Linux-Advocacy Digest #570, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic
Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:52:16 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > > >
> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
> > > >
> > > > Now what did I say the earn a reply with that tone from him?
> > >
> > > Y9ou said something like that I disrespected the linux user base, or
> > > some such. Can't tell, because you sniped it.
> >
> > Why it that a problem? Can't you read back the thread?
>
> Oh, found it:
>
> >Should not one member of the Linux community still show at least basic
> >repect to a a fellow member? Our should one member pre-assume the lack
of
> >contribution on the part of others, and treating the others second as
class
> >citizens of the Linux community?--As Roberto as done with Nathaniel and
> >myself?
>
> I didn't preassume the lack of contribution, since the quote you say
> was disrespectful (the "[] gave you a free OS"?) applies to me as
> well, and I am a contributor.
>
> A harangue to contribute doesn't assume the other is not a contributor.
>
> I assume you meant "threating the others as second class citizens".
> I have no idea if you actually code (and are thus a first class
> citizen) or not. I do believe non-coders are not to be considered
> as much as coders. I do not believe they should be disrespected.
>
> And if you are so offended because I apparently (yes, I can't remember
> it)
> sent you an email telling you to go fuck yourself, well, tough cookies.
> Want an apology? I usually don't tell people to go fuck themselves
> unless
> I feel it's needed. If you would be so kind as to quote the email,
> I will know if I should apologize or not.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
Here is that email I sent you.
> Hello,
>
> Here is a little heads up before you go too far down the wrong track in
your
> assumptions about relative values of the contributions made by different
> members of the Linux community, in particular in relations to discussion
> COLA about the future developments of Linux. I am sending you this
message
> by email to in hopes that this could avoid any public "uglyness" that
could
> be generated by any possibly invalid assumptions.
>
> I am sure that you are aware of all the ways that many individuals have
> contributed to the betterment of the Linux community. Not all those who
> have contributed or even contributed greatly have been openly reconized
for
> their efforts. Many have been happy just to contribute and have not
sought
> reconition.
>
> Contributions to the betterment of the Linux community that may leave the
> contributer as an unreconized and unacknowledged for their efforts include
> many things: Being an a Linux advocate both on-line or perhaps on a
> person-to-person basis. Providing help, assistance, and guideance to
> neophytes. Convincing a company to give Linux a try and once proving the
> value of Linux, perhaps turning that company into a Linux shop--often
> personaly taking fire from the anti-Linux elements in that company even
back
> when Linux was called a hackers' toy OS. Debuging and patching the kernel
> and forwardring the patches to the developer in charge of that art of the
> kernel. Debugging and patching "Linux" software and forwarding the
patches
> to the developers. Writing drivers for Linux. Porting other unix
software
> to Linux and forwarding the patches to permit the software to support
Linux
> to those develpers. Proof reading documentation and forwarding
corrections
> and advice back to the maintainers of the documentation. In the early
days
> of Linux there were many anon documents for Linux. Many more ways.
>
> While you many not reconize the someone's name as a known contributer to
the
> Linux community, it is not a safe assumption that the person has not
> contributed real value to the community. The same way that is it unsafe
to
> assume that a man that you are talking with at a reception is not a
> gentleman. If in such a situation you mistake a ruffian as a gentleman
and
> are proven wrong all you would have to do is downgrade your opinion of the
> person. On the otherhand if you mistake a gentleman for a ruffian, you
may
> dig yourself into a hole before you realize your mistake that will require
> alot of climbing to get back out.
>
> In the case of member of the Linux community that translate into the
> assumption of contribution. Without outside information to the contrary,
it
> is safer to assume that a member has contributed real value to the
community
> than to assume that a person has not. All the more so when dealing with a
> long time user. The longer someone has been a member of the Linux
community
> the greater the odds are, that person has contributed real value to the
> community, even if you don't realize what his effort are or have been.
>
>
> See you around the net, but not the .NET ;-)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:07:15 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:40:59 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:16:40 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Ostracus escribió:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <8npd61$92c4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nigel Feltham"
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >>
> >> >> So the fact that QT is available for the windows platform is only useful to
> >> >> those who purchase the professional edition. I would bet even money that most
>of
> >> >> the authors of "free" software will not "pony up" the money.
> >> >
> >> >You can port the free edition to win32. It should not be a terribly huge
> >> >project. My personal guess is 2 guys two weeks.
> >> >
> >> >> GTK is "free" on both platforms.
> >> >
> >> >So would Qt if someone ported it :-)
> >>
> >> ...and when you port QT to Be or Win32 or MacOS who owns the result?
> >
> >You, of course (the "you" who did the porting). TT doesn't require
> >anyone to grant them the copyright.
>
> If you really own the "fork" then why bother with a distinct
> licence? They could just go the 'Aladdin route' and be done
> with any sort of controversy.
My own guess is that they don't want forking. That doesn't mean they
prohibit forking. In any case, you should ask them.
> Given the complexities of contract law, 'free licence' proliferation
> is really quite idiotic. The stakes are much higher in a contract.
> So it makes more sense to have a few really well debugged licences
> that represent each particular set of objectives.
The GPL certainly doesn't look like a good candidate for that.
> >> There is infact a Be porting project for QT, it just can't seem
> >> to attract any developers.
> >
> >Maybe noone cares.
>
> Yet BeOS users seem to be rather vocal about their interest for
> ports of gtk based applications, as well as simple posix1
> utilities...
>
> If QT/KDE were really the cat's meow, one would think that BeOS
> users would be even MORE interested in it as they are using a
> predominantly GUI based OS as is and obviously have no problems
> with commercial licencing of core OS components.
Maybe they don't like KDE. Who knows? Ask them.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:55:35 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:01:59 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck escribió:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:14:31 GMT, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords, MySQL
>> >ships with default passwords.
>>
>> IIRC, you also can't make MySQL do anything unless you're root on the
>> local machine until you set up some passwords.
>
>Considering that you have to connect to the database to set the
>passwords, they better leave you SOME open entry ;-)
>
An rdbms can use OS based security for such instances.
You don't necessarily need a default user account to
access a freshly installed or created database.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:09:01 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:10:05 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> >> This is the big question. With all of the labor potential the
> >> KDE project seems to have, why not make a clean break to a
> >> core library that is beyond reproach?
> >
> >You are liberal at spending the effort of others. Join [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Not nearly as much as you are.
>
> You want others to fix your poo.
Where have I asked anyone to fix something for me? Put up or apologize.
> >> Afterall, the KDE project
> >> seems to be big on PR. Whynot at that 'bulletpoint' to the rest?
> >
> >If I could understand that sentence, I would comment on it.
> >
> >> Either way, you can't erase the past. KDE started out using QT
> >> long before Troll decided to try and bend over backwards to
> >> please KDE critics. Even if Troll finally went with the 'Aladdin
> >> route', momories of how KDE started things would remain.
> >
> >Nice.
>
> "meritocracy"
Whatever.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:12:22 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > >
> > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Cool, I respect you for it. So?
> > >
> > > So, that provides evidence of the invalid assumptions that your attitude
> > > lead you to form.
> >
> > Whatever.
> >
> > > > There *is* a dicotomy.
> > >
> > > While that may be your view of things, it is not or at least has not
> been
> > > the reality of the Linux community.
> >
> > "While that may be your view of things, it is not or at least has not
> > been
> > the reality of the Linux community."
>
> Point of agreement, or a reversal of argument?
Simply that you can not honestly say that something is just my view and
claim that your view is reality instead.
> > > > Yawn.
> > >
> > > More flame bait?
> >
> > Nope. An onomatopoeia indicating boredom.
> >
> > > > I contribute to the first large software project
> > > > in Linux that started a trend towards making linux usable by more
> > > > newbies.
> > >
> > > The kernel? That was the first big project in Linux on which makes
> > > everything else possible. If you are talking about KDE, it is not Linux
> > > software, it is unix software, properly written it should work on any
> unix
> > > system that runs X--and perhaps other systems using X as well.
> >
> > You are right, the "in Linux" doesn't belong there.
>
> If you are saying what I think you are, point of agreement.
I say that I should have said "I contribute to the first large software
project
that started a trend towards making linux usable by more newbies."
Actually, I would change "the first" to "a", to make it less redundant.
> > > > I care so much about newbies that I try to make them non-newbies
> > > > all the time.
> > >
> > > And disparage them at the same time?
> >
> > I don't. Usually.
> >
> > > > I use the words often. I had done so in this very thread already.
> > > > And in the message three posts ago in the thread, if you look.
> > >
> > > Using when discussing the email reply, it still suspicious. If you had
> not
> > > written it, that would not have been your reation to it. If your use
> that
> > > phrase as often as you seem to, it does not speak well of you and you
> can
> > > hardly be supprised at peoples reactions to you.
> >
> > People's reactions to me are varied. However, notice how my reaction to
> > you is my fault, and people's reaction to me is ALSO my fault. Amazing
> > double standard you bear.
>
> Not really, if it had not been for the tone and jist of your reaction, I
> would have not had any negative opinion of you, which should be confirmed by
> our past email communications, before you showed this side of your persona
> to me.
I have more sides than the average icosahedron. So do you, probably.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:14:29 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > And if you are so offended because I apparently (yes, I can't remember
> > it)
> > sent you an email telling you to go fuck yourself, well, tough cookies.
> > Want an apology? I usually don't tell people to go fuck themselves
> > unless
> > I feel it's needed. If you would be so kind as to quote the email,
> > I will know if I should apologize or not.
>
> Here is that email I sent you.
[snip the email]
Doesn't ring a bell. I must have read it very quickly.
Anyway, if I told you to fuck yourself over this email, indeed
it was unwarranted. I don't know what got into me.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and
Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:56:07 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:04:35 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Your deliberate attempts to misrepresent Roberto, who's a fairly well
> >known
> >> member of the community do very little for your credibility.
> >
> >Emperor's new clothes.
>
> Note: no rebuttal presented.
Are you certain? Consider that story in the lite of your statement.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:16:10 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:01:59 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bob Hauck escribió:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:14:31 GMT, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords, MySQL
> >> >ships with default passwords.
> >>
> >> IIRC, you also can't make MySQL do anything unless you're root on the
> >> local machine until you set up some passwords.
> >
> >Considering that you have to connect to the database to set the
> >passwords, they better leave you SOME open entry ;-)
> >
>
> An rdbms can use OS based security for such instances.
> You don't necessarily need a default user account to
> access a freshly installed or created database.
Sure. MySQL doesn't though, that's why I said that.
I also believe that OS based users/passwords in a database
are pretty lame, but that's just MHO.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:11:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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]
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> Recognizing that 'JS/PL' isn't a real person, I "spoke into the mike"
>> for him, and am well within the bounds of reason for ridiculing his
>> overly-dramatic concern.
>
>Oh yes.. I'm a real person. But I do realize murderers have trouble
>recognizing humans to be different from objects.
You're a pseudonym, 'JS/PL', and nothing more. From the information we
have available, you are more likely to be a murderer than I.
[...]
>That would be a switch. You threaten my life by saying "I want to kill
>JS/PL. Did you get that? Would you like me to repeat it?"
>and I'm somehow at fault for this statement. I suppose if you raped someone
>it would be their fault for being so sexy.
I want to rape JS/PL. Did you get that? Would you like me to repeat
it?
[...]
>When someone says "I want to kill JS/PL. Did you get that? Would you like
>me to repeat it?" I deem that statement to be a pretty good indication of
>their intentions. It is also illegal to deliver death threats, it is a third
>degree felony in T. Max Devlins home state, and intimidation of a victim or
>witness of said crime is another offence altogether. So he's digging himself
>in deeper with every statement to me on the matter. I'm sure delivering that
>statement accross state lines is probably a Federal offence as well.
LOL. You're going to have to get yourself a real identity, bud, or
you're just making a fool of yourself.
>> I'll let the police deal with the ISPs if I ever feel I'm actually being
>> threatened. He is not within his rights to harass me under the pretense
>> that I made a death threat on his pseudonym.
>
>There you go again, it's my fault you commited the crime isn't it Max?
You are one of the stupidest trolls I've yet to encounter; you think I'm
buying this shit? Why didn't you call me "Tim"? Too afraid of real
legal trouble?
I want to threaten JS/PL across state lines. Did you get that? Would
you like me to repeat it?
--
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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:11:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>> They've been under investigation, essentially, since the late 1980s.
>> They've had a monopoly based on pre-load per-processor agreements and
>> such since the mid-80s, at the latest.
>
>Yup. And they didn't get into any real trouble until the mid 1990s.
>What does that tell you?
That anti-trust enforcement is criminally lax?
>> >Other companies that have been in trouble for similar tactics:
>> >
>> >Coca-Cola (which gets nailed from time to time for anticompetitive
>> >practices.)
>>
>> To prevent them from having a monopoly.
>
>Nope. To keep them from using their monopoly position in many areas to
>knock other companies out of business.
They don't have a monopoly position. They just have a substantial
market share. But without the ability to use it predatorially, they
aren't a monopoly.
>> Everyone knows you can get Pepsi at almost as many places.
>
>Mostly because, back in the 1970s and 1980s, Coca-Cola got slapped
>around by the FTC for abusing their monopoly.
No, for attempting to monopolize, or perhaps for monopolizing, either
way, I assume they don't do it any more. But they still have a large
market share.
>> from the Microsoft case.
>>
>> I fail to see why a laundry list of companies who've had anti-trust
>> trials is supposed to support the idea that "having a monopoly is
>> illegal" is a radical statement.
>
>...and you still haven't come up with one single example where a company
>with an existing monopoly got nailed by the Feds for just having a
>monopoly.
They all do. Microsoft did; just *having* the pre-load monopoly earned
them a conviction under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Attempting to
monopolize the browser market, as well, got them another. Finally, a
Section 1 violation was determined for the tying.
>From the Conclusions of Law:
See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The
offense of monopoly power under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
acumen, or historic accident.")
I'm not sure if "Grinnell Corp" meets your criteria (though I still
don't understand the criteria), but it seems clear (from this quote and
the accompanying discussion) that the possession of monopoly power
(substantial market share + capability of using it predatorially) is
illegal if it was willfully acquired or maintained. Nothing about
having to actually *use* it; merely willful acquisition or maintenance.
>> The point is that once it is shown that a company has a dominant market
>> share and *could* act predatorially, the *company*, not the prosecution,
>> has the burden of proof of showing they didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't
>> use it, if they are accused of doing so.
>
>If that's your point, it's a bad one.
Bad how? Bad you don't believe it (must I quote yet again?) or because
you don't think it supports the fact that you need not *do* anything
except willfully acquire or maintain monopoly power in order to be
breaking the law, even if you never used that power?
>In every case I cited, companies didn't get into trouble for a
>*possible* problem - they got into trouble for actually taking part in
>anticompetitive acts that were made public.
Yes, but just because you have performed anti-competitive acts doesn't
mean you are monopolizing. Did you research these cases to verify they
were Section 2 Sherman Act violations to begin with? There are other
anti-trust laws than the Sherman Act, and other sections in that Act to
begin with, that don't have any direct reference to the term
"monopolization". Perhaps what you are trying to say is that in the
common parlance, the word "monopoly" means 'anyone who breaks any
anti-trust law'. But that's a rather weak point, at best.
--
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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:11:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> The fact is, the claim that it is possible to have a legal monopoly is
>> false.
>
>Not true. See what the Supreme Court has to say in United States v.
>Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) :
>
>===============
>The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1)
>the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
>willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
>growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
>acumen, or historic accident.
>===============
>
>If the first element--possession of monopoly power--is present but the
>second element is missing, then there is no violation.
Did you bother trying to understand what that second element is?
Possession of monopoly power by anything other than happenstance, that's
what that is. If, through superior products, you acquire a monopoly,
and maintain it, you're still breaking the law. If, through business
acumen, you maintain a monopoly you willfully acquired, you're still
breaking the law. If, one some remote chance, you acquire and maintain
your monopoly power by *competitive* means, then obviously, it isn't
monopoly power to begin with; it is just large market share and the
unfortunate circumstance which enables you to use it predatorially. Of
course, if you use it predatorially, then its still monopolization, even
if you acquired or maintained it legally.
The fact is a "legal monopoly" is a myth. Monopolization is illegal,
entirely. It is no more correct to say that "it isn't illegal to have a
monopoly" than it is correct to say "it isn't illegal to murder people".
Some cases where you have a dominant market share (what most people mean
by 'monopoly) and some cases of self-defense might make both statements
seem questionable, but in the end, monopolization and murder are both
felonies.
>In the face of such clear statements from the Supreme Court, the DOJ
>need only present data showing that Microsoft has over 90% market share.
>Such data creates a presumption that monopoly power exists. Legally,
>the burden then falls on Microsoft to rebut the presumption.
Or to demonstrate that they did not acquire or maintain the monopoly
power willfully.
I think the most important (and most subtle) lesson here is that
separating 'willful acquisition of monopoly power' and 'business acumen'
are not considered to be identical activities.
>U.S. v. Grinnell was an important antitrust decision, and Microsoft's
>lawyers would have to be total idiots not to be aware of what it says
>and what the implications are.
MS lawyers would have to be total idiots to do nine tenths of what
they've done in this case.
Reading the Conclusions of Law is quite refreshing; Microsoft doesn't
have a toe, let alone a leg, to stand on.
"As the foregoing discussion illustrates, Microsoft's campaign to
protect the applications barrier from erosion by network-centric
middleware can be broken down into discrete categories of activity,
several of which on their own independently satisfy the second element
of a § 2 monopoly maintenance claim. "
I'm almost amazed that the decision is so clear and well put together.
I'm quite disappointed that it isn't so clear to the populace how strong
and essentially unimpeachable this decision is. I chalk it up to
decades of indoctrination (spawned by the presence of Ma Bell and that
real-estate game) that "having a monopoly is not illegal...." The
Judge, it seems, doesn't have any such delusion.
--
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
******************************
