469,326 Members | 1,359 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
Roedy Green wrote:
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.
Yep, that's a classic. Notice that no force, fraud, or threats are
involved.
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.


That is a bit questionable, I admit. It is questionable because the
intent is pretty obviously to get the individuals more interested in being
nice to you than looking out for the interests of their employers when they
make their purchasing decisions.

On the other hand, it's a far cry from force, fraud, blacklisting,
threats of false accusations, and so on.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #401
Sibylle Koczian wrote:
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.


It is comparable in the only sense in which I used a comparison. More
people want a computer with Windows preinstalled than want it any other way.
Similarly, more people want a car with standard seats preinstalled than want
it any other way.

Who said anything about 'specially expensive'? Are you pretending I said
that just so you can refute it?

It kind of reminds me of a scene from Futurama, which went roughly like
this:

Leela: We need to get some money.

Fry: Well how are we going to do that? A daring daylight robbery of Fort
Knox on elephant back? That's the dumbest idea I ever heard!

DS
Oct 27 '05 #402
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
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.
Well, of course, and they said YES (as a finding of fact).
They could just as easily have found
that Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, and other operating systems competed with Windows.
It would have been irrelevant.
To call it an "established legal fact" is to grossly distort the
circumstances under which it was determined and upheld.


Uh, it's an established legal fact. So I think your logic is off there.

Peter
Oct 27 '05 #403
Roedy Green wrote:
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.


Tell me, can you buy a new car without seats? Guess what, you have to
buy those seats whether you want them or not.

Try to start a business selling competing seats for a new car. Your
seats may be cheaper, better, but how can you possibly compete when people
have to pay for factory car seats whether they want them or not?

The real reason PCs were not available without Windows was because not
enough people wanted them that way to justify setting up a business to
provide them that way, and Microsoft was not going to let a business
parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the advantages of
competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)

DS
Oct 27 '05 #404
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
Microsoft was not going to let a business
parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the advantages of
competing products.
Well, it should have, because that's what manufacturers of operating
systems, washing machines, and so on, are supposed to do. And so says
the legal system. Attempting to subvert market economics like that is
illegal.

(Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)


They're not obliged to. There is no comparison. Not even the same kind
of business in the abstract. Try :- Cow Meat Inc. will see that no
supplier will ever sell you cow meat again if you also sell vegetables
in your totally independent restaurant.

Peter
Oct 27 '05 #405
David Schwartz wrote:
Roedy Green wrote: <snip> competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)


Rather odd comparison don't you think ?

A better comparison would be if Burger King purchases the fries from a
factory that says that Burger King has to give out a pack of fries with
all meals, regardless of the type of meal, or they are going to raise
the price. In other words, you'll be forced to take a pack of fries with
your ice cream, salad or what not. Considering that McDonalds have been
selling meals with "potato-boats" (don't know the correct english term
for it, carved potato pieces fried), they'd have to give you a pack of
fries with your meal regardless, even if you want to replace the fries
with "potato-boats".

Also, in this case Burger King "won't sell you" is not the same as
"can't sell you", which seems to be the case with this whole Microsoft
discussion. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to easily buy a
computer from Microsoft with OS/2 installed or vice versa either and I'm
not sure they would be obliged to do so either. However, controlling
what an independant outlet is doing, that's different.

--
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen
http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
mailto:la***@vkarlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2
Oct 27 '05 #406
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
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.
No, that finding would have been contradictory to the facts at hand.
They could just as easily have found that Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, and
other operating systems competed with Windows.
Nice try, but those other OS's did not have enough market share to
prevent the finding of monopoly under the law.
To call it an "established legal fact" is to grossly distort the
circumstances under which it was determined and upheld.


Who is paying you to post such nonsense? If the trial court
determines a fact and it's upheld on appeal, it's an established legal
fact regardless of whether you or Microsoft likes it.
Oct 27 '05 #407
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:07:50 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
That is a bit questionable, I admit. It is questionable because the
intent is pretty obviously to get the individuals more interested in being
nice to you than looking out for the interests of their employers when they
make their purchasing decisions.


I don't think this was as reprehensible as what MS did. For a start,
everyone could refuse the trip if they wanted without dire
consequences. They could also refuse to go out partying each night
with the salesmen. They could refrain from alcohol (as I did).

Even though I don't think in most cases the salesmen went so far as to
purchase hookers or lap dancers, they did after the evening's revelry
know something about the client that potentially could be very
embarrasing if it were revealed to a spouse, without the tiniest hint
of a threat to do so.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #408
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
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.

You stupid fuck! How many times do I have to tell you.

There was NO contract. Just a THREAT to make me do what they wanted,
to go along with their extortion racket.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #409
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with
you if you broke your agreements with them.


You could have a more productive debate with a talking coke machine
than you.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #410
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
Microsoft was not going to let a business
parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the
advantages of competing products. Well, it should have, because that's what manufacturers of operating
systems, washing machines, and so on, are supposed to do. And so says
the legal system. Attempting to subvert market economics like that is
illegal.
Actually, there are washing machines that are only available in
particular stores. I believe Kenmore washing machines, for example, are only
available wholesale as part of a franchise deal. I don't know why you think
that's an attempt to subvert market economics, it's actually just a normal
part of the way the market works.
(Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)

They're not obliged to. There is no comparison. Not even the same kind
of business in the abstract. Try :- Cow Meat Inc. will see that no
supplier will ever sell you cow meat again if you also sell vegetables
in your totally independent restaurant.


So you are saying Microsoft wouldn't sell Windows wholesale to business
A if totally independent business B wouldn't pay them a per-system-sold
royalty? That makes no sense.

The comparison is perfect. Microsoft made Windows available wholesale
for resale only as part of a franchise-style agreement. This is a completely
typical thing to do. (Though I don't think it's typical for operating
systems, I'd be very surprised if it hadn't been done with an operating
system before. Sun seems to have similar restrictions now, in fact.)

DS
Oct 27 '05 #411
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:

<snip>
competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell
Big Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)

Rather odd comparison don't you think ?
No, it's dead on.
A better comparison would be if Burger King purchases the fries from a
factory that says that Burger King has to give out a pack of fries
with all meals, regardless of the type of meal, or they are going to
raise the price. In other words, you'll be forced to take a pack of
fries with your ice cream, salad or what not. Considering that
McDonalds have been selling meals with "potato-boats" (don't know the
correct english term for it, carved potato pieces fried), they'd have
to give you a pack of fries with your meal regardless, even if you
want to replace the fries with "potato-boats".
The reason this is a much worse comparison is that the fries don't
determine the nature, to the consumer, of the meal. On the other hand, there
is a sense in which all PCs running, say Windows 98, are alike to the
consumer. That is, what Microsoft provided is what put the product in its
class to the consumer, and to the typical consumer, the meal is a unit.
Also, in this case Burger King "won't sell you" is not the same as
"can't sell you", which seems to be the case with this whole Microsoft
discussion. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to easily buy a
computer from Microsoft with OS/2 installed or vice versa either and
I'm not sure they would be obliged to do so either. However,
controlling what an independant outlet is doing, that's different.


I'm talking about Burger King corporate, the wholesale distributor and
franchise licensor. They control what any entity that wants to sell their
branded products can do, and do so very strictly.

The term "independent outlet" is hiding the entire point. Microsoft has
no more obligation to sell Windows through independent outlets than Burger
Kind corporate has an obligation to sell Whoppers through indepedent
outlets, which is none at all. Microsoft elected only to allow Windows to be
purchased wholesale through a franchisee like arrangement, so you were no
longer a fully independent outlet.

I think the history shows that Microsoft opted for a franchisee-type
arrangement for much the same reason Burger King does. They want their
company name to have value and bring in customers. To do this, they have to
prevent their company name from being associated with products that don't
provide the experience they want associated with their name and they have to
prevent companies that draw based on the popularity of Windows but then
switch people to other products.

Because Burger King corporate doesn't want a person to see the golden
arches, walk in, and get a crappy burger or be told that a competing burger
is cheaper and better, they only allow their branded products to be sold at
any business that can draw using their name and products. Microsoft, for
much the same reasons, resticted people's ability to modify Windows or sell
both Windows and competing products.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #412
Paul Rubin wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
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. No, that finding would have been contradictory to the facts at hand.
How would it have been contradictory to the facts at hand to find that
OSX competes with Windows?
They could just as easily have found that Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, and
other operating systems competed with Windows. Nice try, but those other OS's did not have enough market share to
prevent the finding of monopoly under the law.
That's not what happened. With OSX, for example, the court decided that
OSX didn't compete with Windows and therefore the market share of OSX was
not even relevent. OSX could have sold twice as many units as Windows and
under the court's reasoning, Microsoft would still have been a monopoly.
To call it an "established legal fact" is to grossly distort the
circumstances under which it was determined and upheld.

Who is paying you to post such nonsense?
That's basically slander.
If the trial court
determines a fact and it's upheld on appeal, it's an established legal
fact regardless of whether you or Microsoft likes it.


Suppose hypothetically an issue of fact in a case is razor thin, as
close as it can possibly be. The trial court judge says, "This is as close
as something can possibly be. A decision of X is basically just as well
supported as Y. Nevertheless, I will find X". (Assume the court must find X
or Y and they are contradictory.) The appeals court says that either X or Y
would be a reasonable finding for the trial court to make since they were
essentially equally supported, so the decision is upheld. Does this make X
an "established legal fact" in your mind?

The trial court had several possible decisions about what the scope of
the market was to be for purposes of determining what share of the market
Microsoft had. Obviously, "software" was too large a scope and would result
in the conclusion that Microsoft has some miniscule percentage of the
market. "Operating systems that can run WIN32 software natively" was too
small a scope, and would result in the conclusion that Microsoft had
basically 100% of the market. However, the choice of the place in-between
was critical.

In fact, by the court's definition of the market, Apple is a monopolist
with OSX. And what are Apple's rules for obtaining OSX wholesale?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #413
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with
you if you broke your agreements with them.


I am going to summarise this then drop out. My blood pressure is at a
boil.

I was a computer retailer. We built custom computers. I had 8 people
working for me. This was in the time prior to Win95 when IBM had a
clearly technically superior solution with OS/2 to MS's Windows 3.1

I had no contract of any kind with MS. I never bought anything from
them directly. I was far too small a fish. I bought the components
including software through dozens of wholesale suppliers.

MS threatened to put any retailer out of business who would not
co-operate with them in extorting money from people who had no use for
MS Windows who explicitly for various reasons did not want to buy MS
windows.

To me that is no different from a popsicle manufacturer demanding I
sell $200 popsicles with every machine I sold. The machines needed MS
Windows no more than they needed a popsicle.

The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product
to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.

It was obviously quasi legal or the threats would have had paper to
back them up so I could go to court now to sue the fuckers.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #414
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
Microsoft was not going to let a business
parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the
advantages of competing products.
Well, it should have, because that's what manufacturers of operating
systems, washing machines, and so on, are supposed to do. And so says
the legal system. Attempting to subvert market economics like that is
illegal.

Actually, there are washing machines that are only available in
particular stores. I believe Kenmore washing machines, for example, are only
available wholesale as part of a franchise deal.
Good for them - I guess nobody else would want them (I certainly
wouldn't want something which hadn't been subjected to the test of a
competetive market)!

In case you hadn't noticed, there are also JAMs and TINNED CUCUMBERs
which are only available in certain stores! It's called an "own brand",
and they are normally cheaper than branded equivalents, not having paid
for the advertising or in some cases actually using cheaper and generic
products.

That's UP TO THE FRIGGING STORE (in contrast to the MS situation). The store
doesn't have to tell its supplier to make its product also availabel to
other stores (but it probably will, under a differnt label - all these
things come from the same canneries). It's not forced on them sellerby
the manufacturer. And attempts by manufacturers (notably sports shoe
brands) to dictate which shops may sell their brands (in order that they
may control the pricing) have been rebuffed by the courts as well.
I don't know why you think
that's an attempt to subvert market economics,
Because "it is".
it's actually just a normal
part of the way the market works.


No it isn't.

I think I'll just plonk you. Absurd and outlandish statements like
that put you beyond the pale. The law has spoken on the matter - the
courts have judged, and "that is illegal" and "that is a monopoly"
and "that is an illegal trade practice" are its judgments.


Peter
Oct 27 '05 #415
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
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.

You stupid fuck! How many times do I have to tell you. There was NO contract. Just a THREAT to make me do what they wanted,
to go along with their extortion racket.


Getting information from you is like pulling teeth. This threat was to
do what they wanted or else .. WHAT?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #416
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business
with you if you broke your agreements with them.

I am going to summarise this then drop out. My blood pressure is at a
boil. I was a computer retailer. We built custom computers. I had 8 people
working for me. This was in the time prior to Win95 when IBM had a
clearly technically superior solution with OS/2 to MS's Windows 3.1 I had no contract of any kind with MS. I never bought anything from
them directly. I was far too small a fish. I bought the components
including software through dozens of wholesale suppliers. MS threatened to put any retailer out of business who would not
co-operate with them in extorting money from people who had no use for
MS Windows who explicitly for various reasons did not want to buy MS
windows.
No, MS decided only to sell Windows to essentially Windows-only shops.
To me that is no different from a popsicle manufacturer demanding I
sell $200 popsicles with every machine I sold. The machines needed MS
Windows no more than they needed a popsicle.
You could have complied with their requests by selling computers only
with Windows installed. That is, by only selling Windows PCs. All Microsoft
was saying was "sell only our products or don't sell our products". This is
a perfectly, normal typical franchise arrangement.

You can't sell Whoppers and also sell any competing burgers that aren't
Burger King branded.
The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product
to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.
Right, I get that. You owed your entire business to Microsoft. Without
their products, you would have had nothing, by your own admission. The way
you repay them is by trying to screw them -- attract people who come in only
because you offer Windows and then say "here's an OS that's better and
cheaper".
It was obviously quasi legal or the threats would have had paper to
back them up so I could go to court now to sue the fuckers.


It's perfectly legal and normal (for non-monopoly products). What do you
have to agree to in order to purchase OSX wholesale? What do you have to
agree to in order to purchase Solaris wholesale?

Honestly, I don't understand why you're so worked up and ballistic about
a perfectly typical franchisee/authorized reseller agreement.

Microsoft could have refused to sell you Windows wholesale completely.
That would have meant no business for you at all. In exchange for making
your business possible, all they ask is you don't steer the customers you
have only because of them to their competitors.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #417

David Schwartz wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
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.


Tell me, can you buy a new car without seats? Guess what, you have to
buy those seats whether you want them or not.

Try to start a business selling competing seats for a new car. Your
seats may be cheaper, better, but how can you possibly compete when people
have to pay for factory car seats whether they want them or not?

The real reason PCs were not available without Windows was because not
enough people wanted them that way to justify setting up a business to
provide them that way, and Microsoft was not going to let a business
parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the advantages of
competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)

DS


Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work? It would only be fitting
if Microsoft OWNED the outlet. Places which sell Whoppers are Burger
King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell Big Mac's. PC
hardware stores do not belong to microsoft. There just isn't any
correlation.

Iain

Oct 27 '05 #418
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
That's UP TO THE FRIGGING STORE (in contrast to the MS situation).
No, it's not up to the store. In all the cases I mentioned, it's the
manufacturer of the product that imposes the restrictions and the
manufacturer of the product is not the store owner.
I don't know why you think
that's an attempt to subvert market economics, Because "it is".
Then every franchise on the planet and every company that sells
wholesale only to "authorized resellers" and has non-compete in their
authorization terms, is subverting the market.
it's actually just a normal
part of the way the market works.


No it isn't.


Yes, it is.
I think I'll just plonk you. Absurd and outlandish statements like
that put you beyond the pale. The law has spoken on the matter - the
courts have judged, and "that is illegal" and "that is a monopoly"
and "that is an illegal trade practice" are its judgments.


I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice illegal for a
company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they did, I'm going after
Doctor's Associates and Kenmore.

What do you have to agree to in order to get OSX wholesale for resale?
What about Solaris?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #419
Iain King wrote:
Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work?
No.
It would only be
fitting if Microsoft OWNED the outlet.
Huh?
Places which sell Whoppers
are Burger King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell
Big Mac's.
Right. The Burger King corporate franchising agent only sells Whoppers
wholesale to franchisees, and to be a franchisee you must agree not to sell
competing products.
PC hardware stores do not belong to microsoft.
91% of Burger King restaurants are independently owned and operated.
Burger King doesn't own the stores either.
There
just isn't any correlation.


Huh?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #420

David Schwartz wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product
to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.


Right, I get that. You owed your entire business to Microsoft. Without
their products, you would have had nothing, by your own admission. The way
you repay them is by trying to screw them -- attract people who come in only
because you offer Windows and then say "here's an OS that's better and
cheaper".


Oh right. You're actually just a troll. Oh well.

*plonk*

Iain

Oct 27 '05 #421
Iain King wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS
product to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.


Right, I get that. You owed your entire business to Microsoft.
Without their products, you would have had nothing, by your own
admission. The way you repay them is by trying to screw them --
attract people who come in only because you offer Windows and then
say "here's an OS that's better and cheaper".


Oh right. You're actually just a troll. Oh well.

*plonk*


I see, he presents the strongest possible anti-Microsoft argument
(including analogizing Microsoft to people who *KILL* people) and that's
fine with you. I present the strongest possible pro-Microsoft argument, and
I must be a troll. Right ... If you think I'm a troll, why don't you try
googling for all my posts on USENET.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #422
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
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.


It is obvious to everyone WHY MS did this, to maintain monopoly. But
ignore motive for a while and see what they actually did and exactly
how they intended to carry out he threat of destroying my business.
What they did is clearly criminal. The hard part is proving it. Like
any smart criminal who makes a threat, MS left no paper trail..

1. it was a threat to destroy a business -- e.g vandalise tens of
thousands of dollars of property. For all practical purpose they
threatened to steal my business. It would be roughly the same dollar
value as threatening to burn down a large house.

2. it was a threat to force me to commit a criminal act -- namely
extract money from people and hand it to Microsoft and give those
people nothing of value in return. That in principle is no different
from demanding I go out an night and rob people and give MS the
proceeds. The selected victims were those who expressed a contempt
for MS products by refusing to buy or even have any need for them.

3. What MS did was theft, namely taking money from people and giving
them nothing of value in return against their will.

What if MS had simply made the threat without being specific about how
they were going to carry it off? Would you consider MS so innocent
then?

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Oct 27 '05 #423
Roedy Green wrote:
1. it was a threat to destroy a business -- e.g vandalise tens of
thousands of dollars of property. For all practical purpose they
threatened to steal my business. It would be roughly the same dollar
value as threatening to burn down a large house.
No, it was a threat to stop providing you with a business by allowing
you to resell their products.
2. it was a threat to force me to commit a criminal act -- namely
extract money from people and hand it to Microsoft and give those
people nothing of value in return. That in principle is no different
from demanding I go out an night and rob people and give MS the
proceeds. The selected victims were those who expressed a contempt
for MS products by refusing to buy or even have any need for them.
If you didn't think Windows was worth paying for, don't sell it. An
wholesale agreement that prohibits you from selling competing products is
not at all unusual.
3. What MS did was theft, namely taking money from people and giving
them nothing of value in return against their will.
Then don't agree to it. All you had to do was say no. All you would have
lost was the ability to do business *with* *Microsoft*.
What if MS had simply made the threat without being specific about how
they were going to carry it off? Would you consider MS so innocent
then?


If it could have been in any way taken as a threat to use force, lie to
others about your company, file a lawsuit knowing it had no merit, or
anything of the like, then I would not consider MS innocent at all. To my
mind, that is where the line is drawn.

But in this case, all it seems that Microsoft threatened to do was to
prohibit you from doing business with them. And all they wanted in exchange
was more of what being able to sell their products was actually worth to
you.

The point here is that Microsoft was offering you something of
tremendous value to you. And they, in return, asked for a lot of money from
you. It's really this simple -- is the money they want from you more or less
than the value? If yes, you have no right to complain. If no, why ever did
you agree?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #424
David Schwartz wrote:
Iain King wrote:

Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work?

No.

It would only be
fitting if Microsoft OWNED the outlet.

Huh?


I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word
"Microsoft" as part of the shop name, there would be some rules
dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those
rules are set forth in a law somewhere or Microsoft set them forth
themselves, I would find it hard to believe that the law would prohibit
them from doing so.

Otherwise I could set up a shop, call it "Microsoft Porsgrunn" and sell
machines with only Linux installed.

I think Microsoft would be allowed to say "No, you can't do that".

--
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen
http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
mailto:la***@vkarlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2
Oct 27 '05 #425
David Schwartz wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:

If the trial court
determines a fact and it's upheld on appeal, it's an established
legal fact regardless of whether you or Microsoft likes it.


I just found this article: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=88

I don't agree with all of it, and it contains a few minor technical
errors. But it does sum up most of my view on this particular aspect of the
topic.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #426
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

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.

It is obvious to everyone WHY MS did this, to maintain monopoly. But
ignore motive for a while and see what they actually did and exactly
how they intended to carry out he threat of destroying my business.
What they did is clearly criminal. The hard part is proving it. Like
any smart criminal who makes a threat, MS left no paper trail..

<snip> 2. it was a threat to force me to commit a criminal act -- namely
extract money from people and hand it to Microsoft and give those


What, specifically, is the criminal act of which you speak?

--
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen
http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
mailto:la***@vkarlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2
Oct 27 '05 #427
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen wrote:
I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word
"Microsoft" as part of the shop name, there would be some rules
dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those
rules are set forth in a law somewhere or Microsoft set them forth
themselves, I would find it hard to believe that the law would
prohibit them from doing so. Otherwise I could set up a shop, call it "Microsoft Porsgrunn" and
sell machines with only Linux installed. I think Microsoft would be allowed to say "No, you can't do that".


Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger patties
wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless you take the
whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing package. With very few limits,
companies do get to choose how their products are branded, marketed, and
sold.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #428
David Schwartz wrote:
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen wrote:

I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word
"Microsoft" as part of the shop name, there would be some rules
dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those
rules are set forth in a law somewhere or Microsoft set them forth
themselves, I would find it hard to believe that the law would
prohibit them from doing so.


Otherwise I could set up a shop, call it "Microsoft Porsgrunn" and
sell machines with only Linux installed.


I think Microsoft would be allowed to say "No, you can't do that".

Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger patties
wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless you take the
whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing package. With very few limits,
companies do get to choose how their products are branded, marketed, and
sold.


Yes, and that's not what Microsoft has ever done. There have always been
lots of shops selling Microsoft merchandise without being a Microsoft
franchise in the sense Burger King shops are.

That's why I still say your comparison is a bad one.

--
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen
http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
mailto:la***@vkarlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2
Oct 27 '05 #429
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger
patties wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless
you take the whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing package.
With very few limits, companies do get to choose how their products
are branded, marketed, and sold.

Yes, and that's not what Microsoft has ever done. There have always
been lots of shops selling Microsoft merchandise without being a
Microsoft franchise in the sense Burger King shops are.
Right, Microsoft imposed a lesser restriction. They allowed you to sell
competing products, but charged you a fee.
That's why I still say your comparison is a bad one.


It shows that Microsoft's purportedly draconian restrictions are much
less than restrictions that people don't even bat an eye at.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #430
In article <pa***************************@REMOVETHIScyber.com .au>, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Of course it did.


Before MS-DOS their most well-known product was Microsoft BASIC.
I have an old "Interact" 8080-based microcomputer that came with
a cassette tape of MS BASIC copyrighted 1977.

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)
Oct 27 '05 #431
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice illegal for a
company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they did, I'm going after
Doctor's Associates and Kenmore.


Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think
Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not.
Oct 27 '05 #432
Paul Rubin wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice
illegal for a company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they
did, I'm going after Doctor's Associates and Kenmore.

Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think
Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not.


What is an "illegal monopoly"?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #433
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think
Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not.


What is an "illegal monopoly"?


It's what Microsoft still stands convicted of having.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/msdoj/
Oct 27 '05 #434
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
What is an "illegal monopoly"?

The opposite of a "legal monopoly". For example, in Norway we have
"Vinmonopolet", a monopoly which are the only one allowed to sell
wine and spirits to the public.

--
espen
Oct 27 '05 #435
Paul Rubin wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think
Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not.
What is an "illegal monopoly"?

It's what Microsoft still stands convicted of having.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/msdoj/


I don't see anything there about what an "illegal monopoly" is or might
be. Perhaps you could clarify. What do you think you mean when you say
"illegal monopoly"?

DS
Oct 27 '05 #436
Espen Myrland wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
What is an "illegal monopoly"?

The opposite of a "legal monopoly". For example, in Norway we have
"Vinmonopolet", a monopoly which are the only one allowed to sell
wine and spirits to the public.


Seriously, I have no idea what you he means by "illegal monopoly". I
understand that one can be granted a monopoly by law, however not being
granted a monopoly by law does not make the monopoly illegal. Is he claiming
the monopoly itself violated some law?

For example, I know what "illegal monopoly maintenance" is. It's
illegally maintaining a monopoly. But it's not maintaining an illegal
monopoly. As the appeals court put it, "the monopoly in this case was not
found to have been illegally acquired, but only to have been illegally
maintained." Both the district and appellate courts characterized
Microsoft's monopoly as "lawfully-acquired".

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no court
ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to characterize
the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #437
In <dj**********@nntp.webmaster.com> "David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
What is an "illegal monopoly"?


A monopoly that acts in certain ways, abusing its monopoly power. There's
nothing inherently illegal about having a monopoly; it only becomes illegal
when you abuse the power.

--
John Gordon "It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese."
go****@panix.com

Oct 27 '05 #438

"John Gordon" <go****@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dj**********@reader2.panix.com...
In <dj**********@nntp.webmaster.com> "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> writes:
What is an "illegal monopoly"?

A monopoly that acts in certain ways, abusing its monopoly power. There's
nothing inherently illegal about having a monopoly; it only becomes
illegal
when you abuse the power.


That's just not true. When you abuse the power, the abuse itself is
illegal, but it doesn't make the monopoly itself illegal. This is like
saying a person who uses his bat to hit people has an "illegal bat".

When you say "it only become illegal", you are just being vague. Nothing
becomes illegal. The abuse is illegal, but it never was legal.

DS
Oct 27 '05 #439
In <dj**********@nntp.webmaster.com> "David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
When you say "it only become illegal", you are just being vague. Nothing
becomes illegal. The abuse is illegal, but it never was legal.


You're splitting hairs. But hey, what's usenet for?

--
John Gordon "It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese."
go****@panix.com

Oct 27 '05 #440
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no court
ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to characterize
the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous.


Who is paying you to tell these ridiculous crap? The monopoly is illegal
if maintained by anticompetitive means regardless of how it was acquired.
From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/conclusions-l.html:

Section 2 of the Sherman Act declares that it is unlawful for a person
or firm to "monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among
the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ." 15 U.S.C. 2.
This language operates to limit the means by which a firm may lawfully
either acquire or perpetuate monopoly power. Specifically, a firm
violates sec. 2 if it attains or preserves monopoly power through
anticompetitive acts.

The threshold element of a sec 2 monopolization offense being "the
possession of monopoly power in the relevant market...

David Schwartz, I have a direct question for you: are you on
Microsoft's payroll?
Oct 27 '05 #441
EP
Was this a test of Godwin's Law?

Hitler wasn't mentioned explicitly, but he was certainly implied in the
initial post.

So we learn:

Hitler must be _explicitly_ mentioned to invoke Godwin's Law

(or)

Xah Lee is immune from the central laws of the universe
Personally I suspect Xah Lee is a bot and that is why the Laws of the
Universe do not apply to him.

A "troll bot" I say. An AI program whose logic simply works on the
minimal basic principles required to generate conflict. Response
capabilities are still alpha, but will augment the basic conflict
generating capabilities in future releases.

It's currently considered "Freeware" but tastes nothing like free beer.
EP

Oct 27 '05 #442
Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no court
ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to characterize
the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous.
Who is paying you to tell these ridiculous crap? The monopoly is illegal
if maintained by anticompetitive means regardless of how it was acquired.
From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/conclusions-l.html:

Section 2 of the Sherman Act declares that it is unlawful for a person
or firm to "monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among
the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ." 15 U.S.C. 2.
This language operates to limit the means by which a firm may lawfully
either acquire or perpetuate monopoly power. Specifically, a firm
violates sec. 2 if it attains or preserves monopoly power through
anticompetitive acts.

The threshold element of a sec 2 monopolization offense being "the
possession of monopoly power in the relevant market...


Which means that the successful exercise of monopoly power is
sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a monopoly. A claim that
David Schwartz has never bothered to answer.
David Schwartz, I have a direct question for you: are you on
Microsoft's payroll?


I've noticed something strange that makes me wonder the same
thing. Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with that of any other
criminals, he responds about MS's activity being "equated to that of
criminals with guns", and refuses to discuss the issue. Ironically,
while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with guns -
after all, they're white collar criminals - David Schwartz called the
DOJ official who were investigating MS "criminals with guns pointed
out [MS officers] heads".

It seems like he's trying to avoid (further) tarnishing MS's
reputation by avoiding having MS associated with other criminals. You
have to wonder what could caause that kinnd of behavior.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 27 '05 #443

"Paul Rubin" <http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x************@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no
court
ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to
characterize
the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous.

Who is paying you to tell these ridiculous crap? The monopoly is illegal
if maintained by anticompetitive means regardless of how it was acquired.
From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/conclusions-l.html:
Is it your position that Micorosoft's monopoly was illegal when they
first acquired it?
The threshold element of a sec 2 monopolization offense being "the
possession of monopoly power in the relevant market...
If that were true, how could a person ever legally acquire a monopoly,
which is exactly what the courts held with respect to Microsoft?
David Schwartz, I have a direct question for you: are you on
Microsoft's payroll?


No. I have never received a dime from Microsoft, either directly or
indirectly. I am one of those people who believes that conduct that's
perfectly legal, moral and ethical before you can be said to have a monopoly
does not suddenly become immoral or unethical the day you acquire 51% of
what someone calls a market. I am not the only person with this view.

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...99623?v=glance
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
http://www.independent.org/publicati....asp?bookID=31
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?Pr...&org_name=NTUF

DS
Oct 27 '05 #444

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
I've noticed something strange that makes me wonder the same
thing. Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with that of any other
criminals, he responds about MS's activity being "equated to that of
criminals with guns", and refuses to discuss the issue. Ironically,
while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with guns -
after all, they're white collar criminals - David Schwartz called the
DOJ official who were investigating MS "criminals with guns pointed
out [MS officers] heads".


I can't understand why you would post an outright lie like this.
"Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with
guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior is
equated to the actual use of force where that is not in fact done in
precisely the thread I'm replying to.

In the present thread, for example, I was responding to:

"We are talking junior Mafia style enforcement."

and

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

and his response to my question if he was specifically saying that
Microsoft ever used or threatened force was:

"YES . Have you not read a word I said."

and

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

DS
Oct 27 '05 #445
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
I've noticed something strange that makes me wonder the same
thing. Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with that of any other
criminals, he responds about MS's activity being "equated to that of
criminals with guns", and refuses to discuss the issue. Ironically,
while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with guns -
after all, they're white collar criminals - David Schwartz called the
DOJ official who were investigating MS "criminals with guns pointed
out [MS officers] heads". I can't understand why you would post an outright lie like this.


I, on the other hand, understand why you accuse me of lying. You don't
have an answer to the claim, so you call the claim false. SOP for you.
"Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with
guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior is
equated to the actual use of force where that is not in fact done in
precisely the thread I'm replying to.
The first one is at:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....e=source&hl=en

The original comment was:
No, they didn't ask for more than Windows were worth. They tilted the
playing field against MS competitors by causing consumers to pay MS
money for products they didn't receive. In most countries, taking
money from unwilling victims without giving them anything in exchange
is called "theft".


Note that no mention is made of guns or force - just a definition of
theft. Unless you're so narrowminded that nothing short of pointing a
gun at someone and demanding money from them is stealing from them,
there is no way that this can be equated to the actual use of
force. And if you do believe that definition of stealing, I'll do your
bookkeeping for free - and I won't steal from you.

Your reply:
It is not theft if you can simply say "no" to the deal and all that
happens is that you don't get the product. Your argument is preposterous. If
you accept arguments that equate guns with arguments, the next step is that
using a gun is a rational response to an argument one doesn't like. Oh wait,
you're already there.


Wherein you accuse me of equating MS's actions with using guns, which
is *exactly* what I said you do.

There are lots more examples of you doing this kind of thing. Like I
said, everytime someone compares MS's behavior with some less
controversial criminal behavior, you act like they accused MS of
holding people up at gunpoint.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 27 '05 #446

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


If all of the hardware is known to Linux, that can work, and Linux has
gotten much better at being able to recognize and auto-configure lots of
devices.

But picture that, when this was less true, you wanted to buy a machine with
the newest-whizbang graphics card or disk controller. For Windows, the
manufacturer would make sure the proper drivers are installed and
configured. For Linux, you the consumer had to find a driver, install it,
configure it (the phrase "drive geometry" sticks in my head) and deal with
the lack of useful feedback if anything goes wrong.

I haven't tried to install Windows since Windows 95 was current. I recall
that as being pretty horrible, but for different reasons. There was a step
where, after the basic OS had been installed onto the hard drive, and it was
time to sense other devices. Half the time, this would simply hang the
computer, and you'd have to start over from scratch. Most of the rest of
the time, it would find most of the devices and make really awful guesses
about the rest, like thinking the sound card was a CD player. I suspect
this works better these days too.
Oct 27 '05 #447

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals
with
guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior
is
equated to the actual use of force where that is not in fact done in
precisely the thread I'm replying to.
The first one is at:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....e=source&hl=en

The original comment was:
No, they didn't ask for more than Windows were worth. They tilted the
playing field against MS competitors by causing consumers to pay MS
money for products they didn't receive. In most countries, taking
money from unwilling victims without giving them anything in exchange
is called "theft".

Note that no mention is made of guns or force - just a definition of
theft. Unless you're so narrowminded that nothing short of pointing a
gun at someone and demanding money from them is stealing from them,
there is no way that this can be equated to the actual use of
force. And if you do believe that definition of stealing, I'll do your
bookkeeping for free - and I won't steal from you.

Your reply:
It is not theft if you can simply say "no" to the deal and all that
happens is that you don't get the product. Your argument is preposterous.
If
you accept arguments that equate guns with arguments, the next step is
that
using a gun is a rational response to an argument one doesn't like. Oh
wait,
you're already there.


Wherein you accuse me of equating MS's actions with using guns, which
is *exactly* what I said you do.


This thread is large and complex, and I can't always know exactly what's
a reply to what reply to what. So what's said in what part of a thread may
carry over to another part of that same thread.
There are lots more examples of you doing this kind of thing. Like I
said, everytime someone compares MS's behavior with some less
controversial criminal behavior, you act like they accused MS of
holding people up at gunpoint.
They are. Read the quotes. Here they are again:

"We are talking junior Mafia style enforcement."
Did Microsoft ever use or threaten force? "YES . Have you not read a word I said."

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

There are many more.
Unless you're so narrowminded that nothing short of pointing a
gun at someone and demanding money from them is stealing from them,
there is no way that this can be equated to the actual use of
force. And if you do believe that definition of stealing, I'll do your
bookkeeping for free - and I won't steal from you.


You are seriously saying that people in this thread have not
consistently described Microsoft's actions as analogous to an actual use of
force? Have you read any of the thread? Do I need to dig out more quotes?

These are all from early in the thread, long before the posts you are
complaining about:

"The choice was go along with MS arm twisting or go out of business."

and

"To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine
wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under
the table or pay full retail for all magazines."

However, you may be right that some of my replies to you may not have
been justified as responses to just what you said. It'd take a lot of
digging through the thread to figure that out. ;)

DS
Oct 28 '05 #448

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qH*****************@newssvr13.news.prodigy.co m...
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.

[snip] But picture that, when this was less true, you wanted to buy a machine
with the newest-whizbang graphics card or disk controller. For Windows,
the manufacturer would make sure the proper drivers are installed and
configured. For Linux, you the consumer had to find a driver, install it,
configure it (the phrase "drive geometry" sticks in my head) and deal with
the lack of useful feedback if anything goes wrong.

[snip]

That's a really good point.

DS
Oct 28 '05 #449
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals
with
guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior
is
equated to the actual use of force where that is not in fact done in
precisely the thread I'm replying to.
The first one is at:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....e=source&hl=en

The original comment was:
No, they didn't ask for more than Windows were worth. They tilted the
playing field against MS competitors by causing consumers to pay MS
money for products they didn't receive. In most countries, taking
money from unwilling victims without giving them anything in exchange
is called "theft".
Note that no mention is made of guns or force - just a definition of
theft. Unless you're so narrowminded that nothing short of pointing a
gun at someone and demanding money from them is stealing from them,
there is no way that this can be equated to the actual use of
force. And if you do believe that definition of stealing, I'll do your
bookkeeping for free - and I won't steal from you.

Your reply:
It is not theft if you can simply say "no" to the deal and all that
happens is that you don't get the product. Your argument is preposterous.
If
you accept arguments that equate guns with arguments, the next step is
that
using a gun is a rational response to an argument one doesn't like. Oh
wait,
you're already there.


Wherein you accuse me of equating MS's actions with using guns, which
is *exactly* what I said you do.


This thread is large and complex, and I can't always know exactly what's
a reply to what reply to what. So what's said in what part of a thread may
carry over to another part of that same thread.


So follow the link and read it. I quoted the comment and reply
directly to make life easier on the readers. I quoted them exactly in
context. That you try and deny they illustrate you doing exactly what
I said you do is only to be expected.
There are lots more examples of you doing this kind of thing. Like I
said, everytime someone compares MS's behavior with some less
controversial criminal behavior, you act like they accused MS of
holding people up at gunpoint.


They are. Read the quotes. Here they are again:


So what? That doesn't change the essential truth of my statement -
that you react to *every* comparison of MS's activities with less
controversial criminal activity with the "You're comparing them to
criminals with guns. I won't discuss that." It really does make me
think that you're more interested in protecting MS's reputation than
in any discussinon.
Unless you're so narrowminded that nothing short of pointing a
gun at someone and demanding money from them is stealing from them,
there is no way that this can be equated to the actual use of
force. And if you do believe that definition of stealing, I'll do your
bookkeeping for free - and I won't steal from you.

You are seriously saying that people in this thread have not
consistently described Microsoft's actions as analogous to an actual use of
force? Have you read any of the thread? Do I need to dig out more quotes?


Yes, I've read the thread. It's full of you creating straw men,
calling those who disagree with you liars, calling the government
crooks, and the like. I'd be interested in seeing *one* quote that
compare MS's actions to the "actual use of force." And I want what I
gave you - the link to the google groups page the quote came from, and
enough context to find it.

The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use
of force". It compares MS to people who are willing to use force to
get their ends. But there is no "actual use of force."

These are all from early in the thread, long before the posts you are
complaining about:
"The choice was go along with MS arm twisting or go out of business."
No, this wasn't "long before" the post I quoted; it occured well after
it. And while this really does refer to the "actual use of force",
anyone even vaguely familiar with common english usage will recognize
the phrase "arm twisting" as an idiomatic usage for a being extremely
persuasive, with no "actual use of force" taking place. If that's the
best you can do, you really haven't got an argument.
"To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine
wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under
the table or pay full retail for all magazines."
No "actual use of force" in this one, either. This is a *very* apt
comparison. The only real difference between this and what MS did is
that it replaces something mildly objectionable - charging people for
something they aren't getting - with something very objectionable -
selling kiddie porn.
However, you may be right that some of my replies to you may not have
been justified as responses to just what you said. It'd take a lot of
digging through the thread to figure that out. ;)


Your replies to *everyone* who compares MS's criminal activities to
more obviously criminal activities have been that accues them of
equating MS's actions to using a gun - much nastier than simply "the
actual use of force" and then refusing to discuss the comparison. The
only explanation I can think of is that you are trying to prevent
people from realizing that MS is a criminal organization. That you
deny doing this is only to be expected, and I'll bet you deny it
again.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 28 '05 #450

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.