Linux-Advocacy Digest #581, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22:50:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Thank you. But there is a subtle distinction, apparently, between
>> "having monopoly power" and "monopolizing". Is it having monopoly power
>> that makes a company "a monopoly", or using monopoly power?
>>
>> According to precedent, the two things necessary are: 1) you have
>> monopoly power, 2) you acquired or maintained it willfully.
>
>...in a fashion other than by competitive business means. You keep
>leaving that part out, for some reason.
That's because its irrelevant:
(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.
is the full quote from Grinnel. Notice that the "competitive business
means" are an explanation of what *isn't* "willful acquisition or
maintenance". Yes, "willful acquisition and maintenance *as distinct
from* competitive business means" would be more complete. But
unnecessary, as it merely illustrates that "willful acquisition and
maintenance" of monopoly power is illegal. "Business acumen, et. al,"
are not *exceptions* or *exemptions* which somehow allow you to
willfully acquire or maintain monopoly power. They are *distinct* from
it. I noted in a previous post this evening that "business acumen" does
*not*, obviously, refer to "business strategy". That would be willful
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power, and that, alone, is a
crime. Even if you don't *use* that power, as a careful reading of the
decisions will show.
>> Using it is not a requirement.
>
>But acquioring it through noncommpetitive means *is*, and you keep
>glossing over it.
No, I'm not glossing over anything. You seem to think that this clause
allows one to 'legally monopolize', and that is certainly not the case.
Don't you understand? IN A FREE MARKET, THERE IS NO COMPETITIVE MEANS
TO MONOPOLY. The *market* prevents you from acquiring such 'monopoly
power', if it is at all possible. If not, well, that's why we have
anti-trust laws which make *acquiring* monopoly power *willfully*,
through *ANY* means (as distinct from happenstance, which is to say,
superior product [that won't last long], business acumen [but not
efficiency], or historic accident [even if you land that hail-mary deal
with IBM, you *still* aren't allowed to take advantage of it by
monopolizing, even if it means *giving it away*.)
The court seems clear and clearly in agreement with yet another point
which found ridicule when I first presented it: a business strategy
designed to increase "market share" is anti-competitive, by nature. It
appears, based on what I've read of the law, that it is, in fact, a
violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, and that is what was intended
by Congress when it was made law in 1890. You are allowed to increase
your profits. If that increases your market share, as well, then fine.
You are not allowed to take efforts to increase your market share
directly ('monopolization', section 2 of the Sherman Act) nor to take
efforts to decrease someone else's market share directly ('restraint of
trade', section 1 of the Sherman Act).
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:55:56 -0400
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Isn't it time to talk about black helicopters now?
> >
> > What part of CONSTRAINT OF TRADE do you not understand?
> >
>
> Isn't that restraint of trade?
Ooops, brain fart. OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE.
>
> Colin Day
--
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: 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 23:04:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:44:03 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>>IBM clearly has a monopoly in the mainframe market.
No, it doesn't "clearly" have a monopoly in anything, though it may
indeed have one. It clearly has large market share. Now:
a) Does its large market share and competitive conditions allow it to
execute predatory actions or strategies? If so, it has 'monopoly
power'.
b) Was its monopoly power acquired or maintained willfully, or is it
normal growth and development due to superior product, business acumen,
or historical accident? If so, it has a monopoly.
It is therefore guilty of federal crimes. If you can pick out what
actions have led to or supported its acquisition or maintenance of its
monopoly, and can produce enough evidence to make a case, I'm sure the
DoJ will want to hear from you.
>> Hitachi, IBM's main
>>competitor for mainframes, lost most of it's market share to IBM with the
>>introduction of the S/390 G5 and with the introduction of the G6, IBM had
>>grabbed 95% of the mainframe market. Hitachi has now dropped out of this
>>market. Is IBM in violation of the law because of this? The answer is no.
Why not? Probably "superior product", but I'm curious what further
information you have.
> Although I do agree with you that you can gain a monopoly through
> legal means. That is especially true for computing. Infact, the
> great dependence on IP makes the development of monopolies almost
> trivial with little or no effort required by the company in question.
You can gain *large market share* through legal means. You can't gain
"a monopoly" through legal means because acquiring, or even attempting
to acquire, a monopoly is prima facia illegal. You are simply mis-using
the word "monopoly" (to mean "substantial market share), and it is this
casual mis-use in the common vernacular which leads to the plainly
incorrect (in light of law) statement "it is not illegal to have a
monopoly".
> IOW-I think that network effects are responsible for Microsoft's current
> position and that their really reprehensible acts were unecessary. Infact
> that behavior merely made Microsoft more enemies and gave those enemies
> a gift wrapped excuse for governments to intervene.
It also made it decisively easier to convict them. On at least three
distinct occasions, Jackson noted that Microsoft's "overkill" was one of
the clearest indications that they were *monopolizing*, rather than
simply trying to compete.
Final note, just to tweak anyone who might begrudgingly be giving some
ground on this: no ethical business decision requires a company to even
know what its market share is, and any decision guided by that knowledge
could be considered anti-competitive, and potentially 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]>
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 22:57:07 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just
> > > > > > > > > > > about everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all
> > > > > > > > > > > chance of paying off the national debt, yet it only
> > > > > > > > > > > gives $43/year back to the average american family.
> > > > > > > > > > > Where does the rest go? You guessed it: the top 2% or
> > > > > > > > > > > so of the economic scale.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the
> > > > > > > > > > power to approve it in it's entirety or return it to
> > > > > > > > > > congress, now who has really been creating the budget
> > > > > > > > > > deficit for the past 20 years? And who in the past four
> > > > > > > > > > has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget,
> > > > > > > > > why are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing
> > > > > > > > to USENET?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > > > > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would
> > > > > > > eliminate or significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants
> > > > > > > to take things even farther.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A surplus is merely another name for OVER-TAXATION.
> > > > > ^^^^^^^
> > > > >
> > > > > You misspelled "deficit." All that interest ends up costing quite a
> > > > > bit more in the long run.
> > > >
> > > > Interest is a result of debt which is a result of deficits cause by
> > > > over-spending....
> > > >
> > > > The federal debt CANNOT Be paid off early like a home-owner's
> > > > mortgage. The T-bills can ONLY be paid off when they mature. Anybody
> > > > who has any knowledge of how the federal debt works is aware of this.
> > > >
> > > > Since you are blissfully unaware, it demonstrates that your are
> > > > basically unqaulified to comment
> > >
> > > You're setting up strawmen again. I haven't said a word about the
> > > timeframe to pay off the national debt.
> >
> >
> > Upon maturity of the outstanding Treasury bills, you idiot.
>
> Why do you keep repeating that when it has nothing to do with anything
> I've said?
It does---you're merely to ignorant to see the connection.
--
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]>
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 22:59:10 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >> I recall an interesting comment by Arthur C. Clarke concerning the
> >> prospects of a flat tax. Through one of his characters, Clarke said
> >> that a flat tax is a recipe for revolution. It may be tolerated for a
> >> short time, but eventually it leads to the masses rebelling against the
> >> inherent oppression of the luxurious few.
> >>
> >> I'll bet you're a real big fan of the flat tax, aren't you, Aaron?
> >
> >No...
> >A flat tax is like this:
> >One guy earning $10,000 / year goes into the grocery store, and
> >pays $1.70/pound for hamburger.
> >Another guy comes in, and he earns $1050,00/year, so they charge
> >him $17.00/pound.
> >
> >FUCK THAT!
> >
> >the only MORALE tax is a head tax.
>
> A) You are not "buying" anything when you pay taxes.
Fine. Shut down the government then.
> B) A head tax is a non-tax within the context of these discussions.
that's like declaring multiplication to be non-mathematical with the
context of these discussions.
>
> I honestly didn't figure you were that stupid, Aaron. You wouldn't even
> get the short waiting period before they'd kill all the rich people with
> your system.
Progressive income taxes are immoral
flat-rate income taxes are immoral
Wealth Redistribution is slavery of the workers.
>
> The only *ethical* income tax structure is when the wealthy pay a larger
> percentage of their income (for the privilege of enjoying the
> civilization which gave them wealth) than the poor people (who may,
> additionally, require assistance to support the civilization which the
> rich people benefit from). The only two question are:
>
> 1) How much greater a proportion should the wealthy pay?
> 2) How can we avoid making the assistance to the poor assistance to
> poverty?
>
> In a nutshell (far too rudimentary for Aaron's ultra-conservative
> rhetoric), that's your whole "government spending" issue right there.
> Oh, and "Social Security is not a retirement plan."
>
> --
> 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! =-----
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:08:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> Is that a yes or a no? Or should I be satisfied with your abandoning
>> the recursive argument entirely?
>
>It's a "why on earth are you asking me that strange question, and
>what makes you think I should answer it?".
I'll assume the latter, then.
[...]
>You label too easily. If it's not personal and it's not universal,
>what is it? local? national? continental? temporal?
Abstract? Civil? Human? Yes, I think "human ethics" pretty much
covers it. Not 'universally human', mind you. Consensually human.
>> Fortunately, from your perspective, that allows you to ignore my
>> arguments, as well. So long as you don't forget them, there's little
>> more I can say on the matter then.
>
>Yipee!
>
>Forgotten.
Class dismissed.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: ZnU <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:22:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> I recall an interesting comment by Arthur C. Clarke concerning
> > >> the prospects of a flat tax. Through one of his characters,
> > >> Clarke said that a flat tax is a recipe for revolution. It may
> > >> be tolerated for a short time, but eventually it leads to the
> > >> masses rebelling against the inherent oppression of the
> > >> luxurious few.
> > >>
> > >> I'll bet you're a real big fan of the flat tax, aren't you,
> > >> Aaron?
> > >
> > >No... A flat tax is like this: One guy earning $10,000 / year goes
> > >into the grocery store, and pays $1.70/pound for hamburger.
> > >Another guy comes in, and he earns $1050,00/year, so they charge
> > >him $17.00/pound.
> > >
> > >FUCK THAT!
> > >
> > >the only MORALE tax is a head tax.
> >
> > A) You are not "buying" anything when you pay taxes.
>
> Fine. Shut down the government then.
So you're an anarchist now?
> > B) A head tax is a non-tax within the context of these discussions.
>
> that's like declaring multiplication to be non-mathematical with the
> context of these discussions.
>
> >
> > I honestly didn't figure you were that stupid, Aaron. You wouldn't
> > even get the short waiting period before they'd kill all the rich
> > people with your system.
>
> Progressive income taxes are immoral flat-rate income taxes are
> immoral
A social safety net is immoral? Fair distribution of resources is
immoral?
I bet you also have some good reasons why the minimum wage, labor rights
and unions are immoral.
> Wealth Redistribution is slavery of the workers.
The workers? :::BOGGLE:::
Just to put things in prospective, since you claim to care so much
about workers.... How much do you make, and how much are you worth?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:23:11 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> >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.
> >> >===============
> >
> >"Business acumen" is happenstance?
>
> Effectively, yes. Because it is distinct from, in the language of the
> court, "production efficiency". Consider a company which just landed a
> *huge* deal which gives them a 'decisive marketing advantage' (other
> than competing on merits). Are they to be immediately convicted merely
> because they now have "monopoly power"? No, that would be oppressive
> and counter to the purpose of the free market which the anti-trust laws
> protect. However, bear in mind, if they should do anything to
> *maintain* that decisive advantage, well, that's a crime.
That's wrong. Once you have monopoly power, the first test above is
met. To be in violation, the second test also has to be met. If what
you do to maintain the decisive advantage is to create a "superior
product", then you escape liability under the Supreme Court's test. Go
ahead and try to argue otherwise to the Supreme Court. It's their rule.
> >That predatory power *is* monopoly power to begin with. The Supreme
> >Court regonizes, in the above passage, that you can have "possession of
> >monopoly power" (element 1) without also having the items listed as
> >element 2. According to the Supreme Court, you can have "possession of
> >monopoly power" without being in violation of section 2 of the Sherman
> >Act. The passage is quite clear about that.
>
> It is popular wisdom, not the Supreme Court, which equates having
> monopoly power with being a monopoly.
Well, the courts really never use the term "monopoly" by itself, so you
could argue that the courts have no conception of what a "monopoly" is,
but since everyday folks talk about these things in terms of "monopoly"
you have to make a translation, even if the Supreme Court doesn't give
you an official one.
The terms you see in the court cases are "monopoly power", "market
power", "power to restrain competition", "monopolization", "attempted
monopolization", etc. You don't see them say, "X has a monopoly on Y."
You see them say, "X has monopoly power over the market for Y".
When random people talk about these things, they usually just use
"monopoly" by itself. So then you have to decide how that would
translate into legalese. And it seems to me that when most people say
"monopoly" the legal translation ought to be "monopoly power" or "market
power", and it's quite clear that you can acquire monopoly power without
being in violation of the law.
> Another re-write of the old saw:
> "It isn't illegal to have the power to be the monopoly, its only illegal
> to gain it or acquire it willfully." Again, it just doesn't quite flow
> the way we'd like. I still prefer "having a monopoly is illegal". It
> keeps them on their toes, at worse.
You might prefer that, but that's not how the courts have applied the
law.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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 23:23:55 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
>
> Tell that to all the WORKERS who got laid off while the company was
> still making profits and the executives were making millions in stock
> options.
>
> >OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying workers.
>
> Bullshit. Are you talking about partners or proprietors, or investors?
> There's a difference, you know. Investors get paid *first*, because the
> whole show closes without them. You are correct that OWNERS who are
> proprietors or partners get paid last. But they'll still lay the
> employees off before taking much of a cut in income themselves.
>
> >Therefore, the trickle-down is with the WORKERS at the top, and
> >the excess trickles-down to the owners.
> >
> >Micro-economics: learn it!
>
> Bullshit: stuff it! Your understanding of economics is based on myth
> and rhetoric and bullshit. Sorry, but I gotta be honest.
>
> Note: I am not affiliated with any political party.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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 23:24:55 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
>
> Tell that to all the WORKERS who got laid off while the company was
> still making profits and the executives were making millions in stock
> options.
I'm sure that based on his above position, Aaron will support the law
that the French were considering enacting recently, which would make it
illegal for profitable companies to lay off employees.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:27:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > > > You're setting up strawmen again. I haven't said a word about the
> > > > timeframe to pay off the national debt.
> > >
> > >
> > > Upon maturity of the outstanding Treasury bills, you idiot.
> >
> > Why do you keep repeating that when it has nothing to do with anything
> > I've said?
>
> It does---you're merely to ignorant to see the connection.
It doesn't. Please explain how Bush intends to pay off the national debt
while deficit spending. You seem to be arguing that he can. If you're
not arguing that he can, then you're not arguing with anything I've said.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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 23:29:35 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> You are allowed to increase
> your profits. If that increases your market share, as well, then fine.
> You are not allowed to take efforts to increase your market share
> directly ('monopolization', section 2 of the Sherman Act) nor to take
> efforts to decrease someone else's market share directly ('restraint of
> trade', section 1 of the Sherman Act).
In that case, shouldn't advertising be illegal? The primary goal of
advertising is to increase market share.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
