| eric@lucii.org on Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:27:48 -0500 |
|
A monopoly is not necessarily 100%. They don't have to BE a monopoly - just act like it. Microsoft used it's overwhelming market share to perform monopolistic activity. They started early. An issue that was _way_ before this case is the "pinch" they put on the computer manufacturers back before Windows was 1.0 or 2.0. They offered the computer manufacturers a lower price on DOS if they would purchase a license for ALL the computers they made - *even if it did not have MS-DOS installed*! This effectively added the cost of MS-DOS onto everybody's alternative software. How about QuarterDeck's Deskview? Gone. How about DR-DOS? Gone. How about X windows on the desktop in corporate America? Dell and some of the other companies tried Linux workstations but could not keep it up. Even VA Linux Systems has dropped "Linux" from their name. Now, to be fair, each of the competitors made mistakes. The computer manufacturers bear some of the blame too. Of course, once one of them accepted the agreement then they all were pressured to do the same to keep their prices competitive. Hell, even the dumba** customers deserve some of the blame. None of this excuses MS. Not that I'm a knee-jerk supporter of the government's position. Far from it. In my estimation, it's liars against liars. Too bad there weren't two losers in the case. :-P Eric On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 08:11:13PM -0500, Jon Galt wrote: > Well I'm probably going to astound some people here by claiming that the > arguments below do not prove that Microsoft violated any law. I'm not > arguing with Sam or anybody else here. I understand that some courts have > ruled that Microsoft violated some law or other, but I disagree with any > nutball judge, who probably doesn't know his ass from a parallel port, who > claims that Microsoft has a monopoly in anything. > > This group itself is proof that they don't. Ever hear of Linux, BSD, > Solaris? Ever hear that Apache, on some variant of Unix, is the most > common web server on the internet? Ever hear of IBM selling servers that > run Linux instead of a Microsoft OS? > > We all know that Microsoft is not the only maker of operating systems. > They certainly are NOT the best - they have competition, so they can't, by > definition, have a monopoly in operating systems. Do they have a monopoly > in anything else? I don't think so. > > Wayne > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Sam Hunting wrote: > > > > Message: 4 > > > Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:29:36 -0500 (EST) > > > From: Jon Galt <jongalt@pinn.net> > > > To: plug@lists.phillylinux.org > > > Subject: Re: [PLUG] MS Outlaws? (was Fwd: CG: Windows XP warning) > > > Reply-To: plug@lists.phillylinux.org > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 10:03:24PM -0500, Jon Galt wrote: > > > > > Well you make a good argument that MS did not contribute to cheap > > > > > hardware - of course I was leaning that way anyhow. But what is > > > > > this about Microsoft "breaking the law"? > > > > > > > > Your disagreement with anti-trust laws doesn't make them go away. > > > > > > Granted. > > > > > > To be honest, I pay little attention to governmental attacks on > > > private companies - as well as government giving private companies > > > advantages over their competitors. I'm sure Micro$oft has been on > > the > > > receiving end of both of these things. > > > > > > I was under the impression that MS legal troubles, convictions, or > > > whatever had been overturned. Judicial orders rescinded, or > > > whatever. Can someone point me to a quick rundown of the events? > > > > Wayne: > > > > Here's a useful site: > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/microsoft > > > > Did MS break the law? Yes. > > > > http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ms-conclusions.html > > > > Upon consideration of the Court's Findings of Fact ...the proposed > > conclusions of law submitted by the parties, the briefs of amici > > curiae, and the argument of counsel thereon, the Court concludes > > that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive > > means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in > > violation of § 2. Microsoft also violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by > > > > unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system. > > > > Like Wayne, I don't keep track of all the detail -- EXCEPT when it > > affects me personally, which MS did. From the Findings of Fact: > > > > http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html > > > > 411. Many of the tactics that Microsoft has employed have also > > harmed consumers indirectly by unjustifiably distorting > > competition. > > The actions that Microsoft took against Navigator hobbled a form of > > > > innovation that had shown the potential to DEPRESS THE APPLICATIONS > > > > BARRIER TO ENTRY SUFFICIENTLY TO ENABLE OTHER FIRMS TO COMPETE > > EFFECTIVELY AGAINST MICROSOFT IN THE MARKET FOR INTEL-COMPATIBLE > > PC OPERATING SYSTEMS. THAT COMPETITION WOULD HAVE CONDUCED TO > > CONSUMER CHOICE AND NURTURED INNOVATION. [capitals mine] > > > > The findings of fact (harm to consumers, ie, me) and the findings of > > law (illegal exercise of monopoly power) have not been overturned. What > > is at issue is the penalty of MS's actions. In that sense, MS's > > troubles may be said to be at an end, as the current Justice Department > > (though not some states) is willing to settle for weak penalties. > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > <!-- www.etopicality.com > > www.goose-works.org > > > > "A human is a topic map's way of making another topic map." > > > > --> > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > > http://sports.yahoo.com > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org > > Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce > > General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org > Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce > General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug -- # Eric Allan Lucas # "Oh, I have slipped the surly bond of earth # And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings.. # -- John Gillespie Magee Jr. Attachment:
pgpBDiZkwlNKn.pgp
|
|