Linux-Advocacy Digest #673, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
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? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Peter Ammon)
Re: Just converted (Darren Winsper)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Darren Winsper)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:58:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> And with that understanding, I entirely agree. Normally a large market
>> share *can* be considered monopolization, as there is no other way to
>> get large market share in a competitive market. But that sounds too
>> much like an extremist case, and is, in fact, what allows "having a
>> monopoly is not illegal" to be used to defend monopolization, which is
>> criminal behavior. It is, indeed "monopolization", not "having a
>> monopoly" which is the crime. Having a large market share, however, is
>> indication a crime has been committed, though it is not (and should not
>> be, if the market is truly to remain free) considered de facto evidence
>> of the crime in the absence of any other demonstrably anti-competitive
>> behavior.
>
>
>And that is a good thing IMO, because figuring out what the correct
>"market" is will be much trickier for a judge to do as compared to, say,
>reading statements from executives that say, "we're going to cut off
>their air supply."
Precisely. The intent was never to outlaw success, or even appear to.
It is obviously difficult, I believe, for common sense guided by
"popular wisdom" to tell the difference, given the nature of the issue.
If people didn't tend to have an inherent desire to "dominate", rather
than participate in competition, anti-trust laws wouldn't be necessary.
So its no surprise that businesses tend to think in terms of market
share, and no surprise that the Sherman Act was intended to discourage
such activities.
>And the definition of the market is *always* disputed. Doubtless
>Microsoft will argue that all operating systems are in the relevant
>market. Some people even try to argue that the relevant market is the
>entire software industry. Obviously there is no telltale monopoly
>market share if you define the entire software industry as the market.
"See Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S.
172, 177 (1965) ('Without a definition of [the relevant] market there is
no way to measure [defendant's] ability to lessen or destroy
competition.')"
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>In this case I don't think this strategy will work for the defendant.
>You can make good arguments that Jackson used too narrow of a definition
>(by excluding Apple, for example), but expanding his definition in the
>most logical ways doesn't change the conclusion.
"See Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210,
218 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ('Because the ability of consumers to turn to other
suppliers restrains a firm from raising prices above the competitive
level, the definition of the 'relevant market' rests on a determination
of available substitutes.'). "
Apple computers do not constitute an alternative supply of
Intel-compatible PC operating systems.
>If you're so inclined, you might check out U.S. v. DuPont (1956) for a
>Supreme Court case that turned entirely on the definition of the
>relevant market. DuPont was sued for monopolization of the market for
>cellophane. DuPont argued this was not the relevant market, and they
>won:
>
>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=351&invol=377
Yes, I've heard about the famous cellophane case, but only through
popular wisdom. Thanks for the source. I'll be interested in reading
the courts decision directly, as I can't see how cellophane ('round
these parts, we just say "saran wrap") is not a market unto itself.
But one can certainly see how it would reflect on the OS market.
Hardware is not a suitable alternative for software, and Apple sells
hardware.
--
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:58:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>>
>> And with that understanding, I entirely agree. Normally a large market
>> share *can* be considered monopolization, as there is no other way to
>> get large market share in a competitive market.
>
>That's most certainly not true.
>
>A large enough market share (>90% typically) can be considered a
>monopoly.
>
>But to say that there's no way to get that large a share in a
>competitive market is just plain wrong.
Adam Smith says you're wrong.
--
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:58:03 GMT
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
> Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you know what a third-world nation is?
> > > >
> > > > It's a very fuzzy definition, and Russia is dropping further and
> > > > further into that every day. Witness the Kursk.
> > >
> > > Third-world nations typically have nuclear-powered missile
> > > submarines?
> >
> > "First-world" nations have nuclear submarines that work, and don't
> > screw
> > around for a week before asking for help in rescuing the crew.
>
> As if the old Soviet Union superpower would have asked for help from the
> West?
As if they've actually improved since those days? As if they're a
large, declining country with dwindling cash reserves and a citizenry
that hates their government?
> As if the United States never lost a nuclear sub?
A couple, but there wasn't any chance of rescue.
--
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: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:59:14 GMT
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:33:45 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"First-world" nations have nuclear submarines that work, and don't screw
> >around for a week before asking for help in rescuing the crew.
>
> The US has lost two nuclear subs over the years. I don't know how long
> they "screwed around" though.
For the ten to twelve seconds that it took for the crews of those subs
to die horribly?
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 06:01:00 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Courageous wrote:
> >
> > > > In fact, I do. But this is neither here nor there. As a progressive
> > > > Libertarian, it truly pains me to see people like you associated with
> > > > Libertarianism. There's virtually no chance of making political
> > > > progress with publicate advocates like you, who don't blink at
> > > > loudly esposing they'd like to see children die, and not considering
> > > > for one moment the sensibilities of such statements vice the sensitivities
> > > > of their audience. It's almost as if your political views are etherically
> > > > connected to some delusional fantasy that you will one day be Dictator
> > > > of America, and the opinions of those you rule therefore won't matter,
> > > > because you'll just lay down the legal system you desire in some
> > > > crazy fascist temper tantrum of absolute power.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't going to happen, Aaron. You are a fool. You are three
> > > > times over a fool.
> >
> > > I'll put it this way...
> >
> > [snip--Aaron dodging the subject]
> >
> > Did what I write sting you so much you had to avoid it?
> >
> > C//
>
> I didn't dodage anything.
In fact you did (and there is no 'a' in dodge).
> "YOUR kids are not OUR responsibility, they are YOUR responsiblity"
> do you not understand?
I understood the whole thing. I wasn't asking you about that,
nor requesting clarification. I was pointing out -- and quite
rightly -- that individuals like you who shamelessly opine that
they'd prefer to see children die are a hazard to the expressions
of Libertarian philosophy in America and a detriment to the
Libertarian Party in specific.
You dodged it.
The correct way to address it head on is to either refute what
I say or admit culpability. Admission of culpability would be
the appropriate thing, because as is, your insensivite rhetoric
is quite likely to alienate the voting public who otherwise
ultimately make the final decisions in this country whether
you like it or not.
C//
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:03:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <8o3bun$l4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> -- snip --
>> >>
>> >> > The term "abusive monopoly" is an oxymoron;
>> >>
>> >> Hmm, I think you mean "the term 'abusive monopoly' is redundant."
>> >>
>> >> Kind of like "violent explosion."
>> >>
>> >
>> >But he'd still be wrong.
>> >
>> >It's entirely possible to have a monopoly which abuses its position.
>>
>> Not really. It is impossible to have a monopoly which does not abuse
>> its position, by definition.
>
>Wrong. Show me your definition.
"The threshold question in this analysis is whether the defendant's
conduct is "exclusionary" - that is, whether it has restricted
significantly, or threatens to restrict significantly, the ability of
other firms to compete in the relevant market on the merits of what they
offer customers. "
That's a decent head start on a *description*. I don't argue by
*definition*.
>What if I were an ultimately benevolent person who really didn't need
>money and I ruled a monopoly with an iron fist. I set prices as low as
>they'd be with enormous competition. How would that be abuse of my
>position?
What fucking if what?
>I didn't say it's likely. But you keep coming up with premises that make
>certain assumptions, then use them to prove the same assumptions. It's
>called "circular logic".
Point out the assumption, don't give me straw men based on asinine
thought experiments where someone is an ultimate benevolent person.
>> >In fact, in some cases, a monopoly could be good for consumers.
>>
>> True, but none are good for the market.
>
>Non-sequitor.
Hardly. The definition of monopoly rests on the definition of the
market, and mandates that that market be considered a free market but
for the attempt at monopolization. If it is good for the market, it
cannot be monopolization, and that is all there is to it. Obviously
someone's got to get something out of it, or nobody would go along with
it. If you don't have customers "willing" to put up with a monopoly, no
monopoly in any market, no matter how restrictive, is going to last
long. Revolution is something of a final solution in such cases.
--
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: Peter Ammon <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:09:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> >
> > We should slowly let them starve to death? That's worse!
>
> NAME ONE PERSON who is starving to death in the United States....
http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/30years/30years.pdf
"...between 1988 and 1994, 4.1% of the U.S. population lived in families
that report sometimes or often not getting enough food to eat."
That's 12 million people.
I'd give you names, but it's easier for you if I don't, isn't it?
-Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: 27 Aug 2000 06:11:57 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:33:02 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux has crashed for me when the applications aren't coded very well --
> just run Netscape under Linux for example.
Funny, that's never happened to me.
> Many people consider Linux more
> reliable because they run undemanding console mode applications - not GUI
> apps. or anything remotely complex.
Please. I am constantly pushing my machine harder under Linux than
Windows. Under WinME, even loading Media Player the machine can
sometimes lock up.
> Windows, OTOH, allows many programs to access hardware directly or almost
> directly, such as DirectX. This adds an element of instability, because if
> the hardware driver isn't absolutely perfect, it can open the system up to
> vunerabilities.
There's nothing stopping bad drivers killing Linux either.
> > So, i'm another satisfied user though I keep windows around to support
> > legacy games and family.
>
> Legacy games? What about the latest games such as MS Allegiance or Diablo
> 2?
Allegiance is full of arrogant newbie haters which put me right off and
Diablo 2 is a case of same-old same-old.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: 27 Aug 2000 06:11:58 GMT
On 26 Aug 2000 10:36:22 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With bundles, you can pop in a CD and drag it to wherever you want to
> put it, and it will all work. I hope Apple hasn't screwed them up in
> MacOS X, but we'll see.
RISC OS used bundles which were called Applications. ROXFiler
(rox.sourceforge.net) has support for a similar system.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:22:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> In this particular case, I can't see that there's any difference. To
>> maintain is to maintain.
>
>How about if I draw a distinction between direct, intentional
>maintenance through behaviors like dumping, vs. indirect maintenance
>that comes about because of pro-competitive behavior, like providing
>high-quality products. Both of these result in the monopoly power being
>preserved, and thus both can be described as "maintenace", but only the
>former is illegal.
You mean draw a distinction between, say, willful acquisition and
maintenance of monopoly power, as distinguished from superior products,
business acumen, or accident of history?
The court beat you to it, by about 34 years:
"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.')"
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
So you're left with determining if something is pro-competitive or
anti-competitive. But let's not draw any false dichotomies; any action
might well have aspects of both.
" Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 488
(1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) 'Our § 2 monopolization doctrines are .
. . directed to discrete situations in which a defendant's possession of
substantial market power, combined with his exclusionary or
anticompetitive behavior, threatens to defeat or forestall the
corrective forces of competition and thereby sustain or extend the
defendant's agglomeration of power.'"
[...]
"'the ability (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and
(2) to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by
new entry or expansion.' IIA Phillip E. Areeda, Herbert Hovenkamp & John
L. Solow, Antitrust Law ¶ 501, at 86 (1995)"
[Ibid]
>> On other issues, you are correct. But the entire point of anti-trust
>> law (statute and precedent) is that a free market is a competitive
>> market. Which means unless you "willfully" maintain such power, you
>> aren't going to be able to maintain it at all.
>
>You could maintain it if the market is too small to support more than
>one supplier. You could maintain it if you have a valuable trade secret
>that nobody else has been able to figure out.
Yet you are forbidden to willfully maintain either advantage, though the
trade secret might provide an opportunity to provide a superior product
in a competitive market, and the business acumen of avoiding geographic
areas with a large array of alternative outlets for similar products is
perfectly ethical and legal. You simply aren't allowed to petition for
zoning laws that restrain competition, or hire away all the engineers
from a company attempting to legally reverse engineer your trade secret
so that they can use it.
>Fair Isaac would be a
>candidate for an example of the latter; they are the people who
>calculate your credit worthiness. Their formula for evaluating credit
>worthiness is their trade secret. All three of the national credit
>bureaus use Fair Isaac. All somebody has to do to break their hold on
>the market is invent a better formula. Nobody has done so.
And what are the licensing terms? I hope they get a lot for it overall,
if it allows democratic access to capital, but I would expect it is
pennies compared to the direct financial rewards of using it. Most
software has no such advantage.
>> Adam Smith worked that
>> out centuries ago.
>
>Funny thing is, Adam Smith didn't think you could solve it by trying to
>pass antitrust legislation...
Adam Smith didn't live in an industrial world. Physical limitations
provided an inherent limitation on the ability of a vendor to
monopolize, since all markets were physical markets. In the industrial
world, it rapidly became evident that an unethical businessman can
"cheat" open competition, so they outlawed it. This prevented the
industrial revolution for countermanding, if you will, the political
revolutions of the eighteenth century. Ironically, the fact that such
methods were effective left the opportunity in the the latter part of
the twentieth century for the PC revolution to again provide an
opportunity for assaulting the liberty of the individual by powerful
self-interests who wish to dominate society for their own profit.
Adam Smith worked out why monopolies aren't possible in a free market.
Anti-trust law is the result of working out why markets aren't always
free to begin with. The Microsoft trial clarified why anti-trust
legislation is far more necessary than most people recognize.
--
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: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 06:23:02 GMT
ZnU wrote:
> It depends where you live. In rich suburbs, the public schools are of
> very high quality. They're properly funded. In inner cities, they're
> woefully underfunded, and they're horrible.
I live in a middle class suburb, with plenty of people that are wealthy on
paper (i.e. can't qualify for most financial aids) but the schools still
suck. Some of the "best" schools in San Diego are the magnet schools which
are smack dab in the middle of those 'inner city' areas.
> The solution is to properly fund inner city schools, not drain even more
> money away from them.
True.. but "properly fund" does not mean raises total taxes and dump more
money into the school system but to properly use the money they already have.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
Barbie of Borg - She doesn't just Assimilate, She Accessorizes too!
-- Stolen from a /. post.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:27:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
>Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > You could maintain it if the market is too small to support more than
>> > one supplier. You could maintain it if you have a valuable trade
>> > secret
>> > that nobody else has been able to figure out. Fair Isaac would be a
>> > candidate for an example of the latter; they are the people who
>> > calculate your credit worthiness. Their formula for evaluating credit
>> > worthiness is their trade secret. All three of the national credit
>> > bureaus use Fair Isaac. All somebody has to do to break their hold on
>> > the market is invent a better formula. Nobody has done so.
>>
>> ...and all Fair Isaac has to do to get in trouble with the Feds is
>> something simple, like telling their customers "if you buy information
>> from any new competitor, we'll increase our rates by 50%," or any of a
>> number of simple anticompetitive things.
>
>But, you see, that won't work, because if they competitor's forumla has
>greater predictive power than Fair Isaac's, the customer will simply
>tell them to go to hell.
You assume that the predictive power of such a method can be fairly
gauged in a concrete fashion. Any such method has all the power of a
good guess, since you can't tell how many people you didn't lend money
to would have paid you back in contradiction to your formula. You can
still test it against other methods, true, but you over-simplify the
ease with which a company can change their methods. Your argument,
however, has validity; the fact that Fair Isaac services 75% of the
market does not give them monopoly power. If that wouldn't work, then
they've done nothing wrong. If that *would* work, they are a monopoly
and should be "destroyed" (as a monopoly, not a competitor), whether
they do so or not.
>It's not so much like the situation we have
>with Microsoft, where companies like Dell have to have access to Windows
>to survive. There aren't huge switching costs for a formula like there
>are for retraining people on an alternative OS and losing out on
>software availability. Once you've created a better product in FI's
>market, there aren't many barriers left.
So if Fair Isaac makes their "trade secret" formula available only in a
mass of "proprietary" software which would entail greater switching
costs than replacing the formula alone in an independently developed
system, they are monopolizing, correct? Or restraining trade, depending
on the details.
--
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:31:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>> >> FUD, certainly, should be considered a Section 1 (restraint of trade)
>> >> violation. Don't you agree?
>> >
>> >I think it depends on the FUD.
>>
>> Well, see, here's where I can't follow you. Because the law cannot
>> "depend" as much as you indicate by this statement. It doesn't depend
>> on the statements of the vendor, it depends on the effect of the
>> statements. Which is, of course, what defines the difference between
>> FUD and 'information'. So it doesn't depend on the FUD. It defines if
>> it is FUD.
>
>So if I say, "My product is good, don't buy my competitors' product",
>and everyone follows that advice, I'm legally liable for having made
>that statement, because of its effects???
Yes, you are legally liable for all statements you make. Was that
statement itself anti-competitive, and a crime? That depends on the
circumstances, and what else you said besides that.
>> >I don't look too kindly on monopolists
>> >preannouncing vaporware to prevent sales of upcoming challengers of the
>> >monopolist. But I'm not sure it should reach the point of illegality...
>> >by this time, people who trust Microsoft preannouncements have got to be
>> >very naive folks.
>>
>> Microsoft still willfully maintains monopoly power, does it not?
>
>Through FUD? Funny, I though it was through tying and coercive pricing
>practices with PC makers, not by issuing vague pronouncements about
>future products.
Through many many different methods; as many as they can manage, in
fact. A criminal prosecution (or should I say a very long series of
criminal prosecutions) would uncover dozens and dozens of violations, in
Microsoft's case. This is one of the reasons why a civil prosecution
makes sense for the government. Their goal is not to punish the
perpetrators (they were, after all, just acting like dumb monkeys, as we
all do) but to resuscitate the free market, so that it can take care of
anti-competitive actions on its own.
--
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
******************************
