are actually well done and made... but that is few and far
> between, and not something included in the OS at the start. The research
> money it does should be from the things it is actually creating. Just...
> open your eyes man.

	In every market where they have been successful, from operating systems to
browsers, they have done it by providing superior products. Really. In every
market where they have provided inferior products, they have failed. Really.

	Consider IE. Since versions 4.0 of IE and Netscape came out, pretty much
every reviewer has concluded that IE is superior. However, Microsoft Money
has been judged inferior. Look at the relative market share meters and draw
your own conclusions.

	People aren't stupid. Bill Gates is not that smart. He can't make people
buy things that won't do what people want. People are just too smart. They
read reviews, they consider other products, they look at what other people
are buying, they look at what might become available in the future, and they
make the best decision they know how to. Why do you think you know better
than they do?

> >
> > > Paragraph 63:
> > >      Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that
> Microsoft felt that
> > >      it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows
> > >      98 upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to
> > >      existing users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from
> > >      November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged
> > >      $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98  there is no reason to
> >
> > 	Would does this "could have charged" mean? They could have
> given it away
> > for free.
> 	Yes they could of done it for free, but your grasping at straws
> here. They would still have made a killing.

	Yes, I agree. It's entirely possible that $0 would be the revenue
maximizing price. Not even Microsoft has a perfectly clear crystal ball.
They guess.

> Still have made quite a bit of
> money, but they are doing harm to the market by basicaly charging you
> double for the same 90 percent of the source code.

	Then don't buy it. It's really that simple. If it ain't worth it, don't buy
it. If it's worth it, stop bitching. Just please, stop telling other people
that you know what's good for them better than they do.

> I mean I have on
> another computer Windows95 C second release... and you know what? It is
> almost exactly like 98, their is VERY few differences, and if you downloud
> upgrades to the pack... then you pretty much have Win98, without paying a
> dime more...

	Then don't upgrade. Nobody puts a gun to your head.

	Fact is, people do upgrade. Why? Because Bill Gates is able to outsmart the
rest of the world and brainwash us all into thinking Windows is good when
it's not? Please. The fact is, today, Windows does what most people want.
That's why they buy it.

> > >      believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable  but
> > >      the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price.
> > >      Microsoft thus opted for the higher price.
> >
> > 	I'm not sure I believe that. Personally, I think Microsoft
> set the price
> > far above the revenue-maximizing price. Heck, the more people who use
> > Windows the more people they can sell Microsoft office too, right?
> >
> > 	Of course, every company sets its prices at the
> revenue-maximizing price.
> > If Microsoft didn't do that, their management should be fired.
> The biggest
> > balancing factor for Microsoft is that the more expensive
> Windows is, the
> > more incentive there is to market and develop alternatives to it.
> >
> > 	To the extent that Windows is a monopoly, it is a temporary
> one. Much as
> > vinyl records were a monopoly for awhile, soon replaced by
> cassette tapes,
> > now replaced by CDs, and probably soon to be replaced by some
> other format.
> > Microsoft will do everything possible to maximize the amount of time its
> > operating systems matter, but ultimately, there will be nothing
> it can do --
> > it will have to invent a new product or lose its market share.
> >
> 	Here is the primary flaw with your thinking. Your assuming that
> those who made the vinyl records didn't have money to squash those making
> tapes and keep those from taking hold, and advancing technology, and they
> viynl records weren't exactgly exclusively owned by one company either.

	Oh, believe me, they tried. And those making newer technologies try to
supplant the older technology. So the question is, who will win? The old
technology or the new?

> M$
> has proven that they have the money and power base to squash other
> technologies in the computer feild as far as the larger field is
> concerned.

	If the competing technologies are truly better, than they should be able to
find better financing. If you can't convince an investor that they're
better, they probably really aren't. I tell Engineers that investors are the
litmus test of how good their ideas are, since investors specialize in
knowing what ideas really are good enough to work.

	If you had an idea that was really better than Microsoft's, that should
give you enough of an advantage to take a sizeable market share. If the
better idea isn't winning, look long and hard at whether it's really better.

> The reason why free UNIX's can run on it is becouse, being a
> not for profit operating system.... well the definition is close enough,
> it CAN NOT BE INFLUENCED by "Pa Bill" becouse it can't be denied money for
> its developers.

	Ask people why they use Windows instead of FreeBSD. I guarantee you one
thing they won't say is because Microsoft is so powerful and impressive that
they have to buy Windows even though it doesn't do what they want. Think
about it - that's really what you're trying to convince me of.

> > 	This is not the type of monopoly that the anti-trust laws
> were meant to
> > prevent. They were supposed to stop a static monopoly, where a
> company can
> > charge whatever it wants and sell whatever it wants. Microsoft can't do
> > that.
> >
> > 	DS
> >
> 	Microsoft has and does do this, it can charge whatever it wants
> just like the price outlay for the new joke win2000.

	Sure, and I don't have to buy it. Any manufacturer can charge any price
they want for a product. What they can't do is make people buy it if it
isn't worth the price.

> It pretty much
> dominates the PC industry, and strong arms anyone else that tries to
> improve, thus being able to control, charge, and sell, whatever it wants.

	Yes, but a company with superior technology wouldn't need to brainwash
anyone. If it really had a better product, it would eventually take over the
marketplace. Really.

	There is nothing anyone can do to hold down a truly superior technology
other than to outlaw it. Those with the superior technology have an
advantage that those without it don't have. It's simply cheaper to embrace
the better technology than to fight it.

> Wake up buddy boy, its doing it right now... and your too brainwashed at
> the present moment to notice!

	Your superior attitude towards everyone is insulting. I will leave you with
a quote that I posted previously from T.J. Rodgers who is the CEO of Cypress
Semiconductor: "Despite my Stanford Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, it
seems I was duped into buying 3,000 copies of Microsoft Windows by crafty
Bill Gates." I suppose you really believe that.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <$63026740$021d85d1>