From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 29 07:34:39 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED266106566C for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 07:34:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from j.mckeown@ru.ac.za) Received: from b.mail.ru.ac.za (b.mail.ru.ac.za [IPv6:2001:4200:1010::25:2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C14E8FC1A for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 07:34:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from j.mckeown@ru.ac.za) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ru-msa; d=ru.ac.za; h=Received:From:Organization:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:References:In-Reply-To:X-Face:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:X-Virus-Scanned:X-Authenticated-User; b=Wb9oAZLi6bo8AvTST8LsGVAr9AyzxknVF4iv/pxjYznPhkvh9XTacBEC3WZrYqkunq+6wfLRZydGFkY0Vas7SBo+Mp4EOMCLY7Lz7dEJbJi5z2/HUKQdCJqnOC1TstH6; Received: from vorkosigan.ru.ac.za ([2001:4200:1010:1058:219:d1ff:fe9f:a932]:57224) by b.mail.ru.ac.za with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1M9wbs-000Clo-G1 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:34:36 +0200 From: Jonathan McKeown Organization: Rhodes University To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:34:36 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <23711563.post@talk.nabble.com> <20090528220640.77ebc490.freebsd@edvax.de> <20090528165247.665ae52c@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20090528165247.665ae52c@scorpio> X-Face: $@VrUx^RHy/}yu]jKf/<4T%/d|F+$j-Ol2"2J$q+%OK1]&/G_S9(=?utf-8?q?HkaQ*=60!=3FYOK=3FY!=27M=60C=0A=09aP=5C9nVPF8Q=7DCilHH8l=3B=7E!4?= =?utf-8?q?2HK6=273lg4J=7Daz?=@1Dqqh:J]M^"YPn*2IWrZON$1+G?oX3@ =?utf-8?q?k=230=0A=0954XDRg=3DYn=5FF-etwot4U=24b?=dTS{i X-Virus-Scanned: b.mail.ru.ac.za (2001:4200:1010::25:2) X-Authenticated-User: s0900137 from vorkosigan.ru.ac.za (2001:4200:1010:1058:219:d1ff:fe9f:a932) using auth_plaintext Subject: Re: Canon printer and TurboPrint X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 07:34:39 -0000 On Thursday 28 May 2009 22:52:47 Jerry wrote: > > Did you ever bother to consider that if the printer manufacturers > actually formed a consensus on a printer language, some third world > county or the EU would probably sue them. Nothing I have seen in 20 > years equals the audacity of the EU. As long as no 'standard' no matter > how arbitrary, stupid or counter-productive exists, they are in theory > safe from the EU. Besides, nothing stifles development as tightly as > being bound to an arbitrary 'standard'. What a breathtakingly stupid remark. The EU has acted against two companies (Microsoft and Intel) who have used illegal business methods to protect and extend their monopolies and suppress competition. Or are you suggesting that a format or protocol which is implemented by several different companies, allowing vendors to compete fairly on other grounds (price, features, quality, ... ) while protecting consumers by making it possible for them to move from one vendor to another, is somehow a worse idea than a proprietary format or protocol which is forced into a market-dominating position by illegal tactics such as paying manufacturers extra to incorporate it, or penalising them financially for providing competing products? If that's the case, why is no-one trying to use the courts to prevent the use of ODF, a published standard which is now used by several companies and Free Software projects to provide a common format for documents? Once a company dominates a particular market it's held to a different standard than other companies in that market - because the power of the monopoly can be used not only to prevent competition in the original market, but to extend the market domination into new markets, by techniques like product tying, distributing at below cost (effectively drawing subsidy from the original monopoly product) until competitors are driven out of business, and so on. Microsoft has been convicted of doing all these things, in US courts, in courts in Asia, and in courts in Europe. These are matters of fact, not opinion. Intel has been convicted of many of these things in courts in Asia and in Europe. The fact that the US system is too supine to take action against these companies doesn't make the EU ``arrogant''. Let's not forget why Unix took off and expanded the way it did: once upon a time the US courts did take antitrust seriously, and prevented AT&T using its telco monopoly to expand into market domination of the computer business. Jonathan