Linux-Advocacy Digest #528, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:17:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said david raoul derbes in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <8npjf7$g70$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>So if Microsoft were only then ruled a monopoly, why should their acts
>>before that point in time be judged as if they were a monopoly ?
>
>Good grief!!
[...]
>Wow. I am no longer interested in arguing with this poster. It's
>hopeless.
Yes, I've come to the same conclusion. This last bit of post-modern
double-think is a classic, though. I have to admit, I see the 'point'
Christopher thinks he's making; if your contention is that it is what MS
did with their monopoly, not the fact that they had it, which was
illegal, how could their actions be illegal if they occurred before MS
was found to have a monopoly? The fact is, this "its not illegal to
monopolize" kant is plain false. I have an idea where that 'point' came
from (the difficulty of proving monopolization outside of tying, price
gouging, or similar indicators), but it isn't true. Microsoft was
convicted of a) defending the OS monopoly, b) attempting to monopolize
the web browser market, and c) tying products in order to restrain
trade.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 05:18:56 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:.
> > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This guy followed the case, and rightfully considers the whole
> > > case as absurd as most of the American public.
> > >
> > > http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/opencourt/stories/A541-1999Apr7.html
> >
> > "This guy" is Robert Levy, a fellow at the Cato Institute, which is
> > known for its extreme free market stance and insistence on extremely
> > limited government.
>
> Yes, I saw the description at the bottom of the page also. And am
> aware of the Cato Institute
> http://www.cato.org/about/label.html
>
> > Cato gets a lot of press whenever some big corporation does something
> > very wrong and the reporter needs someone for a "the government is
> > evil!" viewpoint.
>
> Then you should have no problem naming a few articles. (begin frantic
> search now)
30 seconds later, an analysis of other comments by Levy...
http://www.acsh.org/publications/reports/cato99.html
This article discusses an article on smoking and public health by Robert
Levy and Rosalind Marimont, in which L & M suggest that smiking doesn't
cause as many deaths as the last forty years of smoking research might
suggest.
Another minute later...
In this article,
http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-16-98.html
Levy claims (against actual evidence since uncovered in the trial) that
computer makers could alter Windows any way they want. This is, of
course, false.
Another two minutes:
Here's a bit about the Cato Institute that shows a bit about their real
intentions and how they run things:
http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm
A minute later, a damning piece from Cnet:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2401715.html?tag=st.cn.sr1.dir.
"Microsoft donated millions of dollars to think tanks that include
Americans for Tax Reform and the Cato Institute, and has funded two new
groups, the Association for Competitive Technology and the Freedom to
Innovate Network, that release pro-Microsoft research. The company has
confirmed the contributions."
In other words, Microsoft gave Cato a lot of money, and Cato repaid them
by sending out a bunch of pro-MS propaganda to play the PR game.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:22:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The rule breaking is pretty damn black a white here. Microsoft has
>restrained trade, which is illegal. Only an monopoly is capable of
>effectively restraining trade, so if you go around doing it, you know
>you're a monopoly.
Christopher's ravings aside, this is, again, untrue. Restraining trade
doesn't require a monopoly, or they wouldn't be separately outlawed.
You're having to convolute your own knowledge of the law (I'm assuming
you're passingly familiar with the Sherman Act*) in order to maintain
this 'legal monopoly' mirage. No, it isn't dependant on Microsoft
'knowing' they are a monopoly in the way that you are using.
Chris's comment "how could that be illegal, if they were only now found
to be a monopoly" was confronting the same problem in your thinking, I
think, but of course he was coming at it from a troll's typically
unproductive perspective.
* http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 05:22:01 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This guy followed the case, and rightfully considers the whole case
> > > > as
> > > > absurd as most of the American public.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/opencourt/stories/A541-1999Apr7.html
> > >
> > > "This guy" is Robert Levy, a fellow at the Cato Institute, which is
> > > known for its extreme free market stance and insistence on extremely
> > > limited government.
> >
> > You're right. Cato is hardly impartial; they are wholesale
> > against Antitrust law.
>
> This is how they would like to be labled :
> http://www.cato.org/about/label.html
>
> If one is to be "impartial" it would mean not arguing either side.
> So any opinion stated here is partial to one side or another. It's
> pretty hypocritical to lable one side to be "partial" when your
> arguing the opposite point of view.
...and it's extremely hard to be "impartial" when you're taking large
piles of cash from Microsoft to argue against the antitrust case...
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2401715.html?tag=st.cn.sr1.dir.
I'm sure Pauly Shore "would like to be labeled" a great actor, but
that's not happening either...
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:04:51 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, JS/PL wrote:
>"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The Judge's Finding of Fact isn't an opinion. It's the factual finding of
>a
>> court which represents the interests of The People.
>>
>> Equating those Facts with your personal opinions is dysfunctional.
>
>Unfortunately those supposed "facts" will all be negated due to the illegal
>manor in which the trial was conducted ?
MS did NOT ask for a new trial in their appeal.
MS wants to delay - MS wants the Judge to account for each fact in the evidence
- the DOJ correctly argues that isn't a legal requirement. Ms wants to argue
every point - delay and delay/
Trail judges have broad latitude to conduct a trail and since there was no JURY
he had even _broader_ latitude to conduct a speedly trail. A Judge is expected
as part of his day to day duties to be able to recognzie evidence and act
accordingly. Any possible irregularites cannot be argued to have tainted the
JURY or mislead a JURY.
That means "hearsay" evidence, etc is irrelevant! The Judge knows what's
hearsay and said he weighted that weak evidence in his finding of fact and
finding of law. He was generous and allowed broad discovery for both parties
and let MS and the DOJ present strong and weak evidence. That latitude doesn't
mean he based his decision on that weak evidence and there was no JURY that
could have been mislead being they are not legal experts as are Judges.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:24:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Companies that abuse monopoly power typically are quite aware they have
>> it; their actions are consistent with the knowledge that their customers
>> can't go elsewhere.
>
>100% of Microsoft's customers have had a vast array of choices for 100% of
>the life of Microsoft.
So? They didn't choose them, therefore Microsoft committed a crime. If
you can't figure it out, that's not our problem.
>What do you mean Microsofts customers can't go
>elsewhere? They can go here:
>
>http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
>
>And always could.
That's the point. They don't. When investigating why they don't, the
judge came up with this:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_findings.htm
and after considering that along with the statutes and precedent:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm
he came up with this:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
Deal with it. Don't come back until you have a point.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:23:32 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >The "citizens", as you put it, are buying Windows because there is no
>other
>> >viable alternative. It is not Microsoft's fault no-one else has been
>able
>> >to develop an OS desirable to customers.
>>
>> LOL! Still in full "denial or reality" mode, eh Chris?
>
>Toggle switch stuck firmly on the "reality" setting.
I know it's OFF
You ignore the Judge's Finding of Fact. Call it just another opinion
and then tell us your own opinion are facts.
That's YOUR reality, not the one in which we live.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 05:29:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have to admit, I see the 'point' Christopher thinks he's making; if
> your contention is that it is what MS did with their monopoly, not
> the fact that they had it, which was illegal, how could their actions
> be illegal if they occurred before MS was found to have a monopoly?
A company does not have to be found to be a monopoly at a date before
they get into trouble for being abusive as one.
To use the baseball bat analogy again: You don't have to have a court
find you guilty of owning a baseball bat before you're charged with
beating someone with it. They can point out at the trial that yes, you
did own a bat, but they don't have to legally prove that you owned it
before they take you to trial.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:33:59 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >100% of Microsoft's customers have had a vast array of choices for 100%
of
> >the life of Microsoft.
>
> So? They didn't choose them, therefore Microsoft committed a crime. If
> you can't figure it out, that's not our problem.
Now that's displaying your usual logic.
> >What do you mean Microsofts customers can't go
> >elsewhere? They can go here:
> >
> >http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
> >
> >And always could.
>
> That's the point. They don't. When investigating why they don't, the
> judge came up with this:
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_findings.htm
>
> and after considering that along with the statutes and precedent:
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm
>
> he came up with this:
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>
> Deal with it. Don't come back until you have a point.
You'll have to ...how you say.... "kill_me" to keep me out of
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy. Maybe I should make a newsgroup about your
insane and murderous ramblings.
What should I call it? alt.timothy.devlin.the.wannabe.killer ?
Let me know, it can be created in minutes (really).
--
Who do you want to kill today?
T. Max Devlin proclaims...
"I want to kill JS/PL. Did you get that? Would you like me to repeat it?"
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:38:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <8npmf2$k8t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher 'Troll' Smith"
[...]
>> The problem is that the point that We, The People (I probably
>> shouldn't say that since I'm not a 'Merkin :) decide a company is Too
>> Big(tm) is not a specific number, but a fairly arbitrary judgement.
>
>It might not be quantitative, but in many cases it's quite a clear
>issues.
And in any case where it is not clear, then no conviction is possible.
In fact, if a company can provide evidence sufficient to provide
reasonable doubt, that they didn't intend to, didn't try to, OR weren't
able to monopolize, then they cannot be found guilty, even if they *do*,
in fact, have a monopoly. Having a monopoly isn't, strictly speaking,
illegal, but monopolizing is, by itself, illegal. It isn't being 'too
big', and there isn't any quantitative market share required or
sufficient to prove monopolization; everyone who owns a patent has 100%
market share in the market for that invention.
So its not hard to understand why its really hard to prove that any
particular case is a "clear issue" of either restraining trade or
monopolizing, and us 'merkins share something of the Aussie's rebellious
nature; we don't let the government have the power of judgement unless
the case is pretty damn clear. But considering the first time Microsoft
was finally brought to trial, they were convicted on three out of four
charges (and the last one simply because, while evident, it wasn't
'clear enough'), I'd say the MS case is pretty damn clear.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:43:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It is not illegal to be a monopoly. What *is* illegal is to
>> "monopolize". It *is* Microsoft's fault that they have engaged
>> in anticompetive practices, specifically forbidden in law.
>> For that, they have earned a spanking.
>
>The term you're looking for is "abusive monopoly."
>
>A monopoly is not illegal. Until you abuse it, at least.
A monopoly is not illegal? Monopolizing is illegal. Also, attempting
to monopolize. This would include establishing a monopoly, maintaining
a monopoly, defending a monopoly, and, in essence, keeping a monopoly.
So I would have to say that 'a monopoly' is illegal. Accept, of course,
when you didn't do anything (besides, potentially, patent an invention
or copyright a literary work, which gives MS the right to monopolize
Windows sales, but not PC OS sales) to get or have or keep it.
Extending it, obviously, is right out.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
