Linux-Advocacy Digest #768, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 11:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451788.r54h8^-.00000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:03:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>For the record, the part that you trimmed is where Max claimed that he
> >>didn't need any facts or details. After all, facts and details are
> >>unimportant to him. He seems to think that he can understand everything
> >>at some esoteric level without having any facts or details to back it
> >>up. That's ridiculous and I was merely pointing that out.
> >>
> >
> >Yep, that would explain his comments about Windows and IE integration.
> >What I find remarkable is Max's ability to muddle things up by
> >spending paragraph after eloquent paragraph saying absolutely nothing.
> >Debating with him is like trying to do the butterfly stroke in a pool
> >of quick-dry cement.
> >
> >I stopped trying to reason with him when, after dozens of posts
> >regarding antitrust law, he attempted to wiggle out of embarrassing
> >defeat by proclaiming that he'd been using his own definition of
> >"monopoly" that bears little resemblance to the common one.
>
> Well, I certainly can't let such a personal attack go unnoticed, but I
> must say that it practically fills my heart with glee to see you two
> discussing how incomprehensible you find my statements. I have this
> theory, see, that if I keep posting, despite the trolling, and try to be
> as accurate, consistent, and practical as I can,
That's the problem. I believe you _are_ being as accurate, consistent,
and practical as you can. Yet you're still incomprehensible.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:08:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> Typical troll response. "Wrong". Christ.
> >>
> >> PEOPLE!: DON'T start Usenet messages with the word "wrong".
> >
> >Why not? You were wrong and refuse to admit it.
>
> Because it proves you don't know what "wrong" means, or how to use it in
> a coherent way.
So you're saying that when you post something that's wrong, I should
start the post with "right"?
Given your history of inane drivel, that wouldn't surprise me, but
that's not the way 99.999999% of the world works.
> [...]
> >> PEOPLE!: Don't waste time quibbling.
> >
> >IOW, you were lying.
>
> In *my* re-wording, if you would like, I may have been mistaken; I was
> neither wrong nor lying. Readers do not need any more examples of your
> pathetic idiocy, and would appreciate, I'm sure, you not pretending that
> one person making one mistake is some sort of support for your
> never-quite-elaborated delusions. It could have been only $3050 that a
> tax accountant could have save me. Oh, I am so dishonest and wrong.
> Oh, gee. Somebody save me.
I see. So you posted some very specific figures that you admitted later
were pulled out of your ass. In fact, the figures were shown by JS/PL to
be impossible and completely fabricated.
And we're supposed to accept that as a simple mistake?
>
> Christ, you're pathetic.
Why? Because I won't let you get away with blatant lies?
>
> [...]
> >> >IOW, you fabricated the entire things.
> >>
> >> I said something. Oops.
> >>
> >> You wish I was wrong. Oops.
> >
> >Then why do you refuse to substantiate your claims?
>
> It wasn't a claim, it was a remark, and it needs no substantiation. If
> you can refute it, fine. Otherwise, keep your stupidity to yourself and
> stop making an embarrassing spectacle of it.
>
> >And why do you keep ignoring JS/PL's point that the numbers you posted
> >were impossible -- since your claimed "actual" deduction was far less
> >than the standard deduction?
>
> Because he was wrong. I didn't ignore him; I explained why (though the
> little troll certainly didn't deserve it) in some of that "drivel" you
> find it so difficult to comprehend.
No, you didn't. You danced around the issue. You lied and admitted that
you lied, yet you still try to use your lie as evidence to back up your
position.
>
> [...]
> >Nope. You made a claim which was central to the issue. You lied and
> >completely fabricated the "facts".
>
> Bullshit.
Then please feel free to support the $3 K deduction you claimed and the
extra $4K you said an accountant could find for you.
If you can't, it's fabricated.
>
> >Then, you refuse to admit it.
>
> Also bullshit.
This is classic. You're refusing right now.
>
> >> You're an idiot, Joe Ragosta. Go away.
> >
> >I suppose it's possible that I am. But what does it say about you that
> >an "idiot" absolutely destroyed your arguments and caught you posting
> >numerous blatant lies?
>
> No, it isn't "possible" that you are. If you believe you "absolutely
> destroyed" my argument, then you are, indeed, an idiot. For that
> matter, if you think I post lies, you're an idiot. Just because you
> cannot refute my opinions does not make me dishonest, whether you
> quibble about everything I say or not.
No, you admitted that you pulled the figures out of your ass. If you
think that's not a lie, then you're even more of an idiot than I thought.
>
> [...]
> >Ankle biters are those who refuse to let you post outright lies and
> >fabrications, presumably.
>
> Ankle-biters are people who make statements like that. If you have to
> insist that those who support an alternative view are lying, then you
> are probably the one doing the fabricating.
>
> >> And as good an example of your idiocy as anyone in the world could
> >> possibly need.
> >
> >I think anyone with an IQ greater than about 40 can understand what a
> >fool you're making of yourself.
>
> Probably because yours is not much higher, I would presume. Care to
> compare test scores?
Sure. Any day of the year.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:09:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ojbtf$r6m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Seán Ó Donnchadha" escribió:
> > > >
> > > > "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >For the record, the part that you trimmed is where Max claimed
> > > > >that
> he
> > > > >didn't need any facts or details. After all, facts and details are
> > > > >unimportant to him. He seems to think that he can understand
> everything
> > > > >at some esoteric level without having any facts or details to back
> > > > >it
> > > > >up. That's ridiculous and I was merely pointing that out.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep, that would explain his comments about Windows and IE
> > > > integration.
> > > > What I find remarkable is Max's ability to muddle things up by
> > > > spending paragraph after eloquent paragraph saying absolutely
> > > > nothing.
> > > > Debating with him is like trying to do the butterfly stroke in a
> > > > pool
> > > > of quick-dry cement.
> > >
> > > Amen brother. And his multitasking thread, and his sticky bit thread,
> > > and so on.
> >
> > I see y'all are starting to understand :). Max is, without a doubt,
> > one
> of
> > the most infuriating people I"ve ever had the displeasure of conversing
> > with.
>
> I find it kind of fun watching him get a verbal spanking every other day.
> Sure beats kicking the dog. As far as the dog is concerned.
>
>
The difference is that the dog is smart enough to know that he's been
kicked.
A dog will also make efforts to stay out of the way instead of coming
back day after day begging to be kicked.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:09:35 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:25:31 GMT...
...and Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SuSE and RedHat will shortly release version 7 of their distros, but (and
> fell free to correct me if i am wrong), those will contain little or nothing
> new compared to the previous one.
>
> Kernel 2.4, KDE 2.0, GNOME 2.0 (or Helix or whatever...), will all be
> released at least 2-3 months from now.
GNOME 2.0? No. GNOME 1.4 *might* see the light of day in the next
three months, although I consider that rather unlikely, but no way
GNOME 2.0 will show up this year.
mawa
--
Q: What's brown and sticky ?
A: A stick.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451788.r54h8^-.00000000000001
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:04:06 GMT
Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he *doesn't* post from his work
account -- he had a little chat with TPTB, you see. How long will it take
the kook to jump in and complain about alleged "abuse", perhaps to Toegel,
or even Tobin? Hey, go ahead, Tholen, make my day. You're all talk,
coward.
Here's the digest improper:
[Nope, still nothing of value come from Tholen.]
{Hey, wake me when Tholen says something that rises above the
less-than-mundane! And that Tholen can't understand this sentence says more
than words can say about him.}
Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:20:36 GMT
OK!
Wishfull thinking on my part i guess ;-)
/IL
> GNOME 2.0? No. GNOME 1.4 *might* see the light of day in the next
> three months, although I consider that rather unlikely, but no way
> GNOME 2.0 will show up this year.
>
> mawa
> --
> Q: What's brown and sticky ?
> A: A stick.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:26:30 GMT
On 08/31/2000 at 01:14 AM,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >That is true. Unfortunately for your hero Gates, the anti-trust law is
> >quite well documented and provides ample notice to anyone with an IQ above
> >60 that abuse of monopoly power is illegal and that the actions he took
> >were clearly abusive.
> Abuse of *market power* is illegal. *Possession* of "monopoly power" is
> illegal.
No, Max, you are entirely wrong with the second of the above statements.
Mere possession of a monopoly is not per se a violation. It is entirely
legal if one acquires that position fairly and does not abuse that power.
For example, were I to invent a new processor for personal computers which
was so much superior to what Intel, AMD, Apple, TI, etc. have to offer
that it became an overnight "standard" and 90% of the world PC market
chose to use my chip, that would be perfectly legal as long as I did not
engage in predatory marketing, discriminatory pricing, etc.
However, once I engaged in any discriminatory or preditory practice, I
would be in violation of the anti-trust laws.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:34:47 GMT
On 08/31/2000 at 12:47 AM,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >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.
> Here we go again. "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to
> monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to
> monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States,
> or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, "
> Being a monopoly is monopolizing, not just having a large market share.
> And monopolizing is illegal, whether you restrain trade or not.
Nope. The Court has ruled in the past that acquiring a monopoly in fair
competition is not illegal. For example, Boeing has a monopoly on
producing transport aircraft in the US. It got there by producing the best
airplanes while Lockheed, Convair, and Douglas failed for a variety of
reasons. The DOJ was
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:41:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> *Possession* of "monopoly power" is illegal.
>
>The statement "possession of 'monopoly power' is illegal" is
>false on its face. You'll have to be much more clear what you
>mean; I presume you meant something else.
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...")
I don't see how "willful possession of monopoly power is illegal" is any
less or more 'false on its face'.
>For example, ALCOA possesses one of the only two mines on the
>planet for a certain rare earth element. This gives them an
>unshakeable monopoly throughout the entire western hemisphere.
No, it gives them a large market share.
>While this monopoly is a rather serendipitous one, it's very
>much a monopoly... you simply can't get this element any where
>else.*
But are there market alternatives to that element, that's the question.
>We are disregarding any variety of government-granted monopolies,
>of course. Intellectual property, utilities, and the like come
>obviously to mind.
These, also, are not "monopolies", unless you want to mangle the term
beyond all reason. This has, of course, been routinely done through the
last few decades, and frankly I'm sick of it. The Sherman Act outlaws
monopolization and attempts to monopolize, not "abuse of monopoly
power". It has been enforced in that way (willful possession of
monopoly power is illegal) for over a century. I can't see why
insisting that common vernacular is more correct than the actual truth
is considered constructive by so many people.
>So what do you mean? You can't possibly mean "possession of of
>'monopoly power' is illegal". This statement is obviously not
>true.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. That statement is unrefutable. It is a
felony for any person to monopolize or attempt to monopolize.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: 31 Aug 2000 14:45:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps if you understood just how important it is for some public debt to be out
there you wouldn't be so quick to say pay off all the debt.
for starters, us bonds are considered a risk free investment. Now borrowing costs are
always related to how likely the borrower will pay the money back. given the multi
trillions
of dollars in assets the us government has, selling off some land to pay off the debt
is clearly NOT a problem.
also private borrowing needs a bench mark. well the riskfree rate is the lowest
anybody loans money for. any more risk than riskfree, the interest rate goes up.
just who do you think would become the borrower of choice if the govt. stopped?
ford? GM? neither of those companies would ever float the bonds required by demand.
and just where is that demand? well anybody needs steady income without the worry
of losing principle.
and those interest payments the government makes. just what happens to that money?
well the recipients either invest it or spend it. further helping the economy.
lastly,
the bumblers that think govt borrowing afffect interest rates are very very very wrong.
take a look at govt borrowing plotted against interest rates. no correlation what so
ever.
Oops. that blows up some nitwits theories.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>According to the following article, debt reduction ranks last out of
>four items when Americans are asked to rank their priorities for the
>surplus.
>
>I suppose this stems from Americans' love of being stuck in cycles of
>credit card debt. Now people want to apply this financial
>irresponsibiltiy at the national level. I would rather not subsidize
>this sort of idiocy with my taxes, thank you very much.
>
>People would rather put the money towards domestic programs, Social
>Security, and tax cuts, in that order, before they paying off existing
>debts.
>
><shudder>
>
>
>http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_taxcuts000829.
>html
>
>--
>Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
>Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
>Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
>and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:50:01 GMT
On 08/31/2000 at 12:40 AM,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. I believe the precedent
> says that "acquiring or maintaining" monopoly power is, by itself,
> illegal, and that proving monopoly power only requires that a company
> *could* restrain trade.
Absolutely not. Possession of monopoly power legally gained is NOT
illegal. However, the standards of conduct of one possessing such power is
much more stringent than for a company not enjoying such power.
>If the court can be reasonably convinced that
> the company *could* restrain trade, a demonstration that they have done
> so is not even necessary (though obviously such prosecutions are
> vanishingly rare). Don't forget, "attempting" to monopolize is just as
> illegal as restraining trade.
Absolutely wrong. Look at airlines for example.
USAir has a virtual monopoly for flights in an out of Charlotte, NC. It
accounts for 94% of the scheduled traffic there. That is perfectly legal
so long as it does nothing to prevent competitors from flying the same
routes it does. From time to time competitors have attempted to enter the
market. Examples include People's Express, Spirit, and Eastwind. Although
all offered much lower (by as much as 75% for date of purchase flights),
none could survive because they didn't have the wherewithall to provide as
frequent or as reliable service. USAir NEVER lowered its fares to anything
approaching the levels of the competitors BECAUSE it had monopoly power in
that market and would have been guilty of anti-trust violations. It is
noteworthy than NONE of the failed carriers ever claimed any
anti-compeititve practices by USAir. In fact, in one instance, US provided
both gate and baggage handling services for the competitor. Moreover, it
provided bookings to the competitors when its seats were sold, one of its
flights was delayed, etc.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:05:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >That is true. Unfortunately for your hero Gates, the anti-trust law is
>> >quite well documented and provides ample notice to anyone with an IQ
>> >above
>> >60 that abuse of monopoly power is illegal and that the actions he took
>> >were clearly abusive.
>>
>> Abuse of *market power* is illegal. *Possession* of "monopoly power" is
>> illegal.
>
>
>You know, I hate to sound like a broken record, but it seems to me that
>you are forgetting that second element again:
>
>====
>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.
>=====
No, but you still haven't changed your argument from the last time I
shot it down. The second element is "willful acquisition or maintenance
of monopoly power", and I'm not forgetting it at all. The fact that you
would like to confound that with growth or development as a consequence
of superior product, business acumen, or historical accident is obvious.
But why is it you don't recognize that the law *distinguishes* such
occurrence from willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power?
Which is to say that willful possession of monopoly power is not the
same thing as business acumen, et, al.
>Once again, please note that possession (element 1) does not by itself
>establish a violation, since the second necessary element could be
>absent. This is pretty plain language; I can't see why you seem to keep
>forgetting it and/or misinterpreting it.
No, only the willful possession of element 1 is a violation, as clearly
expressed by element 2. But I can't see why mentioning that accidental
possession of monopoly power is illegal is really worth mentioning.
Particularly because even if accidental possession of monopoly power is
thrust on you, maintenance of that power is equally criminal.
I'm not misinterpreting it, you are, because you don't agree with the
contention, I presume, that one can distinguish monopolization from
running a business. This lack of ability to distinguish between honest
commerce and monopolization is precisely the problem I'm trying to
address; I have no such problem, the courts have no such problem. Your
continued insistence that it isn't a problem simply illustrates the
problem itself, and the fact that you, indeed, cannot distinguish
between honest commerce and monopolization. The only purpose I can see
for your insistence is that you don't agree with the court that there is
a distinction, or you do not recognize the importance of it.
Trying to treat it, as you do, as a "Get out of jail free" card by
would-be monopolist, who you might wish to defend by, the transparent
pretense that what they did was an example of 'superior product,
business acumen, or accident of history', is counter-productive. Since
monopolies, by definition, are distinguished from normal business growth
or success due to these 'happenstance' market factors, the fact is that
a monopoly is illegal. Superior product is not something which makes a
monopoly legal; it is something that makes a large market share
something other than a monopoly.
Having a monopoly is illegal. It can't get any plainer than that.
Unfortunately, it requires an accurate understanding of what "a
monopoly" means, and the common vernacular usage of "a company with a
large market share" confounds the situation. The common definition,
when it comes down to it, is an incorrect one.
Consider the case for the common term. The board game "Monopoly" (tm)
does not use the term to refer to the winner who owns *all* the property
at the end of the game. A "monopoly" in Monopoly is when you own all of
one color property, which allows you to raise the rent. Of course, if
you only own 2 of one of the colors which have 3 properties, and that is
monopolization as well, but the case would require the player, or maybe
little Mr. Warbucks, to appear before a court to defend himself, were it
not a board game, as some reasonable doubt exists. Were we to transmute
the game to a real court, however, the very fact that you could raise
the rent, and most obviously any indication that you did, because of
your large "market share" in that color property, would be enough to
secure a conviction, provided the burden of proof *on the defendant* is
not overcome in demonstrating that they were not monopolizing, but
merely the fortunate beneficiary of happenstance such as having a
superior product, business acumen, or accident of history. None of
these are presumed prima facia, and judges are not required to be naive
in their consideration of what is a superior product or business acumen.
Having a monopoly is illegal.
--
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
******************************
