From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 19 22:30:07 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FAB16A41A for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7617C13C46B for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from TEDSDESK (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lBJMU031096332; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:30:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: , Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:31:02 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Cc: Rob , FreeBSD Chat , Andrew Falanga Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:30:07 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:11 AM > To: tedm@toybox.placo.com; des@des.no > Cc: Rob; FreeBSD Chat; Andrew Falanga > Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use >=20 >=20 > =20 > > The real reason MS was there on trial was - da dum - that they were > > price-setting the OPERATING SYSTEM prices. The argument was > > that MS was a legal monopoly of operating systems and acting in > > an anticompetitive fashion. Why the trial brought Netscape into the > > trial at all is likely that it was a ploy to generate sympathy. >=20 > That's funny because every source I have says that the Microsoft=20 > trial started because Microsoft was accused of leveraging its=20 > Windows monopoly to win the browser war. I could provide at least=20 > a dozen cites about this, including quotes from the lawyer who=20 > convinced the DOJ to bring the suit. But I know there's no point,=20 > because you'll say that even though he said X, that doesn't prove=20 > that X is really why he did it. >=20 > I'll bet you don't have one shred of evidence to support the=20 > claim that the trial wasn't primarily motivated by this alleged=20 > use of leverage. > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm "...II The Relevant Market Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the = near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could = substitute for Intel-compatible PC OPERATING SYSTEMS... ...Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the = relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC OPERATING = SYSTEMS..." ...Section 412...Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's = actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate = in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, = Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use = its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that = insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against = one of Microsoft's CORE PRODUCTS...." Now, was there a big hue and cry in the finding of fact concerning = browsers? Certainly. However, the web browser was never a Microsoft core product. = I will also point out that the fundamental argument in the fact finding = was that Netscape was charging and Microsoft started giving away a web browser = for free, forcing Netscape to give theirs away for free - all of this = completely ignores that the Netscape code was originally free code, copied from NCSA, and that there were other free web browsers besides Netscape and IE available a the time. In other words, the court was bashing = Microsoft for giving away a browser for free to compete against another company = that simply took free open source browser AND server code and started = charging money for it. That is why the fact finding DID NOT state that the most harmful was = that MS misused the so-called browser market. The entire "MS is bad because they pushed Netscape out of business" argument only makes sense in the context of the times - when a lot of people like you were running around claiming a web browser was an operating system. The original market was NOT defined as a browser market - it was defined as an OPERATING SYSTEM market - and the "most harmful" actions of Microsoft to the market = concerned their CORE PRODUCTS - which at the time were PC OPERATING SYSTEMS. Thomas Penfield Jackson knew at the time that a finding of fact that MS was a monopoly in the BROWSER market would not hold up. So he = carefully penned a finding that WOULD hold up - one that's foundations rested on anticompetitive behavior in the OPERATING SYSTEM market - with a lot of Netscape web browser window dressing merely as evidence that MS was a nasty company. The fact of the matter is that the succeeding judge Colleen = Kollar-Kotelly is ignorant of how the computer market works, and is merely a mouthpiece for conservatives. She didn't reverse the findings of fact since she did not have the knowledge of how the market works to understand them. Instead she just issued a remedy that did practically nothing. =20 > > It's still an open and shut case that MS is a monopoly of PC > > operating system software. That's why they are currently regulated > > by the EC in Europe. It's why the trial found them to be a = monopoly. > > Forcing them to "untie" the browser from the OS was a remedy that > > was dreamed up - but, it really didn't answer the root problem > > of removing their dominance in the OS market. >=20 > Why is that a problem exactly? >=20 You know, at this point I'm just going to end this. If you still don't understand why a single computer operating system being the dominant PC operating system is a problem, you are a lost cause, and frankly, your statement has almost certainly killed your credibility with anyone running an operating system other than Windows. Ted