Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 16:24:43 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <000c01c17a7c$4de06710$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <002e01c17a5f$f2b34040$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted writes: > Sure there are many large companies that are > competent and successful and didn't get that > way by cheating. But we aren't talking about > large successful companies in general, we are > talking about a specific large company, Microsoft, > which has been found guilty of anti-trust > violations. Examination of the historical record reveals that Microsoft's behavior, by and large, is no different from that of other companies in similar positions of market dominance. Even today, examples of similar behavior can be found among Microsoft's competitors, such as Sun and AOL. There is nothing unique about Microsoft, and it is neither more nor less honest and upstanding than its competitors. > You seem to think that anti-trust convictions > are some sort of normal thing for large companies > and that every large company has them routinely. The convictions are not routine, as only a fraction of incidents involving putatively unlawful behavior are ever the subject of a formal complaint, but the behavior itself is very widespread indeed. If one examines the Court's Conclusions of Law of April, 2000, the sheer bulk of citations of precedents alone makes it very clear that this type of behavior may well be the norm for companies in Microsoft's position, as it occurs with distressing regularity. At the same time, however, examination of the precedents in light of the actual evolution of the industries in which they occurred makes it clear that this type of behavior has only an ephemeral effect on the situation of a dominant company and its competitors. A poorly managed company will fail no matter what monopolistic behaviors it undertakes, and a well managed company will ultimately succeed without ever resorting to such behaviors. > This is stupid and insulting to the many large > companies that do follow the law. See above. Many large companies do _not_ follow the law, but they are rarely prosecuted for their violations. > 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. > Does something have to smash you in the head > to get attention or what? Violent metaphors are telltale indicators of behavior guided by emotion rather than reason. > Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law, > they are beyond cheaters, they are criminals. No more so than any other large company. Indeed, the list of companies in Microsoft's position that have similarly violated the law is quite long. While this hardly justifies Microsoft's own violations, it does make it clear that they were not particularly exceptional, and so if one criticizes Microsoft on the basis of those violations, one should also criticize all other companies engaging in similar tactics. > Many, many other large companies (Intel comes > immediately to mind as a matter of fact) > many even larger, have never gone through > this. Intel has been the subject of many similar actions ... just ask Cyrix and AMD, or the FTC. However, Intel and its CEO have wisely kept a low profile, and have thus made fewer enemies among ostensibly disinterested parties. Microsoft and Bill Gates made the mistake of spending too much time in the public eye, attracting the envious regard of competitors and others whose own lack of success seemed all the more distressing in light of the wealth and achievement of Microsoft and its founder. There have been many, many other companies that have gone through this. Most such actions do not capture the media's sensationalistic attention, but that does not mean that they are less important. AT&T, IBM, and Standard Oil have been among the more visible targets of antitrust actions in the past. > If the statement that Microsoft cheated to get > where they were was nothing more than a claim, then > no evidence would have existed to convict them. 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. However, my own opinion, which may well be better informed than that of the Court, is that Netscape was so poorly managed, and wrote such poor software, that it was doomed from the beginning. The company was built on hype. It had the first viable browser on the market, but that's the only reason anyone used it--once a better browser was available (and MSIE was a better browser from 3.x forward), it had nothing but inertia to keep it in business. Note that AOL owns Netscape today, but it still uses Microsoft's browser in its own software. That is mainly because MSIE is a superior browser. > They didn't lose some sort of popularity contest > here - they lost a legal court case, a loss that > even survived an appeal by them, in a court where > they had unbelievable opportunity to disprove the > claims, during a trial that was conducted according to > defined and fair rules. You need to read the actual documents in question. You may be surprised. > You seem to forget that in a trial the burden of > proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. One of the first rules of law is to avoid discussing any decision you haven't read. 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?000c01c17a7c$4de06710$0a00000a>