Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 10:07:17 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com>, tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, <chat@freebsd.org>, Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <15369.53.739857.967952@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <000c01c17a7c$4de06710$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <000301c17a40$8fc78dc0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <010d01c17a44$98b491e0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C08A204.3CA7014C@mindspring.com> <002e01c17a5f$f2b34040$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <000c01c17a7c$4de06710$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types: > > I frankly cannot understand this attitude. > The attitude derives from actually examining the facts and reading things like > court decisions, as opposed to jumping on an emotion-powered bandwagon without > bother to think for oneself. I have no intrinsic desire to love or hate > Microsoft; I simply try to see things as they actually are. It is abundantly > clear to even (and perhaps esepcially) Microsoft's competitors that the success > of MS is almost entirely the consequence of sound business decisions, not > illegal or unethical maneuvering. Just for the record, I claim to be unbiased in this case. My political convictions are that antitrust law is in and of itself is a bad thing. On the other hand, I can see where Microsofts business practices have cost me money. > And that is precisely the case. They were not convicted of any such thing. The > Court found specific violations of the Sherman act in relation to the placement > of Microsoft software on OEM machines, and with respect to the installation of > Microsoft's browser. It did not find that Microsoft attained the position it > holds today through any illegal actions, although it speculates that--in the > specific case of browser dominance--Microsoft's violations _may_ have had an > influence on the outcome of things. This is correct. The is correct - in order to violate the Sherman act, you have to exercise monopoly power. If you aren't a monopoly, you can't violate the act. How you got that power isn't discussed at all. In Microsofts case, their basis for their monopoly was telling IBM they had something they didn't, then turning around and buying it from someone else for a fraction of it's real value. That put them in a position of dominance, and they have been using that position illegally ever since. It was their continuing inability to behave in a manner legal for a monopoly that caused the breakup order to be issued. > One of the first rules of law is to avoid discussing any decision you haven't > read. One which I'm following. Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> types: > > The same claim has been made about every company in history that ever reached a > > position of leadership. Some people just resent the fact that other > > persons/companies are more competent or successful than they are, and cannot > > accept the possibility that the success of the latter could be do to anything > > except some sort of cheating. > Counter examples include: > IBM Won the disk drive market fairly and squarely > instead of by dumping to pu CDC out of the > disk business. And after they won the market, they were found guilty of violating the Sherman act when the started playing shell games with the controller interface. > Standard Oil Owned gas stations not to force all people to > buy only their product, but instead because it > was just good business sense. Which is one of the reasons I find antitrust generally distasteful. It gets applied to companies that are operating in an ethical manner even though they do dominate the industry. > AT&T Controlled the telephone industry, from the > copper mining to the wire ducting to the > manufacture of the chairs in which operators > sat, in order to make the world a better place. > Oh. Wait... I take it you noticed that the government *gave* AT&T that monopoly, right? <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. 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?15369.53.739857.967952>