individual does it to make for themselves a better situation. Why wasn't
the Soviet Union at the forefront of technology if it is the society that
promotes growth?
--
Timothy Heald
Web Portfolio Manager
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2319
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail is
unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
-----Original Message-----
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:57 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Microsoft Fined 613 Million?!
> It's not just about fulfilling the base needs of Maslow's
> heirarchy though.
> Those needs fulfill an individual. For a society to prosper
> it must continue to grow. Stagnation equals death. Society is
> dependent on innovation to grow and thus survive.
>
> A single company having a lock on the market such that they
> forcibly prevent other products from entering the marketplace
> prevents innovation and growth.
> It is thus detrimental to society. Antitrust laws are
> self-defense against stagnation.
>
Kevin, this is a very interesting response. It presents the argument in a
way I haven't thought of before - or not as clearly. Again, thank you. That
being said, I disagee. Not with the statement, but with the application of
it upon MS. Could we not say that the stagnation of one OS could be fixed by
users simply deciding to switch OS? If people don't want to change, if they
want to stay with MS, who are we (as a minority) to say that we know better.
It is like saying, Linux is better for you, so I demand you use it instead
of Windows. Well, Linux _is_ better, but you can't force people to use it.
-rc
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
