Linux-Advocacy Digest #792, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
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?] (T. Max Devlin)
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?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
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?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 04:19:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> Monopolization is illegal. Monopolization is defined as a company
>> acquiring or maintaining monopoly power.
>
>Hrm. You just went to some length in another post in the thread
>to point out that it is *willful* acquisition and maintenance
>of monopoly power. Unless you are arguing that the use of the
>word "willful" in the case histories is specious?
I would hardly have to argue that in order to understand that it is
automatically understood. Other text in other 'case histories' are
clear about that, as is Adam Smith, who understood, as modern federal
court judges do, and you, apparently do not, that monopolies are not
tolerated by a free market. The only way to acquire or maintain
monopoly power is, in fact, willfully. The courts are being careful to
apply due process, as appropriate, not being specious.
>> An honest business has little need to pay
>> attention to market share, ...
>
>This isn't always true. [...]
I suppose this means you'll launch into a gedanken experiment.
>For example, the AMD has commented, and
>rightly, that the very fact that they have such a small market
>share in the microprocessor market has been a barrier to entry
>for them.
That's possibly absurd, I'd say.
>Other companies have used (in the past, but even to
>some extent now) AMD's small marketshare as a per-se justification
>for not buying their products.
Are you attempting to indict Intel, or AMD? Are you saying that Intel
has monopoly power? That's never been tested in court, but I'm not
going to argue against it because AMD realizes that lack of consumer
awareness of alternative products and their competitive advantages makes
it tough to 'break in' to a new market. (That's market, from the vendor
product-line point of view.)
>> The only solution is to teach people, all people, that market share
>> cannot be used to justify *any* action by a vendor, and even the *hint*
>> of concern for market *share* over profit is sufficient grounds to
>> *suspect* an attempt to monopolize. And attempts to monopolize are a
>> felony, not "business as usual".
>
>I'm not sure that I buy that. Consumers *themselves* find themselves
>subconciously justifying buying decisions based on the market
>share of the product offerors. I believe that one of the reasons
>Windows sells so much is because it sells so much, if you follow
>me...
Yea, yea, you're starting to get it. Keep going... And so the
justification for knowledge and strong enforcement of anti-trust laws
would be... c'mon, I know you can...
--
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 04:21:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 08/31/2000 at 10:41 AM,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> I'm afraid you're mistaken. That statement is unrefutable. It is a
>> felony for any person to monopolize or attempt to monopolize.
>
>Max, you are an absolute moron.
"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"
- Sherman Act, Section 2
Did I take something out of context?
--
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 04:32:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
>> willful acquisition or maintenance of that power...")
>
>"Willful acquisition" means "intentional acquisition". IOW,
>they have to *mean* to monopolize.
Yes, we know. And for the same reason, Judge Jackson always uses the
term "anti-competitive monopolization"; because there is no other way to
monopolize. This is basic market theory. Don't they teach this stuff
in school?
>> >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.
>
>When your market share is the whole shebang, this is what
>we common citizens call a "monopoly".
And that's why you common citizens are so stupid you've made Bill Gates
the richest man on the planet and retarded the development of PC
technology for more than a decade at the same time.
ALCOA did, in fact, monopolize. I'm not sure of the details, but that's
not the issue. The issue is that Congress didn't outlaw monopolizing in
case somebody invented a device, found a mine, set up the first airline
in a small city, or maintains a necessary facility. The courts know
that, and these are considered normal growth and development of business
due to superior products, business acumen, or accident of history
(except for the last, which is a public utility). They are not confused
by the courts with willful acquisition or maintenance of sufficient
market power to control prices or exclude competition. They are often
confused by defendants, however, and their lawyers. I don't see any
benefit in having the common citizens confused on the same point.
There is no such thing as a legal monopoly. Only things that aren't
monopolies, and things that are, and monopolizing is illegal. The
common citizens need to re-learn what the word "monopoly" means.
--
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 04:33:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 08/31/2000 at 12:58 PM,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>> Here, you agree that the exceptions exist, yet you say they are "rarely
>> worth mentioning" and in fact in your other posts you seem to refuse to
>> admit that they exist at all, which is why I keep bringing this up.
>
>Devlin is not worth the bandwidth. I just killfiled him in every
>newsgroup.
Boy, that was a quick one. Can't say I'm happy about that; most of what
he said wasn't all bad.
--
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: "JS/PL" <[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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 04:30:20 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >I see where your attempting to go. Show me a EULA
> >example, and I'll tell you what the qualifying hardware is, because it
will
> >explain it in that certain EULA.
>
> They're all pretty much the same.
Wrong.
I hate to break it to you, but EULA's are not "all pretty much all the
same". Liar.
>And none that I've ever seen
> mentioned anything other than "the computer system". As in
> (paraphrasing; I'm sure not going to track it down for JS/PL) "this
> product is part of the computer system on which it was purchased".
> Something about being purchased as a bundle. Certainly no mention of
> "motherboard" or "hard drive".
Who said there was mention of "motherboard" or "hard drive". Liar.
> >For the most part, if you buy a major name
> >OEM computer system the operating system that came with it cannott be
> >tranferred to a different system. And some manufacturers create
installers
> >that look at the BIOS to verify, although that doesn't mean that BIOS is
> >the qualifying hardware.
>
> Boy, are you confused. If it doesn't mean that the BIOS is qualifying
> hardware, why precisely do they look?
Ask the manufacturer, not me, or do what you usually do and make something
up. Liar.
> >That's the gist of it. I'm not going to waste time
> >arguing the minute details of certain EULAs until you scan and post a
> >particular one. I'm certainly not going to sort through a wall of boxes
> >looking for an old OEM EULA.
>
> Why bother, when you can just mis-remember it to suit your fancy, and
> then confabulate it with OEM driver installations?
Then show me a OEM EULA. You do the legwork. Or will that destroy another
of your lies again?
------------------------------
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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 04:35:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 08/31/2000 at 06:06 PM,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> I'm sorry, you'll have to substantiate what you're saying. It all
>> sounds like hogwash to me.
>
>The only hogwash in this discusssion is the crap you post. You are
>obviously neither a lawyer or smart enough to be a high school graduate.
Well, I did graduate high school, so I'm smart enough for that, at
least.
--
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 04:52:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> "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 [384 U.S. 563, 571] or maintenance of that power
>> as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a
>> superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
>
>Two notes:
>
>"Willful acquisition or maintainance" means you acquire and mean to
>acquire or maintain and mean to maintain monopoly power. Furthermore,
>the "as distinguished from" is a pretty big BUT. It would seem to
>validate what we've been saying all along.
Yes, it does seem to, doesn't it. It took me a while to notice it,
myself.
>Superior product, business
>acumen, or historic accident are legitimate routes to monopoly.
You're going to have to qualify "routes to monopoly" a bit more. If
they are 'attempts to monopolize', then I'm afraid they're illegal.
Luckily, they're not; they're *distinguished from* willful... etc. by
the fact that they are normal growth and development of business.
>Obviously, state-granted monopolies, like those that result from
>natural monopoly grants or intellectual property, are also exempt
>from censure under the Sherman Act.
I do not believe these are rightly termed monopolies, and the Supreme
Court again backs me up on that. Would you like a quote? They aren't
ever conclusive, you know. You really have to read a lot of stuff
before you even understand why they're saying what they say. But I'll
dig up a "patent is not monopoly" quote, if you want. Yes, they are
exempt from censure under the Sherman Act. So that would mean they're
not monopolies, right? Even if they have 100% 'market share' (and,
according to Supreme Court reasoning, because they do cover all the
bases, regardless of how you define the 'relevant market'). One of the
tricky parts about intellectual property is that you can't use a patent
to monopolize. I guess the situations the same, really, with the
'natural monopoly grants' of whatever character you prefer. The direct
impetus of the Sherman Act appears to be the issues arising from the
railroads, which were public corporations (owned by a small number of
major investors) which were given land grants and authorization to run
railroads. These aren't the same at all as public utilities like water
and electricity. Obviously the telephone resembled the railroads, and
is the surest example of what the 'popular wisdom' idea of monopoly
means. But it is a dubious question, as "Ma Bell" is no longer without
competition, though whether they monopolize is not a sure issue without
some examination and debate. Or should I say, they might be attempting
to monopolize.
Under the popular wisdom definition of monopoly, attempting to be a
monopoly is, in fact, normal growth and development of a business. Yet
another strike against it.
>After reading through what you write, Mr. Devlin, I'm noticing a
>marked tendency to a definitions game. Misfortunately, linguistics
>doesn't work like that. When ordinary speakers of the English
>language say "monopoly" they mean one thing, and you would, if
>you could, have them mean another.
It isn't a game, you see. Linguistics certainly does work like 'this'.
Have you read Steven Pinker's *Words and Rules*, or *How the Mind
Works*? You are correct, that when ordinary speakers of the English
language say "monopoly", they mean "large market share", and I would, if
I could, have them mean "monopoly", you see.
>It's not going to happen. Moreover, if you'd like to communicate
>effectively you will have to disavow yourself of this habit.
I'm afraid that's not possible. I make a living at it, actually. The
situation comes up often in SNMP-based management systems. Did you know
that the term "interface" has no single accurate, consistent, or
practical usage throughout even a single network system? It makes
"monopoly" seem like a piece of cake, I assure you. Especially when the
management system has fifteen different things called "alarms", and only
one (abstract) thing it calls a "trouble ticket".
>I recommend that you turn to a simple dictionary to get some
>idea for how your fellow human beings use and mean this word.
>It may help you avoid senseless arguments on usenet, for example.
Spare me, please. Just try to keep up, and ask good questions.
Eventually, you may be able to understand what I'm saying.
--
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: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 05:01:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >I would like to suggest that if someone makes a claim like
>> >"but the rich don't pay taxes!" and then can't explain in at
>> >least vague language how that could be, then that person has
>> >a very weak position indeed.
>>
>> I don't believe he made such a claim.
>
>As the message thread has gone on for quite some days, I had
>no memory of what was originally said, except for its general
>vein. However, since you became insulting and rude, I went to
>the trouble of following the reference thread. What was said
>was this:
>
>"A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
>country."
I don't mind paraphrasing, and I understand that you were. And if your
memory is correct or representative, the word 'fair' strikes me as
rather important to include. It both softens your hyperbole, and
flattens my argument. I certainly wouldn't think the term would be
appropriate, in more than one sense. The number is definitely very
small, and would be minuscule if it didn't represent a very large amount
of money, we might assume. And whatever the number is, I wouldn't think
of it as "fair", normally.
But perhaps you were, yourself, trying to be fair in your
representation. I don't recall insulting you or being rude, but I
certainly can't guarantee I wasn't, nor that it was undeserved or
unprovoked.
>Since whoever this person was seems to be unable to back this point in
>any fashion at all, I suggest we let this matter drop, and call a spade
>a spade: this is an unsubstantiated sentence which hasn't been backed
>in any way. Please don't do yourself the intellectual injury of demanding
>that I attempt to prove a negative.
So far, all we have is your paraphrasing. Let's call a spade a spade,
if you wish. You are merely misrepresenting his argument. It is not my
intellectual integrity at question here, nor the original posters, who
did, IIRC, back up his point in some fashion, or at least attempted to
dissuade your misrepresentation. Nobody's injuring their integrity but
you, 'Courage'.
[...]
>You are rude, insulting, and have a self-important view of yourself.
I'm afraid I'll have to agree with you. We all have our faults.
>You need to turn inward and not outward in order to find what you
>are looking for.
That's what makes one rude, insulting, and self-important. The problem
is I've already found what I'm looking for, sort of, which is the
freedom to keep looking.
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 05:03:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 09/01/2000 at 01:38 AM,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> >People would rather put the money towards domestic programs, Social
>> >Security, and tax cuts, in that order, before they paying off existing
>> >debts.
>
>> I feel your pain. But it isn't domestic programs that put us into debt;
>> Americans would have probably ranked things the same way before there
>> was any debt. And the debt, it seems, came from defense spending,
>> bureaucracy, and corporate welfare, more than social spending or
>> undertaxation.
>
>What a load of Pure Bullshit! You are a flat out liar and typical Algore
>apologist. Go to Hell and stay there.
[...]
He's already killfiled me, so I'd say that's enough of that, ok? Does
anybody have any numbers for me?
--
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: "Stuart Fox" <[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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:02:12 +0100
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's the same thing the WINE project has done for Win32; *huge*
> parts of which are completely and totally undocumented.
>
I can't actually see the point of WINE to be honest, except as a reason to
bash MS for not documenting all their interfaces. If you want Windows, run
Windows. If Win32 is such a POS, what's the point of implementing it on
Linux? Why not put the effort spent in developing WINE into developing the
apps that you want to run?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
