Linux-Advocacy Digest #844, Volume #28 Sat, 2 Sep 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("sandrews")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 02 Sep 2000 20:12:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >No thanks... I happen to disagree with the findings of fact.
>>
>> Well, in legal terms (barring any outrageous surprises in the near
>> future), that would make you "an unreasonable man."
>
>I'd like to know what apparently automatically makes a judge infallible?
Understanding of law and knowledge of evidence makes them pre-eminent in
their opinion. Nobody said they are infallible. But to question one,
two, or even a dozen individual things within a Findings of Fact does
not cast doubt upon the validity of the truth of the entirety as a
Finding of Fact. The judge knows what legal stricture is placed on
'fact' in terms of what *any reasonable man* would find to be true. I'm
sorry if that sounds like an inherently post-modern kind of thing; its
not. What is or is not a fact depends on judgement by a reasonable
person. A reasonable person would have to disagree with the Findings of
Fact *substantially* in order for it to not be considered as truth in
judging Microsoft's activities.
>After all, that's why there's two levels of appeals courts above him.
Those 'two levels' may be only one. The Supreme Court doesn't have to
hear the case, regardless of how likely other may insist it is. As a
civil decision of great precedent, they might review the case and uphold
all decisions, but I think, honestly, its just as likely that they will
simply decide that no further argument is necessary, and the case has
been decided correctly in all aspects.
Regardless, the appeals courts place just the test on questioning of the
Findings of Fact from the original case as I've described. Appeals
courts do not 're-try' the evidence, and any judge will simply accept
the entire Findings of Fact as fact, because it is.
>I only know of one person deemed to be completely infallible, and that's the
>Pope. And even that's a lie.
"Deemed" is not the issue. There's not even a minuscule chance that the
Findings of Fact will be overturned to any degree whatsoever.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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, 02 Sep 2000 20:08:05 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Simon Cooke wrote:
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > `>` The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be sold
> with
> > > a
> > > >preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software.
> > >
> > > Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or making
> CompUSA
> > > make a killing on installing OSes for people.
> >
> > No. You merely charge that as a SEPERATE line-item, dipshit.
>
> And this benefits consumers.....how?
It makes them aware that there are multiple choices.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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, 02 Sep 2000 20:09:29 -0400
"James A. Robertson" wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >"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.
> >
> > I wouldn't call enforcement of anti-trust law 'lawyers running amok',
> > but then, I'm not generally ignorant of the law, as so many people seem
> > to be.
>
> Anti-trust laws are a perfect example of running amok all by themselves
>
Anti-burglary laws are a perfect example of running amok all by
themselves.
Anti-murder laws are a perfect example of running amok all by
themselves.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 17:09:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Simon Cooke wrote:
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > `>` The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be sold
> with
> > > a
> > > >preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software.
> > >
> > > Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or making
> CompUSA
> > > make a killing on installing OSes for people.
> >
> > No. You merely charge that as a SEPERATE line-item, dipshit.
>
> And this benefits consumers.....how?
It provides the consumer freedom.
The freedom to select any computer hardware that fits their needs without
having to pay for preloaded software that they not need or use.
It provides the consumer the freedom to use whatever OS they want that is
compatible with their choice of hardware.
It would provide more freedom for other OS devlopers to compete on the same
footing as those that are now having their products preloaded on most of
today's computers.
It would mean lower costs for those who have no need for preloaded software
without having to build their own systems or going to some alternate
distributer.
...and there are more but this is good for a start.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 02 Sep 2000 20:35:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8op7pp$jn2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8op5p2$pka$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > And ignoring a great deal of MS evidence.
>> I think you mean "rigged" or "doctored" evidence, don't you Simon? ;-)
>
>No, I'm talking about evidence such as:
>
>Marc Andreesen detailing plans to release Netscape for free from the start
>(a position that he reiterates in a recent issue of Wired where he was
>interviewed about LoudCloud) -- Netscape never intended to sell their
>browser initially; they were going to make all their money off the server.
That isn't a fact in evidence. It was presented as evidence, by
Microsoft, but the Judge managed to notice that it has little to do with
the facts of the case. He pointed this out in his Conclusions of Law:
"Although the Court's Findings do not specify a dollar amount of
business that has been foreclosed to any particular present or potential
competitor of Microsoft in the relevant market,(5) including Netscape,
the Court did find that Microsoft's bundling practices caused
Navigator's usage share to drop substantially from 1995 to 1998, and
that as a direct result Netscape suffered a severe drop in revenues from
lost advertisers, Web traffic and purchases of server products."
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>RealPlayer G2's installer problems being caused by a bug in their installer.
The court does not cast blame for technical failures in a Findings of
Fact unless it bears relevance to the claim at issue. Had Microsoft
been suing Real, or vice versa, this may have been the case. As it is,
"112. At the end of May 1997, Gates told a group of Microsoft executives
that multimedia streaming represented strategic ground that Microsoft
needed to capture. He identified RealNetworks as the adversary and
authorized the payment of up to $65 million for a streaming software
company in order to accelerate Microsoft's effort to seize control of
streaming standards. Two weeks later, Microsoft signed a letter of
intent for the acquisition of a streaming media company called VXtreme.
113. Perhaps sensing an impending crisis, executives at RealNetworks
contacted Microsoft within days of the VXtreme deal's announcement and
proposed that the two companies enter a strategic relationship. [...]
Muglia, who signed the agreement on Microsoft's behalf, believed that
RealNetworks had in turn agreed to incorporate Microsoft's streaming
media technologies into its products.
114. RealNetworks apparently understood import of the agreement
differently, for just a few days after it signed the deal with
Microsoft, RealNetworks announced that it planned to continue developing
fundamental streaming software. Indeed, RealNetworks continues to do so
today. Thus, the mid-summer negotiations did not lead to the result
Microsoft had intended. Still, Microsoft's intentions toward
RealNetworks in 1997, and its dealings with the company that summer,
show that decision-makers at Microsoft were willing to invest a large
amount of cash and other resources into securing the agreement of other
companies to halt software development that exhibited discernible
potential to weaken the applications barrier."
Whether or not Real's testimony accusing Microsoft of engineering their
Media Player to inhibit Real's products from functioning are true seems
to be beside the point. If the DoJ or Real or Microsoft wish to bring
up some further liability on this issue, then perhaps who introduced
what bug where might become relevant.
>"Cutting off their Oxygen supply" being attributed to MS employees, when in
>fact it was someone else.
An employee used the phrase "cut off their air supply" in an MS email.
I presume Microsoft contended that he'd gotten the phrasing from
elsewhere. The Judge recognized that as hearsay and irrelevant to the
fact that an employee used the phrase in an MS email, demonstrating
intent to restrain trade and monopolize.
>Netscape market figures actually being much higher than claimed by Netscape
>management in court.
How is that relevant, and why would we believe Microsoft's figures and
not Netscapes or the Department of Justices?
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 20:54:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The shrink-wrap store-shelf market is a small
>one, and as such, any competitor in the market is attacking you -- whether
>it's directly or not -- and you have to treat it as such. There's only so
>much shelf-space to go around, and it's *very* hard to get titles into the
>distribution channels.
Well, I know it sounds like second-guessing, but I really want to advise
Sierra to "think harder". The market is not a pie chart. Perhaps those
running the business end already know that, which is why they are still
making quality products which are readily consumed by the market. But
they haven't done a good job of explaining to you guys that the amount
of shelf-space is not really an issue; its whether you have good
products at a fair price convenient to the consumer that counts. Stop
thinking like a monopolist. Its not only inappropriate; it may be
illegal.
You might want to post a note along to the game developer side that
putting an icon four levels deep in the Start menu just so they can
leave lots of room for marketing messages is not appreciated by their
customers. I can't think of any competitive business justification for
it, and you know what that means.... (or should, by now.)
Of course its hard to think competitively when someone else is being
anti-competitive, so I can appreciate there might be some "bunker
mentality" involved in the "competitor as enemy" thinking. But the only
thing that makes Microsoft your competitor is the possibility that your
software might suck, apart from the fandango they play on the marketing
side. Stores are more than happy to put up new shelves for stuff that
sells; there's profit in it, after all.
>> But maybe you can enlighten me about the competitive world of software
>> games; I only know of it from the consumer perspective. And where does
>> your role come in; are you a coder or something else?
>
>Lead engineer on one of the productivity titles.
I wasn't aware they had productivity titles. I've enjoyed some of their
games, in the past; what's good?
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 20:56:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said mark in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...a zillion...]
>How can something which is defined as being indeterminate also be
>accurate?[...]
Ah, the wonders of abstraction.
Its not the accuracy, its the precision that counts.
--
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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:54:55 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8os5bf$ve0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Simon Cooke wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > `>` The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be
sold
> > with
> > > > a
> > > > >preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software.
> > > >
> > > > Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or making
> > CompUSA
> > > > make a killing on installing OSes for people.
> > >
> > > No. You merely charge that as a SEPERATE line-item, dipshit.
> >
> > And this benefits consumers.....how?
>
> It provides the consumer freedom.
>
> The freedom to select any computer hardware that fits their needs without
> having to pay for preloaded software that they not need or use.
This freedom already exists.
>
> It provides the consumer the freedom to use whatever OS they want that is
> compatible with their choice of hardware.
This freedom already exists.
> It would provide more freedom for other OS devlopers to compete on the
same
> footing as those that are now having their products preloaded on most of
> today's computers.
We're talking about consumers.... But the software industry has about the
lowest barrier to entry of any product in existence.
> It would mean lower costs for those who have no need for preloaded
software
> without having to build their own systems or going to some alternate
> distributer.
Not necessarily. It might mean higher costs when the OEM suddenly has to
provide support for 100 different operating systems.
>
> ...and there are more but this is good for a start.
>
>
Let's have more then...
------------------------------
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 20:55:47 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Simon Cooke wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > `>` The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be
sold
> > with
> > > > a
> > > > >preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software.
> > > >
> > > > Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or making
> > CompUSA
> > > > make a killing on installing OSes for people.
> > >
> > > No. You merely charge that as a SEPERATE line-item, dipshit.
> >
> > And this benefits consumers.....how?
>
> It makes them aware that there are multiple choices.
And this benefits consumers.....how?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 02 Sep 2000 21:02:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:29:58 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8omtcg$1pf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > Said Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> > [...]
>>> > >Actually, Windows ME is going to sell for $209 retail price for the
>>full
>>> OS
>>> > >license (not an upgrade). This is not the street price which will be
>>> lower.
>>> > >
>>> > >Also, upgrades from 98 will only be $59. That ain't much.
>>> >
>>> > If they are one penny more than they would be if Microsoft had not acted
>>> > to inhibit competition, they are monopoly prices. And they are, indeed,
>>> > monopoly prices.
>>> >
>>>
>>> But the findings of fact claim that Microsoft is charging too little. So
>>> which is it, Mr. Devlin? Too much? Too little? Because at the moment, you
>>> seem to be claiming both.
>>
>>It's just the typical "Microsoft can't win" stance taken by people like Max.
>>They're either dumping or price gouging.
>
> Both can happen at once.
>
> They dump on the OEMs.
>
> They gouge the end consumer.
Good point. I cringe whenever I hear a number for the "price" of
Microsoft software. "But you can get it for less on the street" used to
mean that the manufacturer's price was very low, so the retailer could
steeply discount. Now it means its another anti-competitive ruse by the
monopolist, where the "upgrade" becomes the price of the product, and
the "full license" becomes the never-observed MSRP, and the wholesale
price is only negotiated with control by the monopoly of the ultimate
retail price which will be charged, in the vast majority of cases.
Its a nightmare, to be sure. I'm afraid its worse than anyone's even
begun to realize. (Well, anyone that still supports Microsoft in any
large degree.) When you're a 'real' monopoly, and have the ability to
control prices, as MS does, you can be dumping *while* you're gouging,
essentially.
--
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: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 20:59:39 -0500
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <8os45j$ic9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>> And that was one option that's always been available, but about 60%
>> of the OEM's chose to negotiate on a per processor agreement. What's
>> the problem? And what does OEM's deal with Microsoft have anything to
>> do with you? Do
> you
>> really care? I don't go into Mc Donalds and ask to see all the
>> contracts with suppliers before ordering a #5, do you?
>>
>>
>
> You mean that you can go to McDonalds and order a #5? I know that #5
> is alive but I didn't know that McDonalds was selling copies of him.
>
>
>
ROTFLMOL
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
