469,326 Members | 1,331 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,326 developers. It's quick & easy.

Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Microsoft Hatred, FAQ

Xah Lee, 20020518

Question: U.S. Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are
not morons. They find MS guilty, so it must be true.

Answer: so did the German population thought Jews are morons by
heritage, to the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth.
Apparently, the entire German population cannot be morons, they must be
right.

Judge for yourself, is a principle i abide by. And when you judge, it
is better to put some effort into it.

How much you invest in this endearvor depends on how important the
issue is to you. If you are like most people, for which the issue of
Microsoft have remote effect on your personal well-being, then you can
go out and buy a case of beer on one hand and pizza on the other, and
rap with your online confabulation buddies about how evil is MS. If you
are an author writing a book on this, then obviously its different
because your reputation and ultimately daily bread depend on what you
put down. If you are a MS competitor such as Apple or Sun, then
obviously you will see to it with as much money as you can cough out
that MS is guilty by all measures and gets put out of business. If you
are a government employee such as a judge, of course it is your
interest to please your boss, with your best accessment of the air.

When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
things to happen. Then, my opinions becomes better ones.

Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
not monopoly, i don't know what is.

A: Now suppose there is a very ethical company E, whose products have
the best performance/price ratio, and making all the competitors
looking so majorly stupid and ultimately won over 90% of the market as
decided by consumers. Is E now a monopoly? Apparently, beer drinkers
and pizza eaters needs to study a bit on the word monopoly, from the
perspectives of language to history to law. If they have some extra
time, they can sharpen views from philosophy & logic contexts as well.

Q: What about all the people in the corporate environments who are
forced to use MS products and aren't allowed the option/choice to use
Mac/Linux/UNIX?

A: Kick your boss's ass, or, choose to work for a company who have
decisions that you liked.

Q: What about MS buying out all competitors?

A: Microsoft offered me $1 grand for saying good things about them.
They didn't put a gunpoint on my head. I CHOOSE to take the bribe.
Likewise, sold companies can and have decided what's best for them.
It's nothing like under gunpoint.

Q: Microsoft forced computer makers to not install competitor's
applications or OSes.

A: It is free country. Don't like MS this or that? Fuck MS and talk to
the Solaris or BeOS or AIX or HP-UX or Apple or OS/2 or Amiga or NeXT
or the Linuxes with their free yet fantastically easy-to-use and
network-spamming X-Windows. Bad business prospects? Then grab the
opportunity and become an entrepreneur and market your own beats-all
OS. Too difficult? Let's sue Microsoft!

Q: Microsoft distributed their Internet Explorer web browser free,
using their “monopoly” power to put Netscape out of business.

A: entirely inane coding monkeys listen: It takes huge investment to
give away a quality software free. Netscape can give away Operating
Systems free to put MS out of business too. Nobody is stopping Sun
Microsystem from giving Java free, or BeOS a browser free, or Apple to
bundle QuickTime deeply with their OS free.

Not to mention that Netscape is worse than IE in just about every
version till they become the OpenSource mozilla shit and eventually
bought out by AOL and still shit.

• Netscape struggles, announced open browser source code in 1998-01,
industry shock
http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html

• Netscape browser code released in 1998-03. Mozilla FAQ.
http://mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html

• AOL buys Netscape in 1998-11 for 4.2 billion.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218360.html?legacy=cnet

• Jamie Zawinski, resignation and postmortem, 1999-04
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html

• suck.com, Greg Knauss & Terry Colon, 2000-04, Netscape 6 mockery
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/04/10/
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_...s_netscape.zip

• Xah Lee, Netscape Crap
http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/macos-talk/58.txt

Q: Microsoft implemented extra things to standard protocols in
their OS so that other OS makers cannot be compatible with their OS
while their OS can be compatible with all. They used this Embrace &
Extend to lock out competitors.

A: My perspective is this: suppose you are now a company who's OS sits
over 90% of computers (regardless how this come to be for the moment).
Now, lots of “standard” protocols in the industry is a result of
popularity (RFC = Really Fucking Common), and popularity resulted from
being free, from the RFCs of the fantastically incompetent by the
truely stupid unix tech morons. What can you do if you want to improve
these protocols? If you go with totally different protocols, then the
incompatibility with the rest 10% isn't your best interest. I would
adopt existing protocols, and extend them with improvements. Being a
commercial entity, i'm sorry that it is not my duty to release my
improvments to my competitors. Any of you incompetent IBM/AIX/OS/2 or
SGI/Irix or HP/HP-UX or Sun/Solaris or Apple/AU-X/Mac can do the same,
not that they haven't.

Of course, the universe of moronic unixers and Apple fanatics cannot
see that. The unix idiots cannot see that their fantastically stupid
protocols are fantastically stupid in the first place. The Apple
fanatics are simply chronically fanatic.

Q: Microsoft product is notorious for their lack of security.

A: In my very sound opinion, if Microsoft's OS's security flaws is
measured at one, then the unixes are measured at one myriad. If unixes
suddenly switch popularity with Windows, then the world's computers
will collapse uncontrollably by all sorts of viruses and attacks. This
can be seen for technical person who knows unix history well:

http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html (e.g.
ftpd/proftpd, inetd/xinetd, sendmail/qmail, X-Windows, telnet, passwd,
login, rsh, rlogin.)

• on the criminality of buffer overflow, by Henry Baker, 2001.
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_..._overflow.html

• Fast Food The UNIX Way:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_.../fastfood.html

• Jargon File: http://www.tuxedo.org/%7Eesr/jargon/

• The Rise of Worse is Better, by Richard P. Gabriel, 1991, at
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

and plenty other pre-90s documents to get a sense of just how
fantastically insecure unix was and is. Unix today is not just
technically slacking in the “security” department, but the unix
ways created far more unmanageable security risks that's another topic
to discuss.

The unix crime, is not just being utmost technically sloppy. Its entire
system and “philosophy” created an entire generation of incompetent
programers and thinking and programing languages, with damage that is a
few magnitude times beyond all computer viruses and attacks damages in
history combined. See also:

• Responsible Software License:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...e_license.html

Q: Microsoft products are simply poor quality.

A: Perhaps this in general is true pre-1997. I think the vast majority
of MS products today have better performance/price ratio then
competitors. This includes their operating system, their input devices
(mouse & keyboard), their X-Box gaming console, their software game
titles, their software architectures and languages (.NET, C#), their
technologies (few i know: SMB), and many of their software applications
(suite of Office, which consistently ranked top since early 90s).

e.g. Tom's hardware review on x-box, esp in comparison with Sony
Playstation 2. (2002-02):
http://www4.tomshardware.com/consume...204/index.html

the leading role of MS Office products can be seen in MacUser &
MacWorld magazine reviews through out early 90s.

Q: BeOS was once to be bundled with PC, but MS meddled with it and
basically at the end fucked Be up.

A: BeOS is a fantastically fucking useless OS. No DVD player, No Java,
No QuickTime, No games, no Mathematica, no nothing. For all practical
purposes, fucking useless in a different way than every donkey unixes.
Not to mention the evil Apple computer, refused to pass the QuickTime
technology, and tried to prevent BeOS from running on Apple hardware by
refusing to release their PPC hardware spec. Be founder Jean-Louis
Gassee wrote an article about it. Who's fucking whom?

Q: X inc tried to do W, but MS threatened to depart.

A: Dear X inc., try to find a bigger dick for your needs. If you cannot
find any, too bad! Suck it up to the big brother and hold on to what
you can get! If you have the smarts, milk him dry! Free country, free
to choose partnership. Ladies, previous night's indiscretion is not
rape the morning after.

Q: I'm not a beer bucket or pizza hole, but i want to do research
over the web. Is there any free stuff on the web i can grab? I'm an
OpenSource advocate, i demand free things.

A: •
http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaign...AQ/default.htm
(The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_repo.../friedman.html (The
Business Community's Suicidal Impulse by Milton Friedman, 1999-03)
local copy

Q: I'm thinking of putting my wife and daughter on the table. What
do you suggest to begin with?

A: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_di...economics.html

Q: Are you confident enough to bet your wifes and daughters for
what you say?

A: No. But I put my reputation in.
-------
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...hatredfaq.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

Oct 15 '05
476 16113

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:0h************@news.it.uc3m.es...
McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties.
McDonald's are not in the business of wholesale distribution of burger
patties so your statement is simply sited in the wrong universe of
discourse.
I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation most
certainly is in the business of the wholesale distribution of burger
patties. One key reason to become a franchisee is to access their wholesale
distribution network.
Coming back to the current universe of discourse, I assure
you that a McDonald's director can go into a Burger King and buy a
burger like anyone else, so no discrimination. Mind you - I'm not sure
if they'd let Ronald in. He's obviously dangerously nutty.
That's not even remotely analogous. Microsoft didn't say that customers
who bought OS2 couldn't buy Windows. They said (in acutality something less
than that) people who buy Windows wholesale can't also resell other
operating systems. This is perfectly analogous to McDonald's saying that
retailers who buy their burger patties wholesale can't also sell Whoppers.
You only run into a problem under United States law if the company is
a
monopoly. And I've already addressed that issue in this thread.

If MacDonalds were wholesale suppliers of hamburgers to the
distribution trade,
They are wholesale suppliers to those people who agree to their
distribution terms. This requires, among other things, that you prepare them
in a precise way and only sell approved items.
then they couldn't discriminate among their
customers for the purposes of altering the competitive nature of the
market in hamburger sales to you and me across the counter.
I'm afraid I don't understand what "altering the competitive nature of
the market in hamburger sales" actually means. What is it that you are
claiming they can't do?
Companies
have been sued for trying that - sports shoe manufacturers, I seem to
recall. They've tried to make sure their shoes are sold only by
specified outlets at specified prices, in order to artificially manage
the market. That's illegal. Sued they got (or perhaps "suede").


What, precisely, is illegal?

DS
Oct 25 '05 #351

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:tr************@news.it.uc3m.es...
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Steven D'Aprano" <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVETHIScybe r.com.au...
The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.
Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit. Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
hungry after 10.

They can close when they like because the policy is not discriminatory,
nor is part of an attempt to manage the market. If they were to do
things that harmed the market - such as telling meat suppliers that
supplied them that they couldn't supply anyone else, that would be a
possible candidate for anti-competitive behaviour suits. It would have
to be shown that the arrangement WAS materially anti-competitive,
though, and that's difficult to conceive of because MacDonalds does
not constitute a major portion of the market demand for corned beef,
so they don't have the leverage.


In other words, who or what it harms is not the issue. Which was
precisely my point. Private individuals and corporations are allowed to harm
other people, so long as they don't violate the rights of those people when
they do so, for example by using force or fraud.

If a McDonald's opens across the street from my little burger joint
family business, that hurts me. However, it isn't force, it isn't fraud, it
doesn't violate rights, it's just part of life.

Not even the amount of harm is at issue. Burger King firing someone for
cause might result in their family going hungry.

The issue is whether the action is within the scope of the actor's
authority.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #352
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:51:02 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

"Steven D'Aprano" <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVETHIScybe r.com.au...
The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.


Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit.

Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
hungry after 10.


Burger King doesn't take actions to prevent you from going to another
vendor who will stay open after 10PM, as you very well know.

Nor is Burger King a monopoly -- if they refuse to open after 10 in the
face of great demand, they only harm themselves. As I said a few days ago,
it is not the place for either us or the government to care about the
success or failure of any specific vendor, but only about the health of
the entire market. As there is no shortage of competition in the fast food
market, the harm done to you by Burger King's refusal to open after 10PM
is not sufficient for anyone to care. If there is significant demand, then
Burger King will merely harm themselves by refusing to open because they
will lose customers to those vendors who do open, and if there is
insignificant demand, then why should anyone care?

--
Steven.

Oct 25 '05 #353
"Steven D'Aprano" <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message
news:pa*************************@REMOVETHIScyber.c om.au...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:51:02 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

"Steven D'Aprano" <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVETHIScybe r.com.au...
The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.


Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit.

Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
hungry after 10.


Burger King doesn't take actions to prevent you from going to another
vendor who will stay open after 10PM, as you very well know.

Nor is Burger King a monopoly -- if they refuse to open after 10 in the
face of great demand, they only harm themselves. As I said a few days ago,
it is not the place for either us or the government to care about the
success or failure of any specific vendor, but only about the health of
the entire market. As there is no shortage of competition in the fast food
market, the harm done to you by Burger King's refusal to open after 10PM
is not sufficient for anyone to care. If there is significant demand, then
Burger King will merely harm themselves by refusing to open because they
will lose customers to those vendors who do open, and if there is
insignificant demand, then why should anyone care?


NO! There ~is~ a conspiracy by Egg farmers to not make burgers available
before 10 am.

Burger King used to be one of the last great vestiges of the 24 hour burger,
and now it's gone.

They know no one would buy the shitty egg McMuffins/equivalent if they had
delicious burgers available, so there is something underhanded going on
behind the scenes.

Same thing with pizza. Don't try to tell me that there are not hungry
partiers at 3 am - but are any of the delivery places open? NO!

Why is it this way? Who knows! But when in doubt, blame the right wing
extremist politicians.

--
LTP
Oct 25 '05 #354
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:36:37 +0200, "Peter T. Breuer"
<pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a seller
to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may not


It was not a discount. I was being denied the right to buy from any
wholesaler. The "deal" MS offered was that I as an independent
retailer had to by ALL my MS OS products retail if I wanted to sell
even one machines without Windows.

That would have been easily enough to put any retailer out of business
if he did not comply.

Even in retrospect, when I kick myself for abandoning my principles,
It would still be a tough decision.

1. I had eight people working for me who would have become unemployed.

2. The city would have lost one of its most ethical retailers.

3. Microsoft would STILL have won.

4. I would have had to put up taunts from people calling me crazy for
destroying my business in what they would see as a vainglorious
attempt to stop the Microsoft juggernaut.

What MS did was put me in a position where felt I had little choice
but to violate my OWN moral code of conduct. That is what has me so
pissed.

It is bad enough to be extorted from. It even worse to be forced into
a racket to extort others.

If any one here considers what MS did acceptable I am glad by their
public stance they have warned others off ever having business
dealings with them because their low standards of conduct.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 26 '05 #355
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:03:36 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
<st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
You don't care that because of Microsoft's neglect, there are millions of
zombie PCs running their sub-standard OS across the world, sending
hundreds of millions of spam emails?


Of course he cares. He is a shill. He licks that hand that feeds him.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 26 '05 #356
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:49:46 -0400, Brian Utterback
<br*************@sun.removeme.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
Some of those steps were illegal by U.S.
law.


There is also the matter of the Bush administration interfering in the
DOJ prosecution of Microsoft first thing when they got elected. Can
you smell corruption?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 26 '05 #357

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:io********************************@4ax.com...
Of course he cares. He is a shill. He licks that hand that feeds him.


In an indirect sense. The company I work for does get a lot of sales
because we are "anyone but Microsoft". So we actually profit from people's
dislike of Microsoft's products. FWIW, I do think most Microsoft products
are utter crap with one exception -- in a sufficiently controlled situation,
the product can be demonstrated to be able to do what most people think they
want it to do.

I'm not sure whether or not the market really wants crap. It may be that
Microsoft correctly read that the mass market for software is for crap
software, just like the mass market for science television is for crap
science television. Frankly, I hope not.

It's kind of like how a PBS science special, largely free from market
forces, is generally of fairly high quality. On the other hand, a network
science special shaped largely by market forces, is likely to be about a
person who has learned how to speak with cats or the dead.

DS
Oct 26 '05 #358
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:0h************@news.it.uc3m.es... I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation most
certainly is in the business of the wholesale distribution of burger
patties. One key reason to become a franchisee is to access their wholesale
distribution network.


Then they are not in the wholesale business. So lock the drugs cabinet.

(What they are marketting is a "brand", complete with clowns and
arches, and a secret formula for making up patties in buns).
Peter
Oct 26 '05 #359
David Schwartz wrote:

But if *every* vendor has to make that same choice, there is no place for
that other 5% to go to buy another operating system. So the other
operating system(s) die off. And those 5% become customers of Microsoft
since there's no other choice left. And *that* is where the legal
problems start: they gained market share by preventing consumers from
finding competing products.

Right, except that's utterly absurd. If every vendor takes their tiny
cut of the 95%, a huge cut of the 5% is starting to look *REALLY* good.


Sure, that would be true if the market would be / would have been really
global. In practice if you have a shop you have a limited 'region of
influence'. Optimally you are the only shop in this region that sells
the stuff, or perhaps there are a few shops that compete with you. Lets
say in your region are two shops competing with you, and you must decide
wether to sell product A (95%) or B (5%), but you may not sell both.
Decision 1: Sell A, share the 95% of the local market with two -> about
32% of the local market for all of you, if all perform equally good
Decision 2: Sell B -> you get the 5% of the market, the others 47% each

This calculation is probably still a very bad approximation of the
truth, but things are definitely not as easy as you state them.

EP
Oct 26 '05 #360

David Blomstrom wrote:
A bit off topic, but it amazes me that people in the
web design/Internet industry don't take a more active
stance against Microsoft.

Think about it: The health care industry has been
privatized in the U.S. I spent sixteen years in
education, another institution that has been
privatized. (It has largely become another Microsoft
subsidiary.)

So here we have web designers, who are among the
freest people in the world, able to choose their
specialties, hours, fees and even where they work. Yet
they surrender to Microsoft's "standards" without a
fight.

Frankly, I think every self-respecting webmaster ought
to be campaigning against Microsoft on their websites.
Tiny, simple messages like "Microsoft-Free" or "If you
like George AWOL Bush, you'll love Bill Gates," could
go a long ways in educating the public.


Or, you know, just code your website to be W3C compliant, which IE will
invariably choke on.

Iain

Oct 26 '05 #361
entropy <en*****@domain.invalid> writes:
IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.


.... and were told not to by a court. Which is the whole reason for the
existence of IBM clones, whether PCs or mainframes.
Oct 26 '05 #362
In comp.lang.perl.misc Steven D'Aprano <st***@removethiscyber.com.au> wrote:
Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft? In 1988, there were something like ten or a dozen word processors
available to choose from, and they were competing on price and features
Yes... I think I used a couple around then.
like crazy. That was then, now there is just MS Office. The most
innovative things Microsoft has added to Office in the last decade? Clippy


Er... Open Office, Apple Works.

Axel

Oct 26 '05 #363

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:5a************@news.it.uc3m.es...
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:0h************@news.it.uc3m.es... I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation
most
certainly is in the business of the wholesale distribution of burger
patties. One key reason to become a franchisee is to access their
wholesale
distribution network.

Then they are not in the wholesale business. So lock the drugs cabinet. (What they are marketting is a "brand", complete with clowns and
arches, and a secret formula for making up patties in buns).


So is Microsoft, except the clowns write the software. When a shop sells
machines that ship with Microsoft Windows, it is to some extent the power of
Microsoft's brand that brings them into the shop.

All I'm saying is that if Microsoft had insisted on exclusive deals to
offer Windows at wholesale, that would have been entirely reasonable.
Microsoft actually insisted on something less than this. The Windows name is
a valuable brand, and advertising it and promoting it got you business.
Microsoft doesn't want to see customers drawn in by the power of its brand
being switched to competing products.

How would the McDonald's corporation feel if you walked into a store
because of the pretty golden arches (that in McDonald's opinion, assure the
customer of getting quality McDonald's food) and the person at the counter
said, "try a Whopper, it's cheaper and tastes better too".

There is nothing unusual about wholesale agreements that restrict your
ability to sell competing products.

DS
Oct 26 '05 #364

"Eike Preuss" <us****@eikepreuss.de> wrote in message
news:3s************@individual.net...
Right, except that's utterly absurd. If every vendor takes their tiny
cut of the 95%, a huge cut of the 5% is starting to look *REALLY* good.
Sure, that would be true if the market would be / would have been really
global. In practice if you have a shop you have a limited 'region of
influence'. Optimally you are the only shop in this region that sells
the stuff, or perhaps there are a few shops that compete with you. Lets
say in your region are two shops competing with you, and you must decide
wether to sell product A (95%) or B (5%), but you may not sell both.
Decision 1: Sell A, share the 95% of the local market with two -> about
32% of the local market for all of you, if all perform equally good
Decision 2: Sell B -> you get the 5% of the market, the others 47% each

This calculation is probably still a very bad approximation of the
truth, but things are definitely not as easy as you state them.


It depends upon how different the products are and how easy it is to
shop out of your local market. If the products are equally good and
reasonably interchangeable and it's hard to shop out of your local market,
then you're right. The more the smaller product is better than the larger
product, the less interchangeable they are, and the easier it is to shop out
of your local market, the more wrong you are.

How often do you hear, "I'd like to use Linux, but I just can't get
ahold of it"?

And how many people do you hear saying, "I'd like to use Linux, but I'm
not willing to shell out the bucks to buy it since I already bought Windows
with my computer".

On the other hand, where you might be right is in the possibility that
Microsoft's lock on the market prevented other companies from making
operating systems at all. That is, that had Microsoft used different
policies, other companies would have introduced operating systems to compete
with Microsoft, and we'd all have better operating systems for it. If
Microsoft's conduct was legal, this argument establishes that the conduct
was necessary.

DS
Oct 26 '05 #365

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <ja********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ub***********@hotmail.com...
entropy <en*****@domain.invalid> writes:
IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.

... and were told not to by a court. Which is the whole reason for the
existence of IBM clones, whether PCs or mainframes.


And, perhaps, is the whole reason for the existence of Microsoft. (In
its present form, as the OS vendor for the majority of desktops.)

DS
Oct 26 '05 #366
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:5a************@news.it.uc3m.es...
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:0h************@news.it.uc3m.es... I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation
most
certainly is in the business of the wholesale distribution of burger
patties. One key reason to become a franchisee is to access their
wholesale
distribution network.
Then they are not in the wholesale business. So lock the drugs cabinet. (What they are marketting is a "brand", complete with clowns and
arches, and a secret formula for making up patties in buns).

So is Microsoft, except the clowns write the software.
No they aren't. A pc o/s is something you load on an IBM pc, and an IBM
pc is an open format. There is no "microsoft computer", and there is no
such thing as a "microsoft computer shop".

The closest you can get to a complete closed branding in that field, is,
coincidentally, an apple o/s, and an apple computer, and an apple
computer shop. And that's because apple make the confusers in question,
and their o/s. However, I don't think they can stop the shops which
sell apples from mselling pcs too, but then I have never had the
slightest inclination to buy a "brand" like an apple, so I have never
looked, so I don't have an inkling if that is so or not.
When a shop sells
machines that ship with Microsoft Windows, it is to some extent the power of
Microsoft's brand that brings them into the shop.


No it isn't. Quite the opposite - look at a computer shop or a
computer advert, and you will see "Pentium 4 3.4GHz 1MB cache, 1GB DDR
RAM", etc. etc.

Really - bar all the argument-shifting and picking up from nonsense
points, I wish I could find some kernel of sensibleness in your
argument because at times in the past you have acted sane. But not
here! If you have an argument, out with the bones of it. What is it?
Something like "MS can do anything they like to make a profit"? No -
they can't. Is it "MS can't be criticised for behaving like mad bad
bullies"? Uh, uh, yes they can. And so on. What IS your line?

Peter
Oct 26 '05 #367

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:b9************@news.it.uc3m.es...
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote: No they aren't. A pc o/s is something you load on an IBM pc, and an IBM
pc is an open format. There is no "microsoft computer", and there is no
such thing as a "microsoft computer shop".
That doesn't at all address my point. The point is, there are large
numbers of people looking for computers with Windows installed on them. If
you sell this type of computer, this type of person will come to you.
When a shop sells
machines that ship with Microsoft Windows, it is to some extent the power
of
Microsoft's brand that brings them into the shop.

No it isn't. Quite the opposite - look at a computer shop or a
computer advert, and you will see "Pentium 4 3.4GHz 1MB cache, 1GB DDR
RAM", etc. etc.
And you will also see "Designed for Windows XP" or a Microsoft logo in
the ad.
Really - bar all the argument-shifting and picking up from nonsense
points, I wish I could find some kernel of sensibleness in your
argument because at times in the past you have acted sane. But not
here! If you have an argument, out with the bones of it. What is it?
Something like "MS can do anything they like to make a profit"? No -
they can't. Is it "MS can't be criticised for behaving like mad bad
bullies"? Uh, uh, yes they can. And so on. What IS your line?


No, my point is that this specific Microsoft tactic was a *lesser*
tactic than offering only exclusive wholesale deals and there's nothing
wrong with a company that only offers exclusive wholesale deals.

What Microsoft didn't want was someone going to a store to buy a PC with
Windows and being told that another OS is better and cheaper. If you want to
sell a competitor's products, Microsoft wasn't going to let you use their
popularity to draw that person in.

Why should Microsoft let him build his business selling PCs with Windows
and then let him sell the customers that he admits he would have only
because he sells Windows PCs on a competitor's OS? He says he wouldn't have
had enough customers to stay in business if he didn't offer Windows. Then he
wants to concvince those customers to use a competitor to Windows. Why
should Microsoft let him do that?

If I am working on a new burger that competes with the Whopper, do you
think Burger King corporate is going to let any restaurant sell my competing
burger? So that people who go into a Burger King because they want a Whopper
can be told how my competing burger is cheaper and better?

Exclusive wholesale arrangements are not unusual at all. And one of the
main reasons is that you don't want someone specifically looking for your
brand to then be switched to a competitor.

The point is, he wouldn't have customers if he didn't offer Windows. His
customers are coming to him *because* he offers Windows. Microsoft wants a
portion of the money that he gets solely because he offers Windows. Why
aren't they entitled to it?

He admits, he wouldn't have any business or any customers unless he
offers Windows. That is, it is his offering Windows that allows him to build
a business, a customer base, and so on. Why is it wrong for Microsoft to
want a cut of the business that he has only because he offers their
products?

This is what Burger King does if you want to sell their burgers.

DS
Oct 26 '05 #368
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message news:b9************@news.it.uc3m.es...
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote: That doesn't at all address my point. The point is, there are large
numbers of people looking for computers with Windows installed on them. If
you sell this type of computer, this type of person will come to you.


That is an item of data which is largely true - it's not totally true,
because most people could not care less what operating system is on
their computer so long as it is one which causes them no trouble and
which doesn't get in the way (uh, fail to MS win there, twice) and
which in general is a plus for them rather than a minus (porbably true
for MS windows and most of the hoi poloi, not me). But it's not a
POINT, at least not the intended conclusion of an argument or
subargument, which is what I understand a point to be. The type you
score, that is.
No it isn't. Quite the opposite - look at a computer shop or a
computer advert, and you will see "Pentium 4 3.4GHz 1MB cache, 1GB DDR
RAM", etc. etc.

And you will also see "Designed for Windows XP" or a Microsoft logo in
the ad.
If they said that, that would be an actionable statement, because it
isn't, if it is a PC clone - PC's have defined standard interfaces,
that's the idea and design of a PC. Therefore a PC cannot be designed
for an operating system, just as a wall switch cannot be designed for
a lampshade. A PC is designed without reference to an operating
system, just as a lightswitch is designed withut reference to a
particular lampshade.

Will you PLEASE stop these nonsense detours! You know perfectly well
that there is no "windows franchise" in the sense that there is a
MacDonalds franchise. Shops which sell computers do not have
(metaphorical) MS arches over the door. They say "get your compyutas
'ere", not "welcome to the Microsoftiland total experience. Enjoy".
And MS in particular has no hardware side (modulo the mouse and matching
mat). They tried to rig the market in operating systems for the IBM PC,
not get a monopoloy on PC manufacture.
No, my point is that this specific Microsoft tactic was a *lesser*
tactic than offering only exclusive wholesale deals and there's nothing
wrong with a company that only offers exclusive wholesale deals.
That is not a point, it is an incomplete claim of fact plus a judgment
(first half-sentence), and a hypohetical case plus judgment (second
half-sentence).

claim 1a) Microsoft's tactic is X (fill in, please)
judgment 1b) tactic X is somehow not as bad as (sense?) offering
"exclusive wholesale deals" (please define)

hypothesis 2a) Company Z (arbitrary) offers exclusive wholesale deal.
judgment 2b) Company Z does no wrong in doing so.

I presume your argument then goes via 1b and 2b to conclude that there is
nothing wrong with Microsofts tactic X. The logic is fine - it remains
to dispute your claims and judgments.

What Microsoft didn't want was someone going to a store to buy a PC with
Windows and being told that another OS is better and cheaper.


Tough - that's what salespeople are for (notionally, in a shop you
trust).
Peter
Oct 26 '05 #369
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
claim 1a) Microsoft's tactic is X (fill in, please)
judgment 1b) tactic X is somehow not as bad as (sense?) offering
"exclusive wholesale deals" (please define)
Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and other
operating systems, but there will be a charge for every machine you sell
without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy Windows wholesale. Someone
could comply with this by not selling any other operating systems at all and
never pay the fee. Therefore, this is a lesser restriction than saying you
can only sell Windows wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing
systems. If I have the right to say you can't use my car at all, I have the
lesser right to impose the lesser restriction that you can only use my car
if you pay me $10.

Microsoft's specific tactic was to offer Windows wholesale only as part
of a franchise arrangement. The franchise arrangement stipulated a fee per
system sold, whether or not the system included Windows. This is a lesser
version of the more typical franchise arrangement which only lets you sell
branded products and doesn't let you sell or offer non-branded products.

If you want to sell meals with Whoppers in them, you have to get
permission to do so from Burger King corporate. And they will not let you
also sell Big Macs in the same store, even if McDonald's had no objection.

If you owned a Burger King and wanted to offer a competing burger,
Burger King corporate might let you do so, but it would be totally
reasonable for them to insist on a fee even for non-BK products sold. This
is because it is their products, reputation, and marketing that creates the
customer flow that you are using to sell your products. Similarly, by his
own admission, it is his ability to sell Microsoft products that allows him
to have a business at all and it creates the customer flow that he would use
to sell the competing products. Microsoft's insistence on some money in
exchange for this is not unreasonable.

Many companies require you to agree to various types of things in order
to obtain their products wholesale. The Microsoft Windows wholesale
agreement was not vastly different from many such agreements.

If another company with smaller market share made a similar insistence,
nobody would have raised so much as an eyebrow.
What Microsoft didn't want was someone going to a store to buy a
PC with
Windows and being told that another OS is better and cheaper.

Tough - that's what salespeople are for (notionally, in a shop you
trust).


So should Burger King be required to allow McDonald's salesman in their
stores? Or should Burger King corporate be prohibited from disallowing
Burger King store owners from telling their customers that the burgers are
better across the street at the McDonald's he owns?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #370
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
If you want to sell meals with Whoppers in them, you have to get
permission to do so from Burger King corporate. And they will not let you
also sell Big Macs in the same store, even if McDonald's had no objection.


Why do you keep comparing Microsoft with Burger King? They are not
the same. Burger King is operating in a competitive environment.
Microsoft is a convicted illegal monopolist. Monopolists are not
allowed to do the same things that competitors are allowed to do.
So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft.
Oct 27 '05 #371
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and other
operating systems, but there will be a charge for every machine you sell
without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy Windows wholesale. Someone
could comply with this by not selling any other operating systems at all and
never pay the fee. Therefore, this is a lesser restriction than saying you
can only sell Windows wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing
systems. If I have the right to say you can't use my car at all, I have the
lesser right to impose the lesser restriction that you can only use my car
if you pay me $10.


It makes a big difference that MS has a monopoly.

If I open an washing machine store and Maytag says, "we only sell
wholesale to you if you agree to sell our brand exclusively."

What Microsoft did is different for three reasons:

1. the Maytag agreement made up front, not imposed to shut down a
business who has never signed a prior exclusivity contract.

2. The appliance store has lots of other brands to sell. In my case,
failing to comply with MS's illegal and immoral demand would put me
out of busness. They were forcing me into commit criminal acts or lose
my business.

3. Maytag makes the machines. In the computer instance, we at CMP
custom build the computers. Microsoft have no business telling me what
to do when they supplied only one component. I could not even sell a
BARE computer.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #372
On 26 Oct 2005 18:05:45 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
<ja********@hotmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :
IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.


... and were told not to by a court. Which is the whole reason for the
existence of IBM clones, whether PCs or mainframes.


Back in the early days, IBM was just as bad as MS. Competition and
some smackdown by the DOJ, have made them much better behaved.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #373
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and other
operating systems, but there will be a charge for every machine you sell
without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy Windows wholesale. Someone
could comply with this by not selling any other operating systems at all and
never pay the fee. Therefore, this is a lesser restriction than saying you
can only sell Windows wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing
systems.


No - you claim that allowing somebody (by contract?) to do Z at a
penalty is "lesser" than disallowing them from doing Z. Sorry - both
are equal in market economics (where the financial imperatve rules).

Indeed, no contract can "disallow" somebody from doing Z - you are
always at liberty to break a contract! (See the RH Enterprise licence
as an example of a contract that you are at liberty to break by copying
RHE to more machines at the penalty of losing RH maintenance support- I
recently had this argument with Rick Moen). The penalty for doing so
is what is at issue.

So your definitions are anyway without semantic content, and hence the
argument cannot proceed.

And even if the argument were too proceed, your use of "lesser" would
fail, because it appears to mean "is a (proper) subset of the ways
that" without having established what different (i.e. same) means, and
I'd submit that there is no diffence between the elements you exhibit
in the setting of market regulation law.

Peter
Oct 27 '05 #374
In comp.os.linux.misc Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
3. Maytag makes the machines. In the computer instance, we at CMP
custom build the computers. Microsoft have no business telling me what
to do when they supplied only one component. I could not even sell a
BARE computer.


I'm a bit curious about this. If I were a business person, I would
simply have created two busineses (two accounts, etc.). One business
sells only machines with MS on and pays the MS tax on all its machines.
One business sells only machines without MS on and pays the MS tax on
none of its machines.

What's up with that?

Peter
Oct 27 '05 #375
Paul Rubin wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
If you want to sell meals with Whoppers in them, you have to get
permission to do so from Burger King corporate. And they will not
let you also sell Big Macs in the same store, even if McDonald's had
no objection.

Why do you keep comparing Microsoft with Burger King? They are not
the same. Burger King is operating in a competitive environment.
Microsoft is a convicted illegal monopolist. Monopolists are not
allowed to do the same things that competitors are allowed to do.
So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft.


Because the error I'm correcting is the belief that Microsoft's conduct
was extremely unusual (unlike anything any reputable company had ever done,
essentially). I understand that people think it was wrong because it was
specifically Microsoft that did it and the specific circumstances they were
in with respect to their market. I've addressed that in other parts of this
thread.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #376
Roedy Green wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and
other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every
machine you sell without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy
Windows wholesale. Someone could comply with this by not selling any
other operating systems at all and never pay the fee. Therefore,
this is a lesser restriction than saying you can only sell Windows
wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing systems. If I
have the right to say you can't use my car at all, I have the lesser
right to impose the lesser restriction that you can only use my car
if you pay me $10.

It makes a big difference that MS has a monopoly.
See my other response to this specific argument.
If I open an washing machine store and Maytag says, "we only sell
wholesale to you if you agree to sell our brand exclusively."

What Microsoft did is different for three reasons:

1. the Maytag agreement made up front, not imposed to shut down a
business who has never signed a prior exclusivity contract.
The Microsoft agreement is also up front. It's not "imposed" in any
sense except that it's one of the conditions for buying Windows wholesale.
2. The appliance store has lots of other brands to sell. In my case,
failing to comply with MS's illegal and immoral demand would put me
out of busness. They were forcing me into commit criminal acts or lose
my business.
In other words, what Microsoft had to offer you was of such value that
you'd have no customers without it. To put it another way, those are
Microsoft's customers because it's your ability to sell Microsoft products
that makes your business.
3. Maytag makes the machines. In the computer instance, we at CMP
custom build the computers. Microsoft have no business telling me what
to do when they supplied only one component. I could not even sell a
BARE computer.


The "one component" is what makes the product you're selling. It's
"Windows PCs" that people are buying and it's the look and feel of a
"Windows PC" that makes it what it is.

There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to other with
minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do compete with
Windows PCs.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #377
Roedy Green wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 18:05:45 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
<ja********@hotmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :
IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.
... and were told not to by a court. Which is the whole reason for
the existence of IBM clones, whether PCs or mainframes.

Back in the early days, IBM was just as bad as MS. Competition and
some smackdown by the DOJ, have made them much better behaved.


And opened the door for Microsoft.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #378
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
. Microsoft said you can sell Windows
and other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every
machine you sell without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy
Windows wholesale. Someone could comply with this by not selling any
other operating systems at all and never pay the fee. Therefore,
this is a lesser restriction than saying you can only sell Windows
wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing systems.

No - you claim that allowing somebody (by contract?) to do Z at a
penalty is "lesser" than disallowing them from doing Z. Sorry - both
are equal in market economics (where the financial imperatve rules).
Umm, no it's lesser in a strictly logical sense.
Indeed, no contract can "disallow" somebody from doing Z - you are
always at liberty to break a contract! (See the RH Enterprise licence
as an example of a contract that you are at liberty to break by
copying RHE to more machines at the penalty of losing RH maintenance
support- I recently had this argument with Rick Moen). The penalty
for doing so is what is at issue.

So your definitions are anyway without semantic content, and hence the
argument cannot proceed.
My argument proceeds exactly the same if they're equal as if they're
lesser. It is totally not dependent upon how much lesser it is.
And even if the argument were too proceed, your use of "lesser" would
fail, because it appears to mean "is a (proper) subset of the ways
that" without having established what different (i.e. same) means, and
I'd submit that there is no diffence between the elements you exhibit
in the setting of market regulation law.


My argument proceeds the same if they're equivalent. (Did you read it?!)

DS
Oct 27 '05 #379

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:dj**********@nntp.webmaster.com...

There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to other
with minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do compete
with Windows PCs.


There's a huge difference to the non-techy consumer. One of the buggest
reasons Linux has had a reputation of being harder to use than Windows was
the fact that Linux had to be installed, while Windows just booted up.
Oct 27 '05 #380
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft.


Because the error I'm correcting is the belief that Microsoft's conduct
was extremely unusual (unlike anything any reputable company had ever done,
essentially).


MS's monopolistic conduct was uncommon, but not so extremely unusual
as to be unheard of. Congress had indeed seen conduct like that
before, which is why it saw the need for passing laws against it.
Oct 27 '05 #381
Mike Schilling wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:dj**********@nntp.webmaster.com...
There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to
other with minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do
compete with Windows PCs.

There's a huge difference to the non-techy consumer. One of the
buggest reasons Linux has had a reputation of being harder to use
than Windows was the fact that Linux had to be installed, while
Windows just booted up.


Is that really true? I mean, I remember distributions of Linux that you
could just stick in the CD, boot from CD, and you were up in minutes.
Installing was as simple as pushing the 'install to hard drive' button.

I think one of the biggest reasons Linux has a reputation of being
harder to use than Windows is that it *is* harder to use. However, the
payoff is that when a Linux machine breaks, you can fix it. When a Windows
machine breaks, you pretty much have to reinstall. And Windows machines
break in this way more often because it's much harder to limit what a user
or program can do.

Linux, for example, would be easier to use if it had no permissions
checks and always ran everything as root. However, it doesn't do this the
way Windows does (or more accurately, the way Windows users typically do),
because that's just not the Linux way.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy to make my point clearer, but I
can't.

IMO, a person who doesn't find installing Linux to be easy wouldn't be
able to use a Linux desktop (or do much with a Linux server either for that
matter). But I could be out of date, I haven't really tried to use the more
recent Linux desktop builds as desktops. But, IMO, that was certainly true
in the time frame we're talking about.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #382
Paul Rubin wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft.
Because the error I'm correcting is the belief that Microsoft's
conduct was extremely unusual (unlike anything any reputable company
had ever done, essentially).

MS's monopolistic conduct was uncommon, but not so extremely unusual
as to be unheard of. Congress had indeed seen conduct like that
before, which is why it saw the need for passing laws against it.


But there is no law against that type of conduct, *unless* you are a
monopolist. So your conclusion hinges on the determination that Microsoft
had a monopoly, and that hinges on the definition of the "market". That's a
different can of worms for a different part of this thread.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #383
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:28:46 +0200, "Peter T. Breuer"
<pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
I'm a bit curious about this. If I were a business person, I would
simply have created two busineses (two accounts, etc.). One business
sells only machines with MS on and pays the MS tax on all its machines.
One business sells only machines without MS on and pays the MS tax on
none of its machines.

What's up with that?


Try the same thing to deal with a Mafia extortion racket.

We are not talking about legal agreements. We are talking junior Mafia
style enforcement.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #384
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
The Microsoft agreement is also up front. It's not "imposed" in any
sense except that it's one of the conditions for buying Windows wholesale.


No it was not . It was never on paper. It was not imposed until I
had been in business for at least 5 years.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #385
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to other with
minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do compete with
Windows PCs.


You think it is OK to force someone into a choice of committing a
criminal act with the alternative of losing their established business
and having to put 8 employees out of work. What religion do you belong
to?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #386
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:28:46 +0200, "Peter T. Breuer"
<pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
I'm a bit curious about this. If I were a business person, I would
simply have created two busineses (two accounts, etc.). One business
sells only machines with MS on and pays the MS tax on all its
machines. One business sells only machines without MS on and pays
the MS tax on none of its machines.

What's up with that?

Try the same thing to deal with a Mafia extortion racket.
This is precisely my point. Your premise is that a gun is no different
from a persuasive argument. You need this principle to justify responding to
arguments you don't like with guns. I reject this premise at its roots.
We are not talking about legal agreements. We are talking junior Mafia
style enforcement.


Can you cite any evidence of Microsoft actually using or threatening
force?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #387
Roedy Green wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
The Microsoft agreement is also up front. It's not "imposed" in
any sense except that it's one of the conditions for buying Windows
wholesale.

No it was not . It was never on paper. It was not imposed until I
had been in business for at least 5 years.


I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the
absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you simply saying that
they changed the terms of your agreement when it came up for renewal?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #388
Roedy Green wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to
other with minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do
compete with Windows PCs.

You think it is OK to force someone into a choice of committing a
criminal act with the alternative of losing their established business
and having to put 8 employees out of work. What religion do you belong
to?


You often say things that just seem to have come out of the blue with no
connection whatsoever to anything else. What criminal act was someone forced
into committing? What are you talking about?

If you have a business that sells PCs only because those PCs come
preloaded with Windows, and without Windows to offer, there would be no
market, then you have a business that exists at Microsoft's pleasure. The
same thing would be the case with any piece of software by any manufacturer.

Now, not all manufacturers would use their leverage, of course. But
don't you think it would be pretty stupid of them not to? Why shouldn't they
get from you, and why aren't they entitled to, as much as the ability to
sell Windows is worth? Since, by your own admission, it's what made it
possible for you to be in business?

You say you couldn't stay in business without the ability to sell
Windows wholesale. That means that every customer you get, in some part you
owe to Microsoft. Why shouldn't you pay them their fair share of that?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #389
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:48:25 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
We are not talking about legal agreements. We are talking junior Mafia
style enforcement.


Can you cite any evidence of Microsoft actually using or threatening
force?


YES . Have you not read a word I said.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #390
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the
absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you simply saying that
they changed the terms of your agreement when it came up for renewal?


This was all under the table.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #391
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:58:42 GMT, Roedy Green
<my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :
I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the
absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you simply saying that
they changed the terms of your agreement when it came up for renewal?


This was all under the table.


The other thing to understand is almost no one buys straight from
Microsoft. One wholesale side there are levels of distributors.

The threat is if you don't comply and they catch you, they will see to
it none of your wholesalers will sell to you.

No contracts involved anywhere.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #392
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
But there is no law against that type of conduct, *unless* you are a
monopolist. So your conclusion hinges on the determination that Microsoft
had a monopoly, and that hinges on the definition of the "market". That's a
different can of worms for a different part of this thread.


The trial court determined and two different appeals courts upheld
that MS had an illegal monopoly. I think they have more experience
and knowledge of these things than you do. MS's illegal monopoly
is an established legal fact regardless of your irrelevant opinion.

Oct 27 '05 #393
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the
absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you simply saying that
they changed the terms of your agreement when it came up for renewal?


They were demanding I sell a copy of windows with every machine I
constructed, whether the customer wanted or not, even if the customer
had us install some other OS.

The threat was that I did not comply, they would put me out of
business by arranging that my wholesalers would stop selling any MS
product to me, with veiled threat of even worse strangulation.

What I don't think you understand this threat would was just as
effective in putting he out of business as threatening to sending in
goons every week to smash my shop to pieces.

I could at least have a chance of legal recourse with the vandals.

It will be very hard to prosecute MS for their crimes because they
commit them much the way the Mafia does.

No one has any paper. Everyone was terrified of MS and would never
dream of going public. I have talked about this publicly many times
because it always looked as if I were going to die in a few years
anyway.

To put this in perspective, IBM's salespeople made much nastier
threats in their heyday. Dick Toewes, head of Inland Natural Gas, was
in charge of a tender for a new mainframe to do billing. I was
working on the Univac bid at the time. He said that the IBM salesman
said to him, "We know you have an eight year old little girl. We know
she walks along X street every day on her way to school. It would be
a terrible thing if somebody hurt her."

I wrote a tender for about $1 million in computer equipment for BC
Hydro gas. There were many bidders hoping to get a foothold in a
solidly IBM shop. IBM sent a weird chap to see me, dressed as a
gangster, talking in a gangster accent, with a strange tic like Dustin
Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo in midnight cowboy. He made no specific
threats, but his act was straight out of Hollywood,"you knows what I
means" warning me about the "consequences" of picking anything but
IBM, how I might get the reputation as unreliable..."

There were the standard tactics on $1 million contracts. Imagine the
dirty tricks for the big ones. Mind you, back then $1 million was
serious money, especially when you considered the no-bid followons
over the years.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #394
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:13:39 GMT, Roedy Green
<my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :
To put this in perspective, IBM's salespeople made much nastier
threats in their heyday. Dick Toewes, head of Inland Natural Gas, was
in charge of a tender for a new mainframe to do billing. I was
working on the Univac bid at the time. He said that the IBM salesman
said to him, "We know you have an eight year old little girl. We know
she walks along X street every day on her way to school. It would be
a terrible thing if somebody hurt her."


The tactic Univac/Burroughs/Prime used, at least for big sales, was
for example invite the potential customer to view some installation to
talk to a satisfied client about how they were using their gear. There
might be a convenient client in say ... Las Vegas.

The game then became to get the client to get drunk and laid and do
crazy things to help very uptight people cut loose.

On one of these trips, we ran through fields chasing fireflies.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #395
David Schwartz schrieb:
When you are not in the majority, you are going to face inconveniences.
You'd face the same inconvenience if you wanted to buy a new car without
seats. Most people wants cars with seats, so that's the way they're
packaged.


What a stupid comparison! A computer without Windows is a computer with
another operating system. It isn't even comparable to a car with
specially expensive non standard seats.

--
Dr. Sibylle Koczian
Universitaetsbibliothek, Abt. Naturwiss.
D-86135 Augsburg
e-mail : Si*************@Bibliothek.Uni-Augsburg.DE
Oct 27 '05 #396
In <7x************@ruckus.brouhaha.com> Paul Rubin:

[Snip...]
The trial court determined and two different appeals courts upheld
that MS had an illegal monopoly.


And M$ is still intransigent about that LEGAL FACT, much to the dismay
of the federal judge overseeing the latest (toothless) consent decree:

In a rare display of indignation, U.S. District Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly demanded an explanation from Microsoft's lawyers and
told them, "This should not be happening."

Legal and industry experts said Microsoft's demands probably would
have violated a landmark antitrust settlement the same judge approved
in 2002 between the company and the Bush administration. The
government and Microsoft disclosed details of the dispute in a court
document last week.

More at:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051026/micro...rust.html?.v=3

Just to really get her riled, the M$ snakes pulled another stunt:

"This needs to get done," U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
said of a project designed to help put potential rivals on a more
equal competitive footing with Microsoft.

"If there's an issue of resources, then put them in," said
Kollar-Kotelly, who endorsed the settlement with the U.S. government
and state attorneys general in November 2002.

More at (line wrapped):

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuot...l?duid=mtfh193
85_2005-10-26_23-14-09_n26509630_newsml

Any M$ apologists saying M$ isn't an illegal monopoly are just as much
a part of that pack of liars and thieves as M$ itself.

They need to discuss it with Judge Colleen, and STignorantFU about it.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
Oct 27 '05 #397
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:31:41 GMT, Roedy Green
<my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :
I used to be a retailer of custom computers. MS used a dirty trick to
compete with IBM's OS/2. They said to me as a retailer. You must buy
a copy of our OS for EVERY machine you sell. The alternative is to
pay full retail for the OSes.


Through intimidation, MS managed to control the entire retail computer
market in Vancouver BC to the extent you could not buy even the most
stripped down computer without having to buy a copy of Windows with
it, whether you wanted it or not.

You might not want it because you bought OS/2.

You might not want it because you already owned Windows from your
older machine you were upgrading.

You might not want it because somebody stole your machine and they did
not steal all your software masters.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #398
Paul Rubin wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
But there is no law against that type of conduct, *unless* you
are a monopolist. So your conclusion hinges on the determination
that Microsoft had a monopoly, and that hinges on the definition of
the "market". That's a different can of worms for a different part
of this thread.

The trial court determined and two different appeals courts upheld
that MS had an illegal monopoly. I think they have more experience
and knowledge of these things than you do. MS's illegal monopoly
is an established legal fact regardless of your irrelevant opinion.


The appeals courts upheld that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion. However, both a finding of "yes, Microsoft had a monopoly" and a
finding of "no, Microsoft did not have a monopoly" would both have been
within the trial court's discretion. They could just as easily have found
that Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, and other operating systems competed with Windows.

To call it an "established legal fact" is to grossly distort the
circumstances under which it was determined and upheld.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #399
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table
in the absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you
simply saying that they changed the terms of your agreement when it
came up for renewal?

They were demanding I sell a copy of windows with every machine I
constructed, whether the customer wanted or not, even if the customer
had us install some other OS.
Right I understand that. You could have complied simply by only selling
computers with Windows preinstalled. In other words, you could have treated
this the same as a demand for franchise or exclusivity if you had wanted to.
The threat was that I did not comply, they would put me out of
business by arranging that my wholesalers would stop selling any MS
product to me, with veiled threat of even worse strangulation.
Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with
you if you broke your agreements with them.
What I don't think you understand this threat would was just as
effective in putting he out of business as threatening to sending in
goons every week to smash my shop to pieces.
I understand that it is just as effective, but that's not the issue. If
I'm hungry, a person who refuses to give me a loaf of bread for free may be
just as effective at killing me as a person who shoots me. But that doesn't
change the fact that there is no obligation to feed a person and there is an
obligation not to shoot them.
I could at least have a chance of legal recourse with the vandals.
Only because their actions are unreasonable and Microsoft's are not.
It will be very hard to prosecute MS for their crimes because they
commit them much the way the Mafia does.
Right, they send gun-wielding thugs to use force against people. That's
a lot like refusing to do business with people who won't uphold their
contractual obligations.
No one has any paper. Everyone was terrified of MS and would never
dream of going public. I have talked about this publicly many times
because it always looked as if I were going to die in a few years
anyway.
I think you're starting to go off the deep end.
To put this in perspective, IBM's salespeople made much nastier
threats in their heyday. Dick Toewes, head of Inland Natural Gas, was
in charge of a tender for a new mainframe to do billing. I was
working on the Univac bid at the time. He said that the IBM salesman
said to him, "We know you have an eight year old little girl. We know
she walks along X street every day on her way to school. It would be
a terrible thing if somebody hurt her."
Yep, way off the deep end.
I wrote a tender for about $1 million in computer equipment for BC
Hydro gas. There were many bidders hoping to get a foothold in a
solidly IBM shop. IBM sent a weird chap to see me, dressed as a
gangster, talking in a gangster accent, with a strange tic like Dustin
Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo in midnight cowboy. He made no specific
threats, but his act was straight out of Hollywood,"you knows what I
means" warning me about the "consequences" of picking anything but
IBM, how I might get the reputation as unreliable..." There were the standard tactics on $1 million contracts. Imagine the
dirty tricks for the big ones. Mind you, back then $1 million was
serious money, especially when you considered the no-bid followons
over the years.


If that kind of thing ever happened (which I seriously doubt), it's
absolutely reprehensible. I find it almost possible to believe that
individuals on commission might do this kind of thing with no knowledge of
their corporate higher ups, or perhaps even that people one level up or so
might do it if they are also on commission. But I find it almost impossible
to believe that any major corporation could do this as a policy.

Of course, the individuals who use actual force or threats of fraud (and
blacklisting because they didn't buy from you is fraud), deserve to be
prosecuted and imprisoned.

Do you have any documentation or evidence to support these claims? Or am
I supposed to take your word for it? (Honestly, it seems like you're just
trying to mess with me.)

DS
Oct 27 '05 #400

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.