Linux-Advocacy Digest #537, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: can't activate netcfg.. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: refrigerator using Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: refrigerator using Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Chad Irby)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:17:47 GMT
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 15:21:31 +1000, Christopher Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>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.
Here we have a multi-billion dollar market and no one can come up with
a competitive product? That seems a bit hard to swallow. But it must
be true, because Microsoft is always right and everyone else is stupid.
It might the case that several potential competitors have come to
market and been thwarted by Microsoft's illegal business practices.
Having a great PC OS is not good enough if you can't get it to the
stores or get it preloaded on PC's. That part, now that could be
Microsoft's fault.
Oh, but now I'm forgetting that Microsoft is always right and everyone
else is stupid.
In spite of that, I do believe that such business practices were
_precisely_ the issue in the antitrust trial. Something about per-cpu
contracts, differential pricing, and threats. But none of that could
have happend since OEM's just _love_ Microsoft and ... oh, wait, the
biggest ones testified against MS at the trial.
Oh, but that just can't be because Microsoft is always right and
everyone else is stupid.
>You can develop such a package if you desire, but don't "forget" some of the
>relevant facts:
>DRDOS:
>* A non fatal warning message
>* Only seen in a beta
>* DRDOS was *not* 100% compatible
Yes, it was not 100% compatible because it did not exactly duplicate
internal MS-DOS data structures that Windows did not actually use for
anything. You yourself in a previous post admitted that it did in fact
work fine with Windows.
If DR-DOS was _not_ compatible, then why was the warning disabled in
the shipping version of Windows? Seems to me that they would have
saved on tech support that way. Of course, if it _weren't_ true, then
they would be leaving themselves open for a huge lawsuit.
The whole episode could be construed as product disparagement, which is
why Caldera brought it up. Email evidence suggests that disparagement
was the intent of the code, and intent is quite important in such
cases. Of course, we don't know how the court would have ruled since
MS settled the DR-DOS case for a reported half-billion dollars.
I guess Bill just cleaned his sofa and thought he'd be generous and
give the money away. I mean, there was _no_ evidence _whatsoever_ of
_any_ anti-competitive action on the part of MS, right? Bill just felt
a soft spot for Ray Noorda is all.
It has to be that way, because Microsoft is always right and everyone
else is stupid.
>Blue Mountain:
>* Only in a beta version
Hmmm...seems to be a pattern here.
>Pfft. The law is chock full of poor reasoning and just plain stupidity.
And those pesky laws really are a bummer when they get in the way of His
Billness making another $20 billion and possibly impacting the profits
of his stockholders and "partners". Pfft.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: can't activate netcfg..
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:22:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Elhanan Maayan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:37:19 +0200
<8nmgji$kh2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>i have redhat 6.2 which i installed with the gnome config package...
>when i try to activate the netcfg i get
>traceback (innermost last):
>and then a lot of messages like:
>file "path/filename" , line "line number" in ?
>""
>""
>
>and in the end:
>tclError: no display name and no $DISPLAY Envioment variable.
I think that's your clue right there; you need the X Windows System
in order to run netcfg.
Easiest thing to do is to run netcfg in an xterm ($DISPLAY is
automatically set), nxterm, shelltool/cmdtool, or any other
terminal emulator that Linux currently supports.
As for the file and line numbers -- Tcl is an interactive
language; it's going to print out line numbers so that
someone might have a chance of debugging the script (regrettably,
it prints out line numbers from within procedures, not from
files containing those procedures, making debugging of Tcl
procedures a bit tricky -- mind you, maybe someone's fixed
that by now).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:17:01 -0400
Larry Brasfield wrote:
>
> 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.
>
What part of "OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE" do you not understand?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:18:18 -0400
Dan Jacobson wrote:
>
> What's this I read that even a refrigerator could be using Linux? To help me
>visualize this I've seen how a PC can control a
> modem, printer, GPS [Global positioning system]... so let's say the PC was shrunk
>down to fit into the refrigerator control panel
> brains; I suppose upon booting [i.e., when the AC cord is plugged in] there would
>be an /etc/profile type script that would
> immediately throw the computer into a loop controlling the refrigerator... ok, got
>that, now how is it that Linux is superior to
> Micro$oft stuff here? couldn't the same be achieved with autoexec.bat? Or is there
>some kind of scalability impossible with the M$
> stuff? Is the bonus to controlling wristwatches with Linux found in portability to
>different watches hardware, where in the past
> one would program for a single watch type? Again is what is there miraculous in
>this new Linux way other than portability vs.
> assembler code specific solutions? Could watch companies have equally banded on to
>a "Micro$oft standard", or does M$ stuff die
> due to being hardcoded to find C: and not finding it? etc.
> --
> www.geocities.com/jidanni ... fix e-mail address to reply; ¿n¤¦¥§
> Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
mind setting your line length to 70 columns or thereabouts, so that
people can read your posts...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
------------------------------
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 13:30:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Actually, the law allows you to achieve a monopoly by a wide range of
>means.
No, it is not the means to achieving a monopoly, but the result of
achieving a monopoly, which is illegal. Or trying to achieve one, even.
Or hanging on to one if you should find yourself in that position
through happenstance.
>If my company were able to produce a better product at a much lower cost
>and use that price/performance advantage to increase our market share to
>the point that the competitors folded, it would be perfectly legal.
But these are thought experiments; imaginary situations. In real life,
you can't get to the point where all competitors fold unless you're
doing something illegal.
>There's nothing illegal about "monopolizing", per se. It's only illegal
>if you use illegal means to do so.
"Anyone who monopolizes has committed a felony". Sounds pretty per se
to me. There aren't any exceptions listed in statute. What happens is
that the spots where the prosecution can't convince a judge get written
up in legal decisions, which set precedent for per se rules which might
absolve, or might convict, a monopolist. These get communicated in the
'popular wisdom' to become the kind of half-assed understanding of law
which you have, Joe. Have you ever read the Sherman Act? Seems pretty
straight-forward: 'monopolizing, and attempting to monopolize, is
illegal'. What you don't want to admit is that there is no legal means
which would produce a monopoly in a real market; not even patent.
Because by definition, one of the things the court must examine is what
the 'relevant market' is, and in a case involving patent, it would have
to be greater than "those licensing the patent". Because the intent is
to be just and protect competition, not to be vindictive and prevent
success, the courts *require* an additional support: you have to have
done something to acquire, maintain, or extend your monopoly in order to
be convicted. That doesn't make having a monopoly legal; it just makes
it very difficult to get a conviction for it without showing in some way
how competition was harmed through price controls or predatory conduct.
But in all cases where an actual monopoly occurs or endures, that is
generally the case, in real life. Free markets, after all, don't
tolerate monopolies. "The market" (some sellers and some buyers) are
going to find a way around your bottleneck if you attempt to monopolize
or restrain trade.
What you really mean to say, I think, is "its not illegal to have an
overwhelming market share", but that's not monopolization.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:24:07 -0400
Mike wrote:
>
> "Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8nm9js$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What's this I read that even a refrigerator could be using Linux? To
> help me visualize this I've seen how a PC can control a
> > modem, printer, GPS [Global positioning system]... so let's say the PC was
> shrunk down to fit into the refrigerator control panel
> > brains; I suppose upon booting [i.e., when the AC cord is plugged in]
> there would be an /etc/profile type script that would
> > immediately throw the computer into a loop controlling the refrigerator...
> ok, got that, now how is it that Linux is superior to
> > Micro$oft stuff here? couldn't the same be achieved with autoexec.bat?
> Or is there some kind of scalability impossible with the M$
> > stuff? Is the bonus to controlling wristwatches with Linux found in
> portability to different watches hardware, where in the past
> > one would program for a single watch type? Again is what is there
> miraculous in this new Linux way other than portability vs.
> > assembler code specific solutions? Could watch companies have equally
> banded on to a "Micro$oft standard", or does M$ stuff die
> > due to being hardcoded to find C: and not finding it? etc.
>
> I have great empathy for the guy in the currently running IBM commercial who
> says something like, "When I was growing up, they said that cars were going
> to fly. I want my flying car."
>
> I've been hearing, especially from "futurists," about how our entire house
Which is why I stopped even browsing through Popular Mechanics and
Popular
Science... Two publications which seem to be staffed by people that seem
unable to understand that
1. A vehicle on wheels requires NO energy to stay in place
2. Rolling takes less energy than flying.
The fact that both of these publications fail to understand that,
compared
to rolling cars, there is little reason for urban and suburban commutors
to invest in an EXPENSIVE vehicle with lousy energy consumption rates.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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 17:31:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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."
You keep saying this. It still doesn't make it true.
There are lots of companies that have monopoly positions in their
respective markets, and they don't get into any trouble at all if they
stick to making good products and selling them fairly.
They do (as in the Microsoft case) get in trouble for getting into a
monopoly position, then using illegal tactics to increase or maintain
that monopoly position. If you are correct, then please name us one or
two companies that have gotten into trouble for merely maintaining or
expanding their monopoly position through normal competitive means.
To get in trouble for being a monopoly, you have to do something really
obvious and in-your-face. Like Microsoft. And you have to keep doing
it for years. Like Microsoft. And it doesn't help matters any when you
get to trial, run the "Ididn'tdoit!" defense (AKA "the Bart"), fake
evidence, and have your CEO act like an pompous twit on the stand.
Microsoft could have avoided a lot of the current problems if they had
just complied with the previous Consent Decree. Instead, they ignored
it, and flaunted the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust act.
Trying to argue that "everybody does it" (your point above, in
suggesting that merely being successful is a crime in and of itself) is
a direct insult to the folks who do things the legal way.
--
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 13:39:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>And T. Max proves yet again that he doesn't understand any business
>concepts.
Whatever.
>There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly--as long as you obtain
>and maintain it by legal means.
The Sherman Act says you're wrong. Since that's the law that made
monopolization illegal, I'd say you are going to have to deal with that
fact before you can speak knowledgeably on this issue.
>You really should stop posting your nonsense -- unless your goal is to
>make yourself look foolish. You're doing a pretty good job of that.
Perhaps from your perspective, but its becoming more obvious with each
ad hominem attack you lob that you are something of a fool yourself.
The issue is legal concepts, not business concepts, anyway. Not that I
think for a second you have anything more than a "popular wisdom"
understanding of business concepts.
Where your argument breaks down is that you have still been unable to
provide anything but a) protected works, which have no claim to a market
except for themselves, which is not a market that the court would find
valid for a claim of monopolization, and b) thought experiments
requiring a distinctive lack of real-world examples, as 'legal
monopolies'. I have explained that since having a patent does not
protect one from charges of monopolization in the market for goods
requiring or incorporating that patent (the same can be said of
copyrighted works, and the court is clear that anti-trust trumps such
constitutional rights), the first is not an issue. Only the second
could support a claim that gaining a monopoly, through any legal means
is possible or that maintaining it without monopolization is possible.
You've also failed to prove that simply having large market share can be
legally, or even popularly, defined as having a monopoly, though that is
the obvious source of your understanding of the matter.
Having large market share is not monopolizing, is what you mean to say.
Monopolizing is always illegal; it just can't always be proven. Just
because some bank robbers get set free on technicalities, we don't go
around saying "bank robbery is not illegal..." do we?
--
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 17:36:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, it is not the means to achieving a monopoly, but the result of
> achieving a monopoly, which is illegal. Or trying to achieve one, even.
> Or hanging on to one if you should find yourself in that position
> through happenstance.
You keep saying that, but you're still wrong.
Unless you've managed to find some examples for us? You know, where
someone had a natural monopoly, acquired through fair means, and got in
trouble for it?
Didn't think so.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:35:03 GMT
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
They weren't convicted in a criminal trial. They lost in a civil case.
There is no requirement for "fair notice" in antitrust cases, since the
pure fact of being a monopoly is not, in and of itself, a crime. It's
being a monopoly and using that monopoly power in illegal ways that got
Microsoft in trouble.
They are also in trouble for violating a previous Consent Decree, so
they certainly knew they were in trouble well before the current case.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:53:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry
Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
Of course, no one's suggesting criminal conviction, so your entire post
is meangingless.
> 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.
IF that were all that the Sherman Antitrust laws said, you might have a
point. As it is, you might want to read them.
------------------------------
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 13:55:54 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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.)
My power company has a minuscule amount of market share, yet...they are a
monopoly, and my power company has been granted the right to charge me for
their mistakes against the environment and the susequent cleanup charges and
their poor investment choices over the years. My monopolistic power company
is harmfull to consumers because of this fact . I am forced by law to pay
for my power companies huge mistakes for the past 40 years, they are protect
by the government granted monopoly to pay for their own financial mistakes,
and thus are harmfull to those that DO pay for them.
A harmful monopoly under capitalism is impossible.
Market share has no bearing on monopoly status. When you decide to learn
facts instead of make them up read here:
http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/antitrust.htm
http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/monopolies.htm
Here's a little excerpt:
How are all harmful monopolies created?
The sole source of harmful monopolies is the government, which is the only
agency that has the power to physically force competitors out of business,
i.e., it is the only agency that has the power to outlaw (i.e., regulate)
competition. As evidence, witness the United States Post Office, which makes
it illegal for anyone to charge less than 32¢ for first class mail (one
entrepreneur attempted to compete by charging 5¢--he did not get far). Other
examples include the East India Company of the 17th and 18th centuries, the
American Pacific Railroads of the 19th century, and the AMA's monopoly over
the prescription of medicine in the 20th century.
--
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?"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
