Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:26:12 -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: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEFJIPAC.davids@webmaster.com> In-Reply-To: <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCOEDLCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Don't be foolish. Microsoft would have lost the case if they > had admitted the real reasons for what they did. It isn't to > MS's benefit to reveal anything about the real reasons they > do a thing. That's true, but that completely undercuts your argument. Giving IE away = to get revenue for listing root certificates would have been a perfectly = legitimate tactic. It would have had *NOTHING* to do with leveraging = their Windows monopoly. If Microsoft had been motivated as you claim, = saying so would have been a brilliant trial strategy. It was the other side that claimed that Microsoft's IE push was to = protect Windows. Microsoft had no counter argument. =20 > MS had a large campaign going to misdirect to world. Initially > it was to their advantage to get the world to believe that they > didn't understand the Internet. In that way, the young Internet > startup companies would spend their money fighting each other > rather than uniting against Microsoft. >=20 > It's obvious MS knew from the beginning the importance of the > Internet. How quickly you forget TCP/IP and Window for Workgroups. > How quickly you forget the addition of the TCP/IP protocol to the > DOS/Lanmanager MS client. Even then, MS was working to deny > funding to the likes of Trumpet Winsock and suchlike by giving > away the Shiva TCP/IP client in the IE for Windows 3.1 That is *my* claim. How do you think this disagrees with what I'm = saying? =20 > Later on it became obvious to even a monkey that the Internet > was important, so it wouldn't have been believable to maintain > that campaign. So they changed gears and started using Internet > as a red herring. >=20 > MS did NOT want the attention focused on how they managed to > engineer the Offie Applications market to become a monopoly. Nor > did they want attention focused on how they managed to arm-twist all > PC manufacturers into selling PC's with Windows preloaded. As > a result, the court didn't really address those issues. Maybe true, but that has nothing to do with *this* issue. =20 > Even today look at what goes on in the PC market. It is almost > impossible to buy a low-end PC WITHOUT windows on it. Your paying > for that copy of Windows even if you immediately take the machine > home and wipe it. =20 > The anti-trust court should have banned the practice of forcing > the consumer to pay for Windows, they should have mandated that > ALL pc sales listed Windows as an optional line item the customer > could choose to not pay for. It would have been simple to do. > You walk into the computer store, and when you buy the PC if you > say you want Windows an extra $50 or whatever is slapped onto the > purchase price, and you get a serial number you key into the PC > when you start it up. If you say no, you don't get the serial number > and when you start the PC if you don't install the number, the > system deletes Windows. Lose one argument, start another one? What do you think this has to do = with *anything* I said? To recap: The position I dispute: Microsoft pushed IE to get revenue from root = keys who pay millions to be listed. This is perfectly legal and = legitimate. My position: Microsoft pushed IE because they saw Java and Netscape as a = threat to their Windows monopoly. =20 > Microsoft was very worried that the trial would focus on this and > they would end up with this as a ruling. So, they engineered > the focus on their destruction of Netscape. Everyone followed > along and forgot about the preload situation. Which has zero to do with anything I said. DS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEFJIPAC.davids>