Linux-Advocacy Digest #785, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Richard)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Joe R.")
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Richard)
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? ("Rich C")
Linux Hosting (Linda)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 1 Sep 2000 01:56:32 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:17:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>The rest of that response was:
>--------------
>We are not lawyers, we are developers, and we do not want to sue people.
>On the other hand I cannot guarantee that we will never sue the Harmony
>project. Who knows what will happen in the future. If e.g. some Redmond
>based company starts pumping funding into Harmony to "embrace and extend"
>Qt we might consider suing.
>--------------
>
>All in all, what Carl Thompson asked was to the effect, is it true you would
>sue anyone who made another toolkit that could be used as a dropin
>replacement for QT? Eirik Eng's answer was not responsive to the question
>asked.
It was sufficiently responive IMO.
> While the question was in reguards to anyone, the answer was in
>reguards to the Harmony project
A broader answer would in theory be more general, but in practice, extra
generality would be irrelevant as the Harmony project was and still is
the only known attempt to clone Qt.
> only and the possibility of it being
>suborned by Microsoft.
Bullshit. They give an example of when they'd been inclined to sue. Since
they aren't lawyers, it's not reasonable to expect them to provide and
exhaustive list of circumstances under which they would or would not sue.
Could you give me an exhaustive list of the circumstances under which you
would or wouldn't sue me ?
> An answer worthy of Bill Gates himself.
Your attack on the TT people is so incoherent and ill founded as to be
worthy of Max Devlin himself.
>> Now put yourself in Eirik's position. You are asked if you will ever
>> sue someone, over usage of your IP. What can he answer????
>
>It depends on the intermal philosphy and politics of Troll Tech but how
>about something along these lines? These are all more honet, direct that
>what was offered.
>
>So long as any clone of Qt were open source and free did nothing to make
>software using it incompatible with Qt that would be fine with us.
Bad answer. They could embrace-and-extend and still retain backward
compatibilty with QT. Based on that, they could call it "compatible".
>Any library or toolkit that would be designed to have a API compatible with
>Qt would requre a license from Troll Tech, each such proposal would be
>reviewed on a case by case basis. Any such license could be revoked at
>anytime if Troll Tech does not like the way the project is developing.
It isn't clear that you can "license" an API specification, so it's not clear
that your requirement is even legally binding. The reason they kept their
mouths relatively shut was for fear of saying something stupid.
I don't see how your answer is substantially better than theirs.
In a lot of ways, it's worse, because it's not clear that your
proposal has any kind of legal merit.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 01:57:24 GMT
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
> >When they become publicly traded and are pushed by share-holders and
> >analysts to maximize quarterly returns ... But I would argue that it
> >is the share-holders who are ultimately being psychopathic by proxy,
> >not the corporation.
>
> This brings up the critical issue, which is that corporations are
> _not_ people.
Then what the hell is a "person"? I'd say it is an entity capable
of information-processing and decision-making with respect to some
kind of internal value system. Well, corporations are that.
Corporations are not *humans* and that means they do not get any
of the benefits of human rights. But even if you treat corporations
as mere legal fictions, this doesn't negate their moral duties in
any way; all organizations composed of humans are bound by the moral
duties of those same humans. In fact, calling corporations persons
makes it hard to argue that they are bound by human ethics and
morality; if they are merely fictions then there is absolutely no
problem. For me.
> Attributing human ethics, values, expectations, or expectations of
> responses is just dishonest.
Bullshit. The opposite in fact. Do you have any *RATIONAL* objection
or just a lot of handwaving??
Do you even know what ethics are?
> A "bad corporation" is not bad in and of itself; it merely shines
> through the "light" of the attitudes, values, and such of those that
> control it, and that ultimately represents the values and morality of
> _HUMAN BEINGS_.
In that case, it's because shareholders and CEOs are all psychopaths.
I have absolutely no problem with that. (of course this is bullshit
but who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth?)
> At any rate, it's not going to be GM (to name a Really Big Company)
> that is "psychotic;"
PsychoPATHIC! Let me guess, you don't know the difference, right?
Even if corporations are mere fictions, saying "corporation X is
psychopathic" is a short, elegant and eminently comprehensible way
of saying "the people who dominate the decision-making of corporation
X are acting in a psychopathic manner".
Saying that corporations are not people is besides the point and
is just an idiotic and utterly transparent ploy to muddle the
*important* issues so much that no intelligent discussion of them
is possible. Issues like
1) what sorts of expectations should we have of corporations?
Answer: WERY high ones!! *HIGHER* than of mere humans!
2) *can* corporations meet those expectations?
Answer: YES, just look at most cooperatives!
3) what the fuck should we do with corporations that act in
a psychopathic manner?
Answer: dissolve them and expropriate all their assets
(should teach the fucking shareholders to act in a
psychopathic manner, unless you think it's all right
for psychopaths to be let loose...)
> supposing GM is interpretable as such, what this
> _really_ indicates is that the _HUMAN_ managers of the enterprise are
> psychotic.
> I don't think that such generosity is beyond the realm of possibility;
> one of the unfortunate side-effects of the "socialized state" is that
> the government takes to itself the vast realms of generosity, and
> turns what was a gift given out of generosity into a "right." People
You are so far from the ground that we couldn't find you with a radio
telescope! "out of generosity"? give me a fucking break!
"charity" is about the poor mortgaging all of their dignity and self-
worth in order for a few assholes to be able to relieve their guilt.
If you think for a single moment that charity is something to be valued
then you have no respect for human dignity.
> have forgotten some things about how to be generous.
I guess you've never heard of human rights before, have you fool?
> The levels of hostility you can see in both "camps" have some pretty
> strong parallels...
Except that one camp is populated by people who, officially and unofficially,
tolerate and venerate psychopathy!
> It is probably "good sense" to anyone that gets compensated via
> metrics that don't involve any long term outlook.
>
> That would include sales folk that get quarterly bonuses, executives
> that make their millions off of how the company's stock behaves this
> year and _MAYBE_ next year.
It's suspicious how you rationalize away psychopathic behaviour
as merely rationally self-interested ... only problem is that
"purely rationally self-interested" is *precisely* the description
of a psychopath! Managers and sales droids are rewarded to the extent
that they are psychopathic. Is this some kind of earth-shattering
observation for you? Is there some reason why you go through all
of these, hysterical yet pathetic, acrobatics in order to avoid
and/or rationalize away the P-word?! Do you have any meat in that
head of yours or is it bone all the way through?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 1 Sep 2000 02:02:42 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:14:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>>
>So just how does that jibe with "we can't guarantee we won't sue"
>(assuming this was an accurate quote)? I don't expect anyone would ask
>for any such guarantee to begin with.
Wrong, Max. Your house of cards is collapsing under its own weight and
it's not the first time.
Look, at least have the decency to do some research prior to slinging
mud around. This is not the first time you've made attacks that are founded
on misinformation which just sort of pops in to your head.
I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if some ignorant usenet clown started
spewing defamatory rhetoric about you.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:54:36 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >If that were possible then those who like the Mac hardware could use it
to
> >run Linux without having the pay for the MacOS that may not even be used
or
> >wanted.
>
> They do. People who buy Macs don't "pay" for the OS. It comes with the
> computer. We're not talking any "doesn't show up on the invoice" type
> of free, either. It is a trivial cost to provide the license, one might
> even consider it a negative cost. This isn't the same as a "third
> party" OEM of a PC not charging the customer for a license to run
> Windows, which costs the OEM themselves at least $17, minimum, under
> typical circumstances.
If it is true that Apple is not factoring the OS cost into the overall price
of the computer, then Apple must changed their actions in that reguard.
I still recall when they used to sell the Apple ][ and the Apple ][+, same
hardware, different firmware, different price. During the time of the
overlap of AppleDos and ProDos, same hardware different OS, different price.
Now that there is only one OS shipped with any one model of hardware it
could be that it is still happening but you don't have the basis for the
comparison.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:34:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ugDr5.8408$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> They don't behave *ANYTHING* like Icons. Icons can be moved. Icons can
be
> dragged onto other icons. Icons can be double clicked to lauch
> applications. Icons can recieve drop messages and launch applications.
That describes only one implementation of graphical user interface icons.
That does not invalidate other implementations of icons from being called
icons. If that were the case then you could not even refer to the icons of
older versions of Windows as icons.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:36:38 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ckDr5.8409$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8omfu1$17la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > One more point would be this:
> >
> > No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist
inside
> > the kernel. Thats the point.
>
> That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any software
> that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
> computer.
>
Unless the OS is written to prevent one user mode process from crashing the
entire system.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:43:47 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> If the admin is that stupid, he should be fired.
Or he could be called a MCSE and/or CNE.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 02:13:57 GMT
In article <ckDr5.8409$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8omfu1$17la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > One more point would be this:
> >
> > No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist
> > inside
> > the kernel. Thats the point.
>
> That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any software
> that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
> computer.
>
Which is irrelevant to your earlier comparison when you stupidly tried
to compare a video driver on NT to a networking stack on Linux.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 02:16:35 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The difference in behaviour between a psychopath with a long view
> and a normal person is minimal.
Criminal psychopaths are untreatable, have high recividism rates,
and are able to infiltrate all elements of society. Normal criminals
are the exact opposite. This is not "minimal" from any perspective.
>"Good" corporations have a long view.
The only good corporations are cooperatives (modulo the very rare
private corporation working in a market where its employees have
it by the balls).
> When they become publicly traded and are pushed by share-holders and
> analysts to maximize quarterly returns ... But I would argue that it
> is the share-holders who are ultimately being psychopathic by proxy,
> not the corporation.
Same thing. Why is it that people feel the need to discuss the metaphysics
of corporations when someone proves they are undesirables in the extreme?
> VMS, MVS, OS/2, ... what?
Just for you, I'll say that I want it to run on the 80x86, StrongARM,
Alpha and SPARC.
> Nit:
> A business can not "like" somebody.
Then why is it that businesses have allies, preferred partners, etc?
Or is this more of your metaphysical crap?
> >explain how math uses the "scientific method"
>
> It doesn't.
That's the point I tried to make. :-)
> >Rather, I define the word
>
> Narrowly, ignoring the fact that humans are irrational and therefore
> their self-interest is not definable by Spock.
On the contrary, one could easily argue that it is in people's
self-interest to /become/ Spock ...
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:43:58 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8omtoc$u6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <L8%q5.2197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Kernel 2.4, KDE 2.0, GNOME 2.0 (or Helix or whatever...), will all be
> > released at least 2-3 months from now.
>
> Yeah, but I'd rather wait until kernel 2.4.4, KDE 2.2, and Gnome 2.2
> (among other things) are packaged together before I fork over for
> another commercial distro -- not to mention that I'm never buying
> another distro that's not at least in the x.1 stage anyway (having had
> my ass burnt by Mandrake 7.0).
>
> That won't be for at least another 6-12 months...
It seems that the speed of open source development lately is causing [me at
least] the same sort of headaches as the Microsoft upgrade cycle: there are
just too many versions coming along too fast to justify _paying money_ for
each one as it comes out. Consequently, with Microsoft, I picked and chose
my releases, and usually bought every OTHER release. With Linux, I just
download the new stuff, and by the time I've fiddled with it until it works
and gets integrated with my system (something I could have PAID to have up
front I guess) I'm ready to get the next new bit. It keeps me pretty busy,
but it would keep me poorer if i PAID for every new version/toy that came
along.
The good part is that, instead of the new versions of Wimp-dows(OSSM) being
somewhat more stable, bigger, slower, and breaking all the programs I had
previously bought, the new versions of GNU-stuff are slicker, faster, lots
more stable and never break older programs (as long as I keep ADDING the new
library versions instead of replacing them :o) )
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent, until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
From: Linda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux Hosting
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:50:54 -0400
Hi
I like to start a Linux based hosting business also with ASP, WAP,
co-location etc...
Do you think that there is any money in these hosting ventures... Can
someone point me to a site that give some more details about the
business, some sample business plan templates etc... some case studies,
reviews etc... technical infrastructure... Money involved etc...
Thanks,
Linda
------------------------------
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 22:57:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: If you try to gain market share, you are breaking the law.
>
>: Incredible, isn't it?
>
>Yeah - That's why I'm glad it's not true.
How sure are you? Be careful; three years is a long time. Maybe you
should just stick to increasing your profits, or maybe your market
*size*. You'll only have the money to pay the fines if it works, and
even *attempting* to monopolize is enough to convict you.
>: Its like you're equating monopoly power with large market share,
>
>[snip]
>
>Yes, that's exactly what I am doing. Becasue that's what it *IS*.
>Monopoly power is a large enough market share that you can dominate
>the market through tactics that have nothing to do with your
>quality or service. It doesn't become illegal until you try to
>*USE* that power, though.
No, its illegal as soon as you even attempt to get it:
"the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by
anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser
market, both in violation of § 2."
No, that's not the right quote. That's for "both the maintenance of
monopoly power and its acquisition are illegal".
This is the one:
"In order for liability to attach for attempted monopolization, a
plaintiff generally must prove '(1) that the defendant has engaged in
predatory or anticompetitive conduct with (2) a specific intent to
monopolize,' and (3) that there is a 'dangerous probability' that the
defendant will succeed in achieving monopoly power."
As these things go, I'll probably have to point out that the alternate
use of "with" and "and" to conjoin the three parts is important. Since
what's being described is the "attempt to monopolize", it seems clear
that the 'dangerous probability' that a defendant will "use" monopoly
power, once they achieve it, is likewise sufficient to prove
monopolization in those cases where they haven't already been caught.
Because *having* monopoly power is illegal. You confuse the fact that a
company most be *proven* to have monopoly power, generally through use
of further anti-competitive actions used to maintain it, with whether
not they have to try to further monopolize additional markets, or raise
prices or exclude competition.
It is illegal to have the power to raise prices or exclude competition,
unless, by some stretch of the imagination (and permutation of free
market principles) you did not either achieve *or maintain* it
willfully.
>[Snip irrelevancies. The disagreement is purely over the definition
>of a word, and therefore axiomatic. Further argument cannot have
>any effect in this case. We agree over what is legal and illegal.
>We just disagree over what to call it.]
No, we don't, apparently, since you seem to think that monopolizing is
legal, or that it is legal to have a monopoly, which, by definition in a
free market, is monopolizing. You can't maintain market dominance by
sheer force of will, regardless of the number of companies that appear
to maintain it through truly superior products, business acumen, and
accident of history (mostly the last, I'd say, because I've seen scarce
sign of the other two).
There are some lucky companies that simply happen to be in a good
position, where a competitor is going to have to put some real capital
and effort to compete into making a profit, because of natural "barriers
to entry", which could include some things as immutable as geography, or
some things as tenuous (and thus dangerous, I'd say, to try to hold on
to) as public perception. If that lucky company does *one thing* to
inhibit new competition from occurring, they're monopolizing. Sure,
they're allowed to keep their market share as long as they can, but only
as long as they can do it without willfully trying to, but simply (and
honestly) providing the best product they can for the lowest price they
can stand and the highest competitive price they can manage, and hoping
that whatever accidents of history might change the market won't help
the other guy more than them. They're not monopolizing, they're not a
monopoly.
Yes, it comes down to the word "monopoly", because it comes down to the
'popular wisdom' fallacy about what a monopoly is. And it comes to that
because it evidences a fundamental disability which itself inhibits
*any* modern marketplace from being "free". It is illegal to have a
monopoly. They're just a lucky (well, if you don't mind playing on the
edge) company. And this is well proven by the existing examples
recently provided; USAir actually pays baggage handlers and such for any
competition that wants to fly out of Charlotte. And The Big Three car
manufactures don't talk to each other *at all*, and don't restrict their
retailers from owning other dealerships. Even Saturn (whoever, GM?) has
to be very careful about the whole "list price no haggling" thing,
though honestly it is kind of questionable. The point is they know it
is. And they don't want to be a monopoly. But they do, of course, want
to increase the size of 'their' market. And as long as they compete
(which brings down their prices, yay! *and* still gives us superior
products sold in convenient ways), I've got nothing against that.
Failing to compete includes worrying more about their market *share*
than with whether I think their product is superior or their prices low
enough. It also includes doing anything that makes the competitor's
product less valuable to me, as opposed to making their product more
valuable on the strength of its own merits.
--
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: Eric Bennett <[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 23:07:26 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >The difference between us is that you seem to think superior products
> >and business acumen are "accidental". I do not.
>
> Very observant, but I don't want to turn this into an issue of morality
> (and it would, I promise). Whether or not any particular company has a
> superior product is for the market to determine. One cannot be
> prescient, and therefore one cannot provide a large market share as
> prima facia evidence of a superior product. IOW, the real difference is
> that you want *your opinion* of whether a product is superior to be
> taken as absolute (or someone's opinion, at least, like the judge's).
> That is an untenable situation, because it simply replaces "superior
> product" and "business acumen" (and even "accident of history") with
> begging the question.
I don't think you're really looking at this in the right way. You never
need to evaluate whether the *legal* avenues were used. The burden on
the plaintiffs to show that an *illegal* avenue was used. The relevance
of the court's statement is that if the plaintiffs demonstrate that a
company gained monopoly power through relentless improvement of its
product, that does not establish a violation.
It's irrelevant how subjective it is, because even if you could prove
that this is what happened, it won't get you a conviction.
> >I think people
> >intentionally try to achieve those things, and they are both things that
> >can preserve monopoly power.
>
> The courts seem to disagree, as they have unequivocally and repeatedly
> stated that those things are *distinguished from* preservation of
> monopoly power. You are right, that those things can preserve monopoly
> power. But then they aren't any more legal than any other willful
> maintenance of monopoly power. It doesn't matter how you became a
> monopoly or how you stay a monopoly, if you are a monopoly you are
> breaking the law.
No. Look at the court's wording more carefully. Let us assume under
the language of Grinnell that you have market power (element 1). Now
let us assume that even though you have market power, you do not yet
have 100% of the market, and further suppose that you want to increase
your market share. You plan to increase your market share by improving
the product. The court says that if you "grow"--which means you are
almost certainly increasing your market power--by making a superior
product, you are not in violation.
Were it not so, once you become a monopoly, it would be illegal to
intentionally attact more customers (which seems to be the position you
are arguing).
> >(I say "preserve" simply because you
> >refuse to let me use "maintain" in the popular sense rather than the
> >legal sense.)
>
> I have no use for the popular sense of anything concerning anti-trust.
> It is flat-out wrong, as I'm demonstrating.
I am not talking about the popular interpretation of antitrust law,
which may very well be wrong. I am talking about the dictionary
definition of a word, and I am using that common definition precisely
because I am trying to make a point that the legal definition of the
word won't allow me to make. If I use only the legal terminology, my
view is not expressable, so I have to use something else.
> No, I don't agree that any exceptions exist. Superior product, business
> acumen, and accident of history are not *exceptions*. The Grinnell
> decisions didn't say (and thirteen Supreme Court cases citing it since
> 1966) maintenance of monopoly power "except for" these things. They
> said that maintenance of monopoly power "as distinguished from" these
> things.
No, they say "as distinguished from growth or development" due to these
things. That is the key. I hope you would agree that a monopoly which
grows is not likely to lose its market power any time soon, and may in
fact be increasing it.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting back.
-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
