Linux-Advocacy Digest #306, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (MK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:08:46 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:27:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>The desired result of improved
>>>competiton might have happened regardless of the final outcome, but I
>>>would not count that as a reason not to pursue anti-trust cases.
>>
>>I would -- if competitors did not have this substitute for competition on merit
>>in their legal arsenal, they'd be less likely to fool themselves and they would
>
> This is an extremely misleading bit of rhetoric. It presumes that
> the market as it is now will allow for effective competition based
> on merit.
Bc it does. Last time I checked, customers did not stop to be self-interested.
One has to be careful how one defines merit, however; in this context,
merit has to be defined as pleasing customers best. That, and only that.
Not technical competence, not being Snow White or believing in
company mission statement. Customer satisfaction.
>This is a reflection of the circular arugmentation that
> if a company is successful it must have gotten that way due to merit
> rather than other factors and thus those other factors won't be an
> issue in 'out-competiting it'.
There are two way of getting there: political and market way. I'm not aware
of MS getting there via politics, I remember MS getting there via business
deals. Which are ugly and harsh money talks sometimes, but hey, this isn't
kindergarten. I also remember that Apple also got there due to its business
deals, many of them being idiotic which led it to its contemporary relatively
weak position.
>>HAVE to compete in marketplace rather than in court. They would not have any
>>other option.
> Microsoft is a marginally better 'business for the sake of business'
> entity than it's immediate rivals who have typically tried to exceed
> by making better product.
Better according to whom? You and your taste?
If by "better product" you mean e.g. Mac, thanks, but no thanks. I related
recent experience of my company of buying G4. I'm not going to do this kind of
thing with my money, and I'm happy this was company's money in the game, not my
money. Unless Apple changes the way it does business, I am simply not going to
buy there. And I believe this is reasonable decision for ca. 95% of customers.
Excerpt from another article, which says it all:
"Programmers do not, of course, necessarily value the same things
consumers do. "It drives the Valley nuts that the market may want
something -- a standard platform for applications, backward compatibility,
low cost, ease of installation, bundled products -- that conflicts with their
notion of what is technologically superior," says another programmer who
frequently gets into arguments with colleagues by defending Microsoft's
success. "
Ditto.
>This has led to Microsoft more successfully
> exploiting network effects to the detriment of it's rivals and leading
> to a situation where none of it's rivals have that same benefit.
To quote Paul Krugman:
"Here's what worries me: Given the subtlety of the real issues here, what is
the chance that this stuff will be decided on its merits? When you hear that
despite the fact that he has economists who know better, the Justice
Department's Joel Klein apparently either believes or chooses to claim that
this case is about path dependence, you start to wonder."
I believe that this context is enough to show that your argument is crankish.
Note: Krugman is liberal, so no, you can't use the cop-out that he's some
sort of flaming libertarian opposing govt by principle.
You're basically venting word magic -- more evidence from _economist
working on economics of networks_ so he should know what he's
talking about:
---
Economics of Networks
Letter to the Wall Street Journal
on Path Dependence
February 25, 1998
Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
Dear Sirs,
[...]
A striking example of failure to implement the right pricing and licensing
strategies is provided by Apple. Through the 80s, Apple sold its computers and
Mac operating system at monopoly prices attempting to maximize short run
profits with full knowledge that this strategy hurt market penetration and
future profits. Similarly, Sony set high prices and refused to license its Beta
system until it was too late. Both Apple and Sony were caught in the arrogant
belief that, since their products were "the best," they could rightfully set
prices at monopoly levels. Events proved them both wrong. VHS won through wide
(and cheap) licensing of its technology. Microsoft's operating systems won by
attracting independent applications software. If Apple had used the
appropriate licensing and pricing strategies, the Mac OS could today have the
lion's share of the PC operating systems market rather than Windows95.
Sincerely yours,
Nicholas Economides
Professor of Economics
Stern School of Business
New York, NY 10012
---
Now, if Apple having supposedly better products has harmed its market
penetration by setting prices too high, then why on Earth this should
not pertain to MS having supposedly worse product?
Either laws of economics apply to Apple and to MS, or to none of them.
Had MS pursued the same strategy as Apple, it would be subject
to the very same process of seeing its market share shrink. The only
reason that MS has large market share and Apple does not is precisely
bc MS does not behave like monopolist in major aspects and Apple
does!
So the charge of _abusing monopoly power_ makes no sense, bc it is
precisely what MS did not do and what resulted in so high market share.
I wish that following things happened:
1. MS wins the trial.
2. Somebody else replaces BG as CEO.
3. This another CEO increases prices to the very high level when
compared with contemporary prices.
MS would lose its market share to levels comparable with Apple's market
share nowadays very quickly (I think it would be less than two years), and
this would be the end of this idiotic myth of MS being able to dictate prices
as it pleases without incurring competition.
>Also,
> the 'default' aspect of WinDOS as product also gives Microsoft another
> advantage in terms of being able to lose money on new ventures not
> related to anything else they sell.
I don't know if that is true, but even if that is, you have to accuse every
single chainstore bc of such practices -- such products are put out
by all of them and they are called "loss leaders". Nothing wrong with that.
> IOW they can merely 'bleed' longer.
No they can't. Once they alienate their customers -- and esp. in time when so
much is happenning in Internet -- they're not going to get them back. Look at
how Apple has lost much of its customer's base and never truly got them back.
Now with iMac they're trying to get in the game again, but that's really
different time and different market already.
Wrt "bleeding longer", look up article named "The Myth Of Predatory
Pricing". In short, the competitor with higher market share loses
a lot more money -- he sells higher volume, after all.
> I don't want the products available to me determined by who can
> 'bleed' the longest. That is not capitalism.
It is. What you don't want to see that long-term effects of dumping or making
prices too high would affect MS so strongly that even MS can't do what they
accuse it of.
Even pure theoretical monopolists can't do what they please with prices -- this
is common, unscientific misconception that has found its way even into
court verdict. Read Hal Varian's "Microeconomics" to get in-depth explanation
on what monopolist can do and what it can't do. The whole trial is based
on ignorance.
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:08:48 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:16:31 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>If I want to buy a GM car with goodyear tires, I do not have to pay
>Firestone for the tires they didn't provide. If I want to buy a
>computer from Gateway/Dell/Micron/etc up until this past year I would
>have had to pay Microsoft wether I used that system or not. The fact
>that I could buy a Mac is irrelevant if what I wanted was a Dell.
If I want Mac hardware with Linux OS installed, I have no option
but to pay for MacOS anyway.
I do not know anything about Dell having duty to sell you non-Windows
computer. Care to show the contract predating deals with MS, in which Dell
will sell you non-Windows computer?
Dell and MS have freedom to sign whatever deals they please, provided
they don't violate word given to other people. Since I don't think
Dell promised you meeting your desire to have Dell-produced computer
without Windows, I don't think you have valid complaint.
>That
>is my argument. If you go out of your way to change the circumstances I
>am talking about, you are arguing around the problem, and not facing the
>real situation I am trying to show you. Even if I purchased a machine a
>year or more ago with a formatted/unformatted/non-loaded drive I would
>have had to pay MS for the priveledge of buying a computer.
No you would not. You could have found vendors selling you PC without
OS installed, couldn't you?
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:08:51 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 20:28:40 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>>>>Because you still have the same choices you did as
>>>>if MS didn't exist: you can buy a Mac, you can search out a
>>>>dealer that will sell you a machine with an unformatted drive,
>>>>you can buy a Sun workstation, or you can go without a computer.
>>
>>> Why should you have to 'search out' a low volume dealer to
>>> avoid paying for a software bundle?
>>
>>Are you going to claim that there is no other product that has a
>>main product sold in the chains, and competitors sold in out of
>>the way places? Shall they be prosecuted, too?
>
>Yes, if there are other products using monopoly force to demand
>bundling with outher products whether it is wanted or not, of
>course they should be prosecuted.
This argument can't stand the skeptical examination -- if enough
people wanted to buy unbundled products, the market for
them would certainly be created.
You argument requires assumption that due to customer's demand
markets in general are created, it's just for some strange reason
market for PCs without preinstalled OS are not created. The
market for plastic imitation of vomit sure is created as result
of customer's demand. The market for cars with air conditioning
sure is created as result of customer's demand.
Anything but PCs without preinstalled OS.
Customers want them, but bc of actions of MS nobody has dared to sell PC
without preinstalled Windows.
Do I get you right?
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:08:54 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:36:37 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> It is arbitrary because nobody has yet to draw a firm line that
>> >> includes MS and excludes the successful companies in every industry
>> >> in the country.
>>
>> >Name one which is in an equivalent position.
>>
>> What difference does it make? IIRC, in platform for SPARC processors,
>> Sun has a lot stronger domination (if not 100% domination) than MS
>When has Sun told any of their distributors that they are prohibited
>from dealing other brands, or that they will suffer for dealing with
>IBM, SGI, HP, etc.????
I believe that when it comes to _Sun hardware platform_, none
of them ever had right to do it, or at least not without paying
for license for SunOS/Solaris.
>LEGITIMATE discounts are based on volume, not slamming your door
>in the face of other prospective suppliers.
Bc you say so? I say that is voluntary exchange of privileges. You
don't suggest that if selling PC with OS other than Windows
and not getting discount from MS was more profitable to vendor,
vendor would not do it?
It's pretty clear: MS simply offered conditions so good to vendors
that they decided to grant the privilege to MS. MS did not
force them, MS offered them conditions good enough for vendor
make the decision that they agreed to the deal.
BTW, there is strange contradiction here -- once it is said that
what MS did was bribing, and another time it is said that
it was forcing the vendor.
Please answer following question:
Suppose MS offered $1 discount per unit shipped if OEM "slams the doors before
other prospects" in your words. Do you think vendors would agree?
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:08:57 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:47:41 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>MK wrote:
>>[A bunch of stuff about how great Microsoft is.]
>So I'm curious. Does MK stand for Microsoft Klingon?
Ad hominem instead of response based on merit is the last
resort of loser.
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:09:51 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 20:06:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>On 23 Jun 2000 19:53:49 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>>In talk.politics.libertarian salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Don't be silly. You are the one who wishes to use the armed agents
>>of the federal government to interfere in a voluntary consensual
>>contract.
>The "voluntary, consensual" contracts have already been discussed. We
> do not believe that they are substantially more voluntary and consensual
> than anal rape at gun point.
That's sheer lunacy to compare rape to things like "per-processor"
license.
>> You are the one who wants to harm the millions of MS
>>shareholders,
>If the MS shareholders are profiteers of illegal activity, maybe they should
>be "harmed".
The problem is, they are not profiteers from unethical activity.
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:09:52 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:51:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>>The point is that the producer of a product should own it. Period.
>>
>>> Yes, but what does "own it" mean ? Does the fact that you "own" something
>>> entitle you to do anything you like with it ? All this assuming that I
>>> accept without question the above dogma.
>>
>>Yes, it means you can set terms on the conditions of sale of it,
>>you can set the price, it means that whatever you can get people
>>to agree to is OK, as long as there is no force or fraud.
> Except you conveniently define force to allow for those
> in a position of power in business to abuse people with
> impugnity.
Except that we don't -- MS did not use force by using "per processor license"
bc it was voluntarily signed by vendors. If MS gave $1 discount in "per
processor license", I doubt if anybody would be willing to take it -- it is
reasonable to assume that hardware vendor chose what suits his interests
best. If selling machines with preinstalled Linux served his interests best,
he would sell such machines. It is inane to assume that he would not, given
what people are willing to do for a buck.
> This is a common feature of so-called libertarians.
Actually, it's evident you just HATE MS and thus you adapt all the arguments to
serve that purpose.
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
