Linux-Advocacy Digest #837, Volume #28 Sat, 2 Sep 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:18:06 GMT
Well... NT is a piece of crap!!
(altough i cant say i've ever experienced the things you guys are
describing)
Change to Windows 2000 ;-)
/IL
"Dave Livesay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> fungus wrote:
> >
> > Just how screwed up would a file system design have to be
> > to do this?
>
> I've noticed similar things. I used to have an NT server that I used for
> development and testing, and once in a while when I went to move a
> subdirectory from one directory to another on the same drive I'd get
> these warnings asking me if I was sure I wanted to delete some file
> because it was a system file. This scared the crap out of me, so of
> course I said no, but eventually I got duplicate folders all over the
> place and things stopped working right and I had to reinstall and start
over.
>
> I'm used to using Macs, where you can move folders wherever you want
> (except the special folders in the System folder), and aliases don't
> break when you do it, but on NT, it seems like the system doesn't really
> move things so much as copy and delete them, so all these warnings go
> off, and then the "shortcuts" in the moved folder and shortcuts that
> point to the moved folder all stop working.
>
> Anyway, that server ended up in a very sorry state where I'd hear the
> hard drive running almost constantly for no apparent reason, and it
> would spontaneously blue screen a couple times a day even when no one
> was hitting the server or anything. I thought for sure it must have a
> virus, but I never was able to detect one. I finally concluded it was
> haunted, and reformatted the drive and installed Red Hat Linux on it.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 15:29:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>There is no right to force Microsoft to create, or sell, a product called
>"Windows without Explorer" if Microsoft does not want to.
There is no right to force Microsoft to create or sell anything. But if
they're going to create and sell something, they have to allow the
*market* to *freely* decide what is an acceptable price. Any effort to
maintain large market share to increase what price the market find
acceptable is a felony, known as "attempted monopolization".
>The key right in
>this case is the right to property--which is a legitimate right. The
>property rights to Windows and Explorer belongs solely to Microsoft and not
>to potential buyers, and certainly not to the U.S. Department of Justice.
In the 'popular wisdom', the term "monopoly" applies to "an exclusive
supplier of any commodity with a demand in the market". Microsoft has
the right to their property. They don't have the right to use ownership
of that property to inhibit or exclude competition.
"It is also well settled that a copyright holder is not by reason
thereof entitled to employ the perquisites in ways that directly
threaten competition. See, e.g., Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 479 n.29
("The Court has held many times that power gained through some natural
and legal advantage such as a . . . copyright, . . . can give rise to
liability if 'a seller exploits his dominant position in one market to
expand his empire into the next.'") (quoting Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v.
United States, 345 U.S. 594, 611 (1953)); Square D Co. v. Niagara
Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U.S. 409, 421 (1986); Data General
Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1186 n.63 (1st
Cir. 1994) (a copyright does not exempt its holder from antitrust
inquiry where the copyright is used as part of a scheme to monopolize);
see also Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d
1195, 1219 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1094 (1998) ("Neither
the aims of intellectual property law, nor the antitrust laws justify
allowing a monopolist to rely upon a pretextual business justification
to mask anticompetitive conduct."). Even constitutional privileges
confer no immunity when they are abused for anticompetitive purposes.
See Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 155-56 (1951).
The Court has already found that the true impetus behind Microsoft's
restrictions on OEMs was not its desire to maintain a somewhat amorphous
quality it refers to as the "integrity" of the Windows platform, nor
even to ensure that Windows afforded a uniform and stable platform for
applications development. Microsoft itself engendered, or at least
countenanced, instability and inconsistency by permitting
Microsoft-friendly modifications to the desktop and boot sequence, and
by releasing updates to Internet Explorer more frequently than it
released new versions of Windows. Findings 226. Add to this the fact
that the modifications OEMs desired to make would not have removed or
altered any Windows APIs, and thus would not have disrupted any of
Windows' functionalities, and it is apparent that Microsoft's conduct is
effectively explained by its foreboding that OEMs would pre-install and
give prominent placement to middleware like Navigator that could attract
enough developer attention to weaken the applications barrier to entry.
Id. 227. In short, if Microsoft was truly inspired by a genuine concern
for maximizing consumer satisfaction, as well as preserving its
substantial investment in a worthy product, then it would have relied
more on the power of the very competitive PC market, and less on its own
market power, to prevent OEMs from making modifications that consumers
did not want."
>That Microsoft does not want to sell the product "Windows without Explorer"
>does not violate your rights one iota.
Well, that's obviously debatable, but superfluous. It violates the law,
that's all that's important. The market wants Windows without Explorer,
Microsoft refuses to make money doing that because they can control
prices and exclude competition more if they don't. That's why its a
crime, not because Microsoft "has to", but because they should "want
to". Microsoft doesn't want to compete. Microsoft *has to* compete, on
merits and nothing else, in order to have any right to sell any products
at all.
>There is no such thing as your right
>to Microsoft's property. There is only the right to buy products that others
>wish to sell to you. If they don't wish to sell you them in the first place,
>then you have no right to buy them.
It isn't Microsoft's property that is at issue. Its how they sell that
property, or access to it. A vendor only has the right to sell products
that others wich to buy. If they want to buy a product you don't sell,
they have the right to question why, if you will make money on it, you
won't sell it. If your answer is "because this way we can make more
money on this other thing", then they are monopolizing, which is
illegal. Sure, it doesn't sound fair. But nobody said the market was
fair; just free. You set your price and you take your chances; any
monkeying around by trying to interfere in the free market through any
means other than making a good product at the lowest cost and providing
it in a convenient package for the best price is criminal activity.
Producers don't determine what competitive prices are; consumers do.
Producers only determine what their own prices are. The only
justification for being able to have a higher than competitive price is
a superior product (superior in the eyes of the market, not the
producer) in a convenient package (again, according to whether the price
will be met in its own right, withough manipulation). Anything else is
restraint of trade or monopolizing. If you make it less convenient for
consumers to use alternatives to your product by making changes to your
product to purposefully promote this, you will be convicted of
monopolizing. No empty excuses of "but its superior!" are going to cut
it; lack of competition is evidence of anti-competitive acts, which are
illegal:
"Microsoft fails to advance any legitimate business objectives that
actually explain the full extent of this significant exclusionary
impact. The Court has already found that no quality-related or technical
justifications fully explain Microsoft's refusal to license Windows 95
to OEMs without version 1.0 through 4.0 of Internet Explorer, or its
refusal to permit them to uninstall versions 3.0 and 4.0. Id. 175-76.
The same lack of justification applies to Microsoft's decision not to
offer a browserless version of Windows 98 to consumers and OEMs, id.
177, as well as to its claim that it could offer "best of breed"
implementations of functionalities in Web browsers. With respect to the
latter assertion, Internet Explorer is not demonstrably the current
"best of breed" Web browser, nor is it likely to be so at any time in
the immediate future. The fact that Microsoft itself was aware of this
reality only further strengthens the conclusion that Microsoft's
decision to tie Internet Explorer to Windows cannot truly be explained
as an attempt to benefit consumers and improve the efficiency of the
software market generally, but rather as part of a larger campaign to
quash innovation that threatened its monopoly position. "
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
--
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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 15:30:51 -0400
"josco01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2000, JS/PL wrote:
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
> >> All I want to know is, if its illegal to *monopolize*, and its illegal
> >> to *attempt to monopolize*, just how is it legal to have a monopoly?
> >
> >Read up on the subject Max
> >Monopolies
> >http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/monopolies.htm
> >Antiu-Trust
> >http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/antitrust.htm.
>
> I wouldn't rely on unaccredited sites.
>
> Yes Monopolies are legal and trying to aquire one is legal if one doesn't
> break the laws - including anti-trust laws.
>
> >you might find the part about Microsoft especially helpfull:
> ><quote>
> >Regarding the Microsoft case, don't consumers have a right to Windows
> >without Explorer? Does not Microsoft's bundling of their products (i.e.
> >Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Windows) into one package
disrupt
> >a person's right to only have to pay for products he wishes to buy?
>
> Garbage in and Garbage out. There are web sites dedicated to ET and
aliens.
>
> The laws are unambigous and bolting IE into Windows was and is illegal and
it
> wan't very creative. That's why the case aginast MS went so fast and
> poorly for MS. These kinds of arguments are dumb, deadend logic that has
failed
> to defend one monopolist.
>
> MS was asked to provide a choice -- Windows with and without IE. A
consumer
> who wants Windows with IE isn't even a honest description of the problem.
> That's why courts are so harsh to MS.
>
> >No one has a right to buy whatever they wish, one only has the right to
buy
> >what others choose to sell to them.
>
> I do have a right to buy what ever I wish and I exericse that
> right every day. I have a right to create demand and I have a right to a
> market that is free to respond to that demand.
You do not have the right to buy whatever you wish - you only have the right
to buy what someone chooses to sell you. It's really pretty simple. All the
money on earth doesn't give you the RIGHT to buy whatever you wish, that
really can't be too hard to grasp can it?
------------------------------
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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 15:38:55 -0400
"James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
>
> > >> Microsoft's been convicted. Get used to it.
> > >
> > >Conviction is one thing. Guilt will be determined at the end of
litigation.
> >
> > Still not used to it, huh?
> >
>
> It's pretty hard to get used to lawyers running amok, especially when
> they are government lawyers.
And the state lawyers in the case just handed in a bill of 15 million
dollars. That's alot of baby formula and free disease innoculations.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
