Linux-Advocacy Digest #536, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: refrigerator using Linux? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Larry Brasfield)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: refrigerator using Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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 16:27:23 GMT
In article <8npc8d$4l2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
> Which is totally irrelevant to the fact it ain't Microsoft's fault
> no-one has come up with a compelling alternative.
Yes it is, because the definition of "compelling alternative" includes
"being offered as a preload" which, until *very* recently, didn't exist
because Microsoft had the preload market completely, 100% monopolized.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: 21 Aug 2000 16:41:12 GMT
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: Then we can talk about toasters, and coffee makers, and even my stereo. What
: do I want it all hooked to the computer for? And, my toaster only cost $11,
: new, and I bought it in 1978. God only knows how I'd have handled all the
: network upgrades if I'd had it connected to a network (probably through an
: acoustic 300 baud modem interface) back then. I'd have spent $hundreds
: upgrading my $11 toaster. And the end result would still be toast.
: An embedded OS might make sense in my VCR. The new disk based VCRs are
: really cool, and connecting them to a computer might not be so bad - if the
: programming interface was better. You could even have the computer download
: the correct time from NIST once a day and download it into the VCR, as well
: as greatly simplifying the programming interface (it would be a whole lot
: easier to just click on the show to record that to go through the trouble of
: programming the start and stop times).
I wouldn't mind a bit of home computerization, myself, if only to
elimate all the duplication of effort. For example, look at all the
appliances that have little LED clocks on them. Every time the
power blips or daylight savings time rolls around, I need to wander
the house changing the stupid things. Wouldn't it be nice if they
were just "clock clients" that get their time from a single source?
And, if that single source has a keyboard, it would make setting
timers a whole helluva lot easier than the one or two buttons
many appliances have for the purpose.
I'm not too hopeful of a home network of dumb appliances, but I can
think of a few ways that it would come in handy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:43:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 20 Aug 2000 21:38:55 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
>> > Well, all calls are one line; it's the _number_ of one-line calls that
>> > you have to make that is a bother.
>>
>> I use my wrapped calls constantly. They are in MSBThreadUtils.lib. It's
>> copyrighted :-) I know that goes against the GPL but I make enough from it
>> to take a cruise every couple years. You can license it, ah well
>> nevermind...
>
>Free software doesn't always make sense (the classic example is video
>games)
It might even make sense for video games, believe it or not.
The classic example is DOOM -- the reason is that most of the value
is in the data for the game (textures, rooms, and even weapons fire),
not the software proper.
Unreal, Quake, and Unreal Tournament are the same way; one could
also visualize similar issues with Heretic/Hexen, The Wheel Of Time,
and various other "derivative" games, which use the same underlying
3-D engine (not to be confused with 3D Realms, who coded up a
completely different engine for Duke Nukem 3D, but who, AFAIK,
switched to the Quake engine for Duke Nukem 3D II or whatever --
I haven't kept track, admittedly).
I know there's a Linux version of Quake's driver program that's
freeware, for example (and Quake III for Linux is somewhere out there
as well -- I've seen it on store shelves, though I haven't looked
recently); linuxxdoom is out there that allows Linux to play DOOM
wads (old, but fun). There's some old source code for Heretic
and Hexen, as well; haven't seen it in awhile, though.
There's also WinE; Unreal is almost playable under it. (Almost,
because my sound isn't quite working yet for some reason.)
I'm also given to understand there's a version for Linux there
as well.
>-- but I firmly believe that all non-niche software (and a
>significant number of niche software projects) will be free in the
>future.
I'll agree, although at some point software will be a lot easier
to develop because of automatic code-generation tools which make
our current crop look like hard-to-control behemoths. For example,
one could envision specifying entire algorithms instead of variable
assignment constructs and control statements -- such is already
partially available for the C++ Standard Template Library, although
the number of algorithms is a bit limited (no 2D or 3D handling,
for example). Java and C# might have even more possibilities,
to say nothing of more "esoteric" languages [*] such as Eiffel,
Smalltalk, Draco, Rexx, Python, Tcl, SQL, and Lisp/Scheme/etc.
And then there's BASIC. Who knew it would evolve to a full-fledged
web development tool (ASP), complete with subroutines with formal
parameters and lots of ActiveX widgets that can just plug and play?
It's not the best, admittedly (Java is IMO better), but that doesn't
make it total junk.
>
> [snip]
>
>> > That's great; everyone has their own comfort zone when it comes to
>> > programming. I try to push mine, but It's always easier to fall back
>> > on what I know. I started programming on the Commodore Pet, of all
>> > things :)
>>
>> And I on the C64. Welcome brother! I did assembler with HESMon and
>> FORTH as well as the nasty standard BASIC. I had a my Dad's stock
>> photo service running on a C64 with 3 1541s as storage. I've even
>> contributed code to KMail to fix their leave mail on server bugs.
>> I've programmed for Windows, SUN, PL/SQL Oracle and Macintosh. I
>> always came back to Windows because it was a richer environment.
>
>I used to run a BBS on a C64 with 3 1541 (well, one was a clone, but
>anyway) at one point. We did online gaming with ModemWars.
>
>It was very slow. :) (but fun)
I still have an old 1200 lying about. To think that was state of the
art at one point...wow, what a difference a decade or two makes.
(I don't remember when I got it; probably mid-to-late 80's.)
I'm an Amiganite, myself -- or was -- but it's not my first machine
(that honor goes to either an old FORTRAN batch computer somewhere
in Austria, or old Wang programmable calculators).
>
>> > Perhaps, depending on the machine's architecture. A Linux forking
>> > daemon can outperform an NT threadded daemon quite easily on a
>> > single-processor machine. The threaded daemons start wiping the floor
>> > when more processors are added, though.
>>
>> That's called scalability. Linux beats the pants off Windows 2000 on a 386.
>> So what? :-) OK... I concede that too :-)
>
>99% of the machines out there are not state-of-the-art SMP boxes.
Maybe not, but I'd wager the manufacturers wish we'd upgrade! :-)
I know I'd like to.
>
> [snip]
>
>> > I think we are violently agreeing on all of this...
>>
>> Cool. So call it even?
>
>Sure. Linux is better at many things and Windows is better at many
>things as well.
I will point out that, as of right now unfortunately, Windows
has more desktops -- a *lot* more -- but Linux will catch up
(unless BSD or other "openware" systems get in the mix as well,
in which case things could get interesting; porting from Linux
to FreeBSD isn't as hard as porting from NT to Linux, though).
So Windows is "better" in that it has more mindshare. But Linux
is definitely getting a lot of free press right now (CNN last
Saturday, for instance, did yet another short expose on Linux on
its Science and Technology Week). With luck, they'll pull even
and everyone will be winners. :-)
>
>--
>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
[*] These are the languages I know of off the top of my head.
Eiffel (www.eiffel.org)
Smalltalk (www.squeak.com)
Draco, if it's still around, was originally for the Amiga, IIRC.
Lisp is deeply embedded in Emacs, and still useful;
Scheme is a derivative thereof but I don't know the differences.
Tcl and Rexx are interpretive languages, used primarily for
scripting; both are easily embeddable in existing apps.
Python is another, of which I know little except that RedHat
codes in it for installation.
SQL has no control structures and is primarily used for
data retrieval, sorting/indexing, and insertion/updating,
hewing fairly closely to a theoretical relational database calculus
language, albeit they use "tables" instead of "relations".
I put "esoteric" in quotes because I believe most programmers should
be polyglots. :-) I know I am.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I'm going to have to find a freeware COBOL compiler
for Linux one of these days ... :-)
------------------------------
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 12:45:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>I am using the typically understood definition of monopoly for the sake
>of simplicity.
Now is not the time for simplicity. If anyone actually *did* have an
ethical reason for questioning Microsoft's conviction or the remedy,
you're going to have to be able to provide *real* reasons; using typical
definitions for simplicity only leads to confusion.
>Most people would probably say that a company with no
>competition is a monopoly. Buy just because there is no competition for
>a given company in a given market doesn't necessarily mean that company
>is breaking the law.
Most people would be wrong if they assume that a company without
competition has broken the law; it is only *theoretically* necessary to
break the law to make having a monopoly illegal, because it is only
*theoretically* possible to have a monopoly and not have worked to
establish it or continue to work to maintain or expand it.
If you want to give typical definitions understood by most people for
simplicity, then "having a monopoly is illegal" is certainly the
simplest way of doing it, as well as the most correct. Because we
aren't talking "having a patent is illegal", and it *is* possible to
monopolize, thus breaking the law, using a patent.
--
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: Joe Ragosta <[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 16:45:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The point I believe I'm trying to make, is that if Microsoft's
> > behaviour only becomes illegal when they are a monopoly, why should
> > actions they undertook before they were ruled one, be accountable,
> > when the line between monopoly and not monopoly is not simply a line
> > in the sand that everyone knows when it is stepped over ?
>
> You're still sticking with that fallacy that they have to be "ruled a
> monopoly" before they can get in trouble for being one?
>
> They don,'t so you can rest your weary mind about it.
>
> You can be a monopoly without the government telling you that you're
> one, and you can get into trouble for the bad things you do as a
> monopoly without any sort of legal advance notice.
By his argument, I'm free to rob his house. After all, I won't be
convicted of the crime until long after it happens, so when I do it, I
won't be guilty.
------------------------------
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 12:49:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <8npj71$431$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> > Microsoft has taken every action in its power to try to prevent
>> > alternatives from becoming compelling.
>>
>> As does everyone else - 'tis but common sense.
>
>True.
>
>But most companies limit themselves to legal actions.
There are no such legal actions. Attempts to avoid competing are
illegal. Most companies limit themselves to saying "oh well, there's
nothing we can legally do to prevent alternatives from becoming
compelling, we better make our product as well and as cheaply as
possible if we want to stay in business". Anything else is
monopolization or restraint of trade, not common sense.
--
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: Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:01:42 -0700
In article <8nrgod$rsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
[snip]
> The point I believe I'm trying to make, is that if Microsoft's behaviour
> only becomes illegal when they are a monopoly, why should actions they
> undertook before they were ruled one, be accountable, when the line between
> monopoly and not monopoly is not simply a line in the sand that everyone
> knows when it is stepped over ?
I believe that any attempt at criminal conviction
under the Sherman anti-trust act, applied to the
so-called "Microsoft monopoly", would have to fail
on constitutional grounds. Getting "monopoly" to
refer to winner-takes-most situations is quite an
achievement in stretching a vague concept, but it
is still too vague to constitute fair notice of
the sort that deflects constitutional challenges
to vague laws used to deprive people of property
or liberty.
--
Larry Brasfield
Above opinions may be mine alone.
(Humans may reply at unundered [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:01:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:02:36 GMT
<MDJn5.11037$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8nk811$v1c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > Nonsense. If you feel a need to throw an ad hominem at me,
>> > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
>>
>> Thank you, you have proven my point for me in this issue.
>
>Actually, he's proven his own point. You need to be more specific.
>
>Aren't you two nix people? Looks like the dissention in the ranks like
>we've always heard doesn't happen. This has been and will continue to be
>the thorn in the side of the various nix flavor advocates. Come together,
>you can't beat Windows divided.
We already have, in the server arena. Mind you, Windows is trying
to catch up -- and in some respects succeeding -- but the various
Unices had the server market before NT was even born, AFAIK.
Considering its late start, NT is doing rather well -- but I doubt
that will last, especially in light of the sillier bugs or design
deficiencies evidenced by Microsoft's crown jewel, Office, which
allow for the exploitation of the address book and the destruction
of data to spread email viruses. (Some of these aren't in
Office itself, mind you, but in the graphical shell Office uses
to fire off e-mailed executables -- or perhaps in the communication
between the two.)
And then there's the issue of a server requiring a video card.
Unix can be put on a box with one serial port, or perhaps nowadays
an Ethernet connection. This reduces hardware costs (albeit
low-func video cards are very cheap nowadays) and even possible bugs
caused by buggy video drivers (which might be more important).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:12:05 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >> 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).
> >>
> >> You know, if you posted with a real name, the fact that you seem to
have
> >> uncovered my real first name, which I haven't used, generally, in
years,
> >> along with the fact that you have threatened some sort of social
> >> ridicule, might be enough to concern or even offend some people. But
> >> you don't post with a real name; you might as well be a nine year old
> >> child, for all the seriousness that anyone's going to give you.
> >>
> >> You apparently have put some effort into finding out who I am, even
> >> though I post with my real identity, while I haven't even briefly
> >> contemplated bothering to try to find out who "JS/PL" is. Though I did
> >> think it might be fun to see what you did when I said I want to kill
> >> whatever that is after your so pathetically obvious attempt to get
Aaron
> >> to threaten the life of Bill Gates. I must say that the results are
far
> >> beyond what I could have hoped for. But I think its pretty obvious who
> >> the psychopath here is, 'J'. Best you chill out now, before you get
> >> yourself into trouble.
> >
> >No, when someone puts out a death threat against me, I do the opposite of
> >"chill out" I find them and turn them in to the authorities.
>
> LOL! Still working really hard to miss the point, aren't you, 'JS/PL'.
>
>
> >Now that I have
> >fired off a complaint to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation in
Scranton,
> >PA as of today, they now know a whole lot about you.
>
> Yea, they know I attract flakes who'd seriously like to pretend that I'm
> somehow out to get them.
>
> > More than you could
> >fathom. If they choose NOT to do anything about it whatever, I believe it
is
> >very important to begin a paper trail immediately on you due to the fact
> >that you have committed a crime by issuing a death threat against me. It
is
> >psychopaths like you which cause me to mask my identity online, although
it
> >would take minimal investigation on your part to identify and make good
on
> >your wish to kill me.
>
> You're pathetically silly.
>
> >P.S. You really SHOULD watch those outgoing packets. :-)
>
> You should really take your medication.
keep digin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:11:43 GMT
Good post ~
however, I am going to take it as a challenge...
what if you didn't even need to know the computers were in your
fridge and water heater, or what they did, but your power bill
decreased by 30% each month? (cars have gotten more powerful &
efficient and produce less harmful exhaust using embedded computers).
wouldn't it be handy to have one switch that could turn
off all the lights in your home as you were leaving, but not
power down the things that need to stay on (like the fridge?)
wouldn't it be nice if your toaster made perfect golden brown
toast every time, instead of burning the first 2 slices, and
popping up early every time after that?
wouldn't it be nice if everything were more reliable
because mechanisms were replaced with solid-state circuitry?
what if everything were cheaper because items could be
built with fewer parts and required less specialized knowledge
to design?
I think people get off-track with the idea that there is going to
be a p.c. hanging out of their refrigerator, and forget that already
there are little computers controlling their cars' ignition, turning
their irons off after 5 minutes, and running atm's so they don't have
to go to the bank teller window anymore.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 17:21:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you want to give typical definitions understood by most people for
> simplicity, then "having a monopoly is illegal" is certainly the
> simplest way of doing it, as well as the most correct.
Only in the minds of some radical free-marketers.
Microsoft has had a monopoly in the operating systems business for a
good solid decade (more like 15 years), and has been left relatively
unmolested in that time. It took a lot of really obvious, in-your-face
anticompetitive practices for them to finally get in trouble ofr the
things they did.
Other companies that have been in trouble for similar tactics:
Coca-Cola (which gets nailed from time to time for anticompetitive
practices.)
IBM (If you don't know about IBM and antitrust, you don't know anything
at all about antitrust. The only reason Microsoft even exists today is
because of IBM's consent decrees from 1952 to date.)
Alcoa (A long history of trying to reduce competition by knocking
competitors out of business through below-cost pricing or buying them
outright after artificially lowering prices.)
American Airlines (Has a habit of using its monopoly strength at D/FW
airport to keep smaller airlines from getting a toehold in that market,
among other things.)
FTD (Yes, the florists. They used their monopoly power to keep florists
from using other flower-by-wire arrangements, much like Microsoft's
attempts to keep their customers from loading other operating systems
and software.)
AT&T (The best precursor to the Microsoft case in may respects. Very
restrictive, had a huge monopoly position, spent billions of dollars
trying to stop technical advances by other companies, used to insist
that computer modems be "installed" by phone company technicians at
exorbitant rates, and tried to charge more for "data lines." AT&T got
broken up into the "Baby Bells," phone service prices dropped, and the
whole telecomm revolution began.)
--
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 13:18:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>I guess if you use sufficiently bizarre definitions of your words, you
>can reach any conclusion you want.
>
>A patent holder is free to license their patent in almost any way they
>want. There are only a few exceptions:
>
>1. If the patent holder has a monopoly and uses the licensing to
>leverage their way into a new market.
>
>2. They use licensing agreements to violate price fixing laws.
In other words, if they use their patent to monopolize. I'm not the one
with bizarre definitions of words. I just know what "monopoly" means,
and it doesn't mean "large market share" any more than it does "100%
market share". It means "having large market share and acquiring it
through anti-competitive actions, maintaining it through
anti-competitive actions, or using it through anti-competitive actions."
That "and" doesn't make monopolies legal, just large market share
(assuming you can overcome *your* burden in proving that you didn't
monopolize to get or keep it; there is not 'presumption of innocence' in
this regard.)
--
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
******************************
