Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 18:15:34 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Brett Glass" <brett@lariat.org> Cc: <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <000601bf348f$75b754e0$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991121182842.0471cd10@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> At 05:24 PM 11/21/1999 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > Stac doesn't do disk compression for Windows 98, so the above > > > is absurd. > > > > Err, right. That's why Stac is out of the market. If > they provided a > >superior product for the operating systems that people wanted to > use, they'd > >still be here. > > Bull. They were killed by predatory pricing. Technological superiority > makes little difference when an inferior product is free -- as we've > seen in the cases of Netscape, Stac, Quarterdeck, and others. Price is one of the factors that you have to compare when you determine if something is superior or not. Obviously, we could all have superior computers if price weren't a factor. If the 'inferior' product is cheaper than the 'superior' product, and this price difference overwhelms any feature difference, then it's obvious which product is really superior. And it really doesn't matter to the consumer who provides it (at least, from an antitrust standpoint). So long as the consumer gets the benefit, then all is well. > > > Again, a disingenuous comparison. QEMM did not do the same sort of > > > memory management as Windows 98. > > > > Right. That's exactly my point. > > In that case, you've mysteriously changed your "point" since your > previous message. My point is that consumers have gained the benefits of all of these products. When a competitor points out a deficiency in a Microsoft product, Microsoft acts to correct the deficiency. This is one way consumers benefit from 'failed' competition. > > > Microsoft's EMM386 -- the correct > > > program to which one should compare QEMM -- was markedly inferior, > > > and supplanted QEMM only because it was free. > > > > Right, but QEMM still survived, because it was superior. > > QEMM was still sold for awhile, but not in sufficient volume to sustain > the company. Its empty shell was bought by Symantec. Microsoft drove > Quarterdeck out of business. Right, by providing a better combination of costs and features. Consumers reaped the benefit of this competition, as they are supposed to. Antitrust law does not protect competitors. > > > Microsoft likewise > > > bundled Helix's optimizer for free so as to kill Quarterdeck's > > > best-selling product and thus prevent DESQview and DESQview/X from > > > ever challenging Windows. > > > > I don't understand this argument. Sometimes leverage is > bad, sometimes it's > >good. > > Non sequitur. > > >And you change off how it suits you. If Microsoft using Windows to > >leverage IE is bad, why is Quarterdeck using QEMM to leverage > DESQview good? > > Netscape eventually expected to make a profit from DESQview. Microsoft > simply wanted to put Netscape out of business. And Microsoft was > (and is!) a monopoly. Monopoly leverage is illegal. Are you saying that Microsoft has no intention of making a profit from IE? If so, what's their goal? > >> Not so, especially from a security standpoint. IE is riddled with > > > DANGEROUS security problems. > > > > You are the only one who thinks this. > > Geeze, now I *really* wonder what you've been smoking. If there was > previously any doubt that you are being paid by Microsoft to natter > in and disrupt this forum, the above surely removes it. Please, show me the browser shootouts that conclude, "In our opinion, IE is inferior to Netscape due to its myriad security problems". Put up or shut up. And please, stop the slander. > > > Alas, Netscape was shut down by Microsoft's predatory tactics. The > > > shell of the company was bought by AOL, primarily for its portal > > > and peripherally so that AOL could avoid total dependence on > > > Microsoft's browser by keeping Navigator barely alive. > > > > Umm, it had nothing to do with any predatory tactics. > It had everything to > >do with IE being a better browser. > > Utter nonsense. Again, read the judge's Findings of Fact. I have. Remember, that was the starting point. > >And as I explained, using predatory > >tactics to replace a superior product with an inferior one gains nothing. > > Bull. In Microsoft's case, it preserved the applications barrier to entry. What do you mean by "applications barrier to entry"? > >The onlything a predator has to gain is the difference in value > between the > >two products. > > Utter nonsense, again. What Microsoft had to gain was the > maintenance of its > monopoly and of barriers to entry in the OS market. *sigh* I don't think you're even listening. Where are the barriers to entry in the OS market? What stopped FreeBSD? What stopped Linux? > > You are the master of ad hominem, Brett. If you'd like, > write out any sort > >of statement that says that Microsoft has never paid for me any public > >statement I have made. Mail it to: > > > > David Schwartz > > 1455-E Foxworth Avenue, PMB 118 > > San Jose, CA 95118 > > > > I will sign it, notorize it, and mail it back to you. > > I wouldn't believe you even if you did this. Right. No matter how much contrary evidence is slapped in your face, you are convinced that nobody could possibly disagree with you unless someone paid them to. > > I would also suggest you stop the slander here. In my > capacity as Director > >of Software Development for WebMaster, Incorporated, I sometimes have to > >recommend various platforms to my customers. If people believed your > >nonsense, that could compromise my ability to do that. And it wouldn't > >surprise me if investigation into legal action would follow. > > > > So if you wish to continue to raise this allegation, I > strongly suggest you > >back it up with evidence. > > People will always judge for themselves, of course. But I'd say > that you're making > a far better case, via your own postings, than I ever POSSIBLY > could. It's you > who are irreparably damaging your reputation, not me. Then I'll thank you to stop slandering me and to allow others to judge for themselves. 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?000601bf348f$75b754e0$021d85d1>