Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:14:40 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Jamie Bowden" <ragnar@sysabend.org> Cc: "Brett Glass" <brett@lariat.org>, <angussf@geoapps.com>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <001901bf2d4a$8d01f9d0$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911120610490.11475-100000@moo.sysabend.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> :
> :> So? Most software companies aren't an OS monopoly using that
> position to
> :> force their non OS products down the throats of the world.
> :
> : Yes, Microsoft is a monpoly in the Alice-in-Wonderland
> world where Netscape
> :Navigator competes with Windows but Macintoshes don't.
>
> Reread the findings. Netscape does not compete with Windows, Netscape
> attempted to compete with IE, and M$ killed Netscape through the abuse of
> it's OS monopoly.
Aren't you forgetting the part about how Netscape was supposedly trying to
make Windows irrelevant? Is that not competition? (See findings 72, 76, and
77)
Aren't you forgetting the part about how Netscape became unable to compete
with IE because of it's loss of market share? So a mass of people using the
same browser is fine if it's Netscape, but wrong if it's IE. (See 89, 361,
362)
Before you ask me to reread the findings, perhaps you should read them.
> :> The DoJ isn't
> :> using Joe Programmers email against microsoft, they're using Chairman
> :> Gates', and his cadre of president's and vice-president's mail against
> :> them. If they don't represent the reasons and motives behind
> M$, who the
> :> hell does?
> :
> : Really, no one. That's why, in general, the standard for
> evaluating the
> :reasons for a businesses' conduct are essentially that of the
> 'best possible
> :reason'. In other words, to conclude that an action was
> specifically taken
> :solely for an anticompetitive purpose, it generally must be
> established that
> :there's no other legitimate business purpose why the action
> could have been
> :taken.
>
> You're high. It doesn't matter if there are other accompanying reasons.
> Abuse of power is abuse of power. They crushed Netscape for no other
> reason than because Netscape didn't want to play in MS's sandbox.
Yes, and they crushed it by putting out a superior product. What is wrong
with that?
> It's
> the same thing they attempted to do to Quicken years ago.
Yes, and the failed. Do you know why? Because Quicken was _better_ than
Microsoft's product. Even Microsoft can't force consumers to buy something
that doesn't do what they want.
> MS has not
> changed, and will not change unless forced.
Of course not. And thanks to them, we have an incredibly competitive
computer software industry.
> They are getting their just
> deserts. The stuff coming out of the Caldera/DRI suit is just more
> showing of how MS either buys it's competition, or leverages it's power to
> make them irrelevant. That is in fact harmful to the indusrty and
> consumers.
Harmful to the industry? You mean harmful to companies that try to sell
inferior products and technology.
Harmful to consumers? Please -- show me any evidence of monopoly harm to
consumers. (Do you know what monopoly harm is? Or am I wasting my breath?)
Show me reduced output. Show me higher prices. Show me reduced quality.
All I see is intense competition.
> : Even individuals often explain their motivations
> inaccurately. This is why
> :we really don't have any 'pure intent' crimes, except perhaps
> for attempted
> :assassination.
>
> Fortunately, corporates are virtual entities whose mind exists on memos
> and peices of e-mail. There's no ambiguity in one executive telling
> another executive that they are going to kill the competition ('We need to
> smile when we pull the trigger' in ref. to Novell).
Yes, there is an ambiguity, because that person is not the company. And in
any event, killing the competition is what companies are supposed to do. Our
antritrust laws exist to _ensure_ the most vigorous competition possible.
> Judge Jackson has determined that:
>
> 1) Microst has an Operating Systems Monopoly in the intel x86 based PC
> market.
>
> 2) They have used that monopoly to remove competition on the application
> level.
>
> 3) That's a violation of Sherman.
>
> This ain't rocket science.
No, it's an incredible oversimplification.
DS
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001901bf2d4a$8d01f9d0$021d85d1>