From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 21 17:27:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E80E1585D for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:27:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28173; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 18:27:13 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991121182151.0471cc20@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 18:27:07 -0700 To: "David Schwartz" From: Brett Glass Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Cc: In-Reply-To: <000001bf3482$d08ce270$021d85d1@youwant.to> References: <4.2.0.58.19991120195344.0452f8d0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 04:45 PM 11/21/1999 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > I suppose it depends upon what you mean by 'significant'. While Advantix is >not exactly revolutionary, it provides several advantages over normal 35 >millimeter film. None that matter. > For one thing, Advantix film's loading is foolproof. So is 35mm loading on the latest consumer 35mm cameras. > Advantix also offers an indicator on the roll to let you know if the film >is unexposed, partially exposed, or fully exposed. Many Advantix cameras >offer 'mid roll change', allowing you to easily change rolls of film even if >they are partially exposed. With a 35mm camera, if you put in ASA800 film >and then need to take a few shots at ASA100, you're pretty much screwed. 35mm cameras offer roll changing features as well. > In other words, we are all lock into 35mm film, cameras, and processing. Nonsense. There's no lock-in with 35mm, because 35mm is a readily available multi-sourced commodity. Exactly what Gates & Co. live in terror of seeing in the operating system world. See the many memos presented in the DOJ case, as well as the Judge's brilliant Findings of Fact. Most of the rest of your message is based on the false premise you state above, and hence is nothing but gibberish. This is a common tactic of the "moles" which Microsoft sends into online discussions: like the infamous "Barkto," they care not if they make sense. > > Kodak's tactics were unethical in that they manipulated markets and hurt > > consumers. And most likely illegal even in the absence of a monopoly. > > Hurt consumers? How so? By deceiving them into buying into a system which in fact cost them more and limited their choices. Just like Microsoft. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message