Linux-Advocacy Digest #852, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 07:09:02 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> : Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> :>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> :>> Microsoft didn't document their extensions because they want to
lock
> >> :>> people into using Windows 2000. Any apologists who denies this is
> >> :>> living in denial himself.
> >> :>
> >> :>Just for the record, I believe that their implementation is now
> >documented
> >> :>and available from msdn.microsoft.com with no click-thru license.
> >> :
> >> : 1) After previously being hidden.
> >> : 2) After previously being licenced under moot terms.
> >> :
> >> : Meanwhile, MS gets a nice head start.
> >>
> >> 3) Only after an extreme backlash of bad press did MS even consider
> >> documenting any of it.
> >
> >Actually, IIRC, according to an article on slashdot it had apparently
been
> >sitting there in a TechNet the whole time anyway... definitely a case of
the
> >left not knowing what the right was doing.
>
> That would be an incredible statement; an article in slashdot (probably
> one, like yours, suggesting it without seeming to care whether its
> credible) would hardly be enough to make it unlikely that Microsoft was
> attempting to monopolize.
I love this discussion:
I point out that the Kerberos extension is currently documented in MSDN,
because someone is complaining that it's undocumented. That's a statement of
fact.
Someone comes in and says "Ah... but they did this, this, this, this and
this!"
I state that according to posters on Slashdot, it had been sitting in a
knowledgebase (technet) article the whole time.
You come in and say "Ah! They're monopolizing! ha!"
Which has nothing to do with my statements of fact. And it's not something I
care to debate in this particular offshoot of the thread -- whether it's
monopolizing or not is completely and totally IRRELEVANT. The field is
documented, and apparenttly has been for some time.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:12:02 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wrong.
> > The Patent System SPECIFICALLY ENDORSES legal monopolies for
> > innovators.
> >
> > Microsoft's problem is they can't innovate a hole into a wet paper bag.
>
> And what have you innovated in your lifetime. I beleive this might be a
> case
> of the pot calling the kettle black.
Did Aaron ever claim to be a great innovator?
Did Microsoft ever claim to be a great innovator?
See a difference?
--
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
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:13:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> Eventually, you may be able to understand what I'm saying.
>
>I understand what you are saying quite clearly. A large part
>of your motivation is that you're enjoy the cognitive
>dissonance that you spin up over simply communicating
>effectively.
G'dam. You nailed that one. Sort of. I don't like the 'spin' on "spin
up". I'm not even trying a little bit to work people up; quite the
opposite. My problem is, I'm *trying* to simply communicate
effectively. I guess I'm just not very good at it.
I'll admit I do my fair share of tweaking, and I think I've made my
typical response to ridicule pretty clear. But it is the communication
part which I'm after, and the examination of cognitive dissonance,
particularly in critical issues like networking, commerce, politics, and
ethics. There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance causing problems in
our world, including issues facing the Internet, business, intellectual
property, and morality. I'm anxious to help clear it up, and I've made
quite a study of figuring out how to tell the difference between
cognitive dissonance and just being mistaken.
Get in the groove, 'C'. Stop ankle-biting and simply communicate
effectively about something. I'm up for it.
--
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: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 07:13:21 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> When you say "there's nothing wrong with it", you are forgetting that
> whether something is a violation of anti-trust law, namely the Sherman
> Act, it is the *character* of the activity, not its putative business
> justification, which is outlawed. There's nothing wrong with creating a
> superset of a standard, so long as it is not done to restrain trade,
> monopolize, or attempt to monopolize. If it is willfully executed for
> anti-competitive purposes, it is a criminal activity, regardless of the
> number of potential ways and means which another occurrence of that
> described action by some other company in some other circumstance,
> similar or not, might use it as a competitive mechanism.
>
> There's nothing wrong with designing and marketing a superior product;
> as long as it isn't a willful attempt to acquire or maintain monopoly
> power. It doesn't matter how many extra features or how much said
> compatibility there was. What matters is whether it encouraged
> competition or discouraged competition.
Keberos support is only provided on Windows 2000. Which is not considered a
monopoly by any court. So your criteria for whether or not their extension
of the standard is *legal* is completely and totally invalid.
So what we have now is: did they follow the spec?
The answer is: YES, they did.
Therefore, they were compliant with the spec. You can feel free to bitch and
moan and say they weren't playing fair, but as with contracts, if it wasn't
specified correctly, then oh well -- tough crap -- you signed it, you live
with it.
In short, Microsoft strictly did nothing wrong. Sure, it may leave a bad
taste in your mouth, but hey, that's life.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 07:17:35 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > 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.
The difference being:
Anti-burglary aim to prevent burglary
Anti-murder aim to prevent murder
Anti-trust...? :)
Si
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 07:19:55 GMT
"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.
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post from a while back where I
explained that you were completely and utterly WRONG when you claimed that
the SGI box was capable of 800GHz data transfer rates.
And I won't return the insult, save to say "Nyah nyah na nyah nyah"
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 07:20:42 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Forget it, you're too stupid to participate in this conversation.
Wait a minute... this is a CONVERSATION? I thought it was a sermon. My
mistake.
Simon
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 00:32:26 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I see that as a huge hassle for all involved. Let's say there are now 6
major OS
> vendors with equal marketshare. First the consumer would have to choose
their
> OS. Not so bad. Then the OS would need to be installed. For someone who
buys
> thier PC at CompUSA, and buy a retail box with an OS in it, 70% or more
would
> need it installed for them - most likely by the retailer for an extra
charge.
When they go buy games do they have to take in their computer back to the
store to have that game installed for them?
Installing a PRECONFIGURED copy of the OS would be even more simple that a
game installation. Insert the CD or other media turn on the computer, walk
away and then come back after the installation is complete. Who is capable
of using a computer that can not do that?
> The boxed computers would not each come with 6 pre-made OS CDs
specifically for
> that model. This in turn drives up PC costs - probably more than a Windows
9x
> OEM license costs (for the installation, I mean).
Where did you get the ludicrious idea of the computer being shipped with 6
CD? It would not even come with one. If and *only if* the customer wants a
preconfigured OS for the computer, would there be a need to purchase the
installation media. Reread the thread, you missed the purpose of this
discussion.
> This also assumes that the boxed operating systems supports all the weird
> software in Johnny's new Packard Bell. The average consumer doesn't have
the
> werewithall to go n a protracted "driver hunt".
You seem to fail to realize what the word "preconfigured" means; otherwise,
you would not be making such inappropriate statement.
> For someone like Dell, this would not be so much of a problem, because
they have
> a lot of control over their hardware. It balloons the number of disk
images they
> have to keep track of. It more than doubles their support as well. They
now need
> techniciens who know each of the 6 OSs and how to troubleshoot them. They
also
> need to keep up-to-date drivers for each of those operating systems. This
in
> turn, drives up PC costs.
>
> For hardware manufacturers, it would be a nightmare. They would have to
write 6
> drivers for each product and keep every driver updated. At the very least,
it
> would triple their programming division. This in turn drives up hardware
costs,
> which drive up PC costs.
Here I assume your are referring to the manufacturers of addon devices.
That could also be a good thing, it would bring an end to the developement
of software devices like winmodems and winprinter. It would encourage the
manufacturers to implement more of the devices in silicon which would
increase performance and reliability of the equipment. If they find support
the various OS's too much work, they could release the specifications of the
devices to the public to permit others to develop the drivers for the
various operating systems.
That is workable, and that is just the way it used to be done until the last
few years.
> For software manufacturers, it means that their costs have now gone up
6-fold.
> They now have to support 6 operating systems and support their software on
those
> platforms without the corresponding increase in units sold. This drives up
> software costs.
That is why it is important to write programs to be as portable as possible.
This again is nothing new, that is how it was before Windows took over.
Software companies have thrived in that environment. Remember when there
were Apple's ][, PET, CBM, Atari 400 & 800, Cromemco, and latter Vic 20's
and IBM PC, S100/IEEE696 software all being sold side by side. AND those
were not even for the same hardware platforms.
> How was this good for the customer again?
I can not believe that you are championing the position that you are
considering what the logical conclusion of that reasoning.
The fewer choices that there are available, the better it is for the
consumer, so lets destroy every trace of Linux, BSD, Solaris, all unix, VMS,
BeOS, OS/2 MacOS, all non Windows OS's in the world. Let's every one use
nothing but Windows! Which Windows? There are so many non-compatible
versions. Simple, the one version that most people have that Would be
Windows 98 or Windows 95. That right, lets make it Windows 95 and no more
Window 3.x, NT, CE, or 2000. That way there is no choice but to use the one
holy OS and its blessed hardware, and lack of choice is best thing possible
for the consumer! Right?
Henry Ford tried that with the Model T and it failed. Remember? You can
have it painted any color you want so long as it is black.
If that ever happened, there would be such a cry, but there would be no
trace of the cry on usenet or the internet. How could it? Neither one
would function anymore and it would take a long time to rebuild it all on
Windows 95 computers.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:35:20 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >
> > > Said josco01 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > One cannot acquire a monopoly without breaking anti-trust laws, as
> > > attempting to monopolize is as illegal as monopolizing.
> >
> >
> > Wrong.
> > The Patent System SPECIFICALLY ENDORSES legal monopolies for innovators.
> >
> > Microsoft's problem is they can't innovate a hole into a wet paper bag.
>
> And what have you innovated in your lifetime. I beleive this might be a case
> of the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm working on a rifle-marksmanship device right now.
--
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.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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:36:56 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 18:12:18 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> >Read it yourself.
>
> Why do you impose such onerous chores upon him ? Are you not willing
> to read it to him, to spare him the effort of doing his own homework ?
My mistake. Please forgive me.
>
> >Is that so hard?
>
> For Max ? Certainly.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
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: 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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:46:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
[...]
>>No, that's what was discussed in "Microsoft II", the Consent Decree
>>case. In the current case, "tech tying" never entered into it. Judge
>>Jackson, based on the advice of the District Court, did not use the
>>'tech tying' per se rule, relying instead on the 'rule of reason'.
>
>Did the judge cite Max as the source for the "rule of reason" rule?
>
>What is "the advice of the District Court?"
>Jackson is the District Court Judge.
Sorry; I meant the Circuit Court. Are you unfamiliar with the "rule of
reason"?
>>The
>>only question before any appellate court is whether or not the rule of
>>reason conviction stands, without reference to the "effect/benefit"
>>question previously used in product tying cases.
>
>Actually, there are a large number of issues, including a number of
>procedural and evidenciary issues as well as legal issues related to
>antitrust law.
Yes, and I've again been re-thinking the Supreme Court review question.
This is a landmark decision, and they did previously review every
anti-trust case; it probably makes sense that they'd have some reason to
do so.
>>Recognizing that the
>>MS II contradiction of his ruling was not acceptable in the unique case
>>of software, Jackson relied on the precedent of service tying, rather
>>than product tying, as upheld by the Supreme Court in earlier cases
>>against Jefferson Parish and Kodak.
>
>There's no service tying here. That when a company with a monopoly on a
>product, makes the buyer take "services" as well. Are you referring to some
>principles from these cases.
Jackson did. I think the ambiguity of software makes it very compatible
with the precedent. The Parish case was a hospital that bundled
anesthesiology with surgery, and Kodak tried to bundle service contracts
with copiers (there was product involved, obviously). The crucial issue
in Parish was that the market wanted to purchase it separately,
regardless of the efficiencies. The hospital cited convenience,
minimizing confusion, and lowered cost as justifications, and the court
held that the benefits were not sufficient, considering there was no
evidence at any other hospitals that there was a desire to so 'simplify'
the billing process. In the Kodak case, they wanted to refuse to sell
spare parts to you unless you had a service contract with them. This
forestalled third party support on their copiers, and was disallowed;
Kodak had to sell spare parts to anyone who wanted them.
>The appeals ruling, strictly speaking, was simply "dicta" (legal reasoning
>that is extraneous to the actual decision) since the actual ruling turned on
>Jackson's failure to provide any notice before he "sue sponte" (on his own
>motion) issued a preliminary injunction.
That was silly, it seems. Perhaps he was actually trying to prompt the
Circuit Court into giving him an expectation of their reasoning on the
simple 'integration' issue. Their response seems to have been "yes,
integration is bundling, but it isn't subject to the per se technical
tying rule".
>Actually Judge Jackson was so concerned about the "tech tying" issue that he
>brought in Lawence Lessig, the "master" rejected by the appeal court for
>bias, to prepare a brief on the specific issue (a nice little middle finger
>to the appeals court :) ).
More like a tip of the hat to the appellate court, maybe.
>Lessig basically tried to suggest a "competition" justification for
>rejecting the "tech tying" doctrine, although Lessig added that the case law
>generally favored Microsoft.
Where are you abstracting this from? Lessig's suggestion would
certainly have needed to go to the Supreme Court; Jackson may as well
have left it open for them and not even convicted.
>Now Lessig's "competition" justification for disallowing "tech tying" has
>about as much chance of survival as a snowball in Hades.
I don't think so. Like copyright law and 'promote development',
judicial decisions on anti-trust is often directly guided by
'anti-competitive' consideration. This is, in the end, I think, the
"rule of reason". If the action results in decreased competition (and
they knew it would and wanted it to), it was anti-competitive, and
restraint of trade.
>Consider the modern economy. We can play "Max" games like the village idiot
>for our favorite cause, but the economy is filled with market leaders that
>improve products by adding features based on new technologies, etc.
Hey, you won't get an argument from me. Its also full of people who
think that the goal of such competition is to "win", rather than to
engage in competition.
>For example, copiers, and thousands of other products, keep improving with
>new features while the price goes down. This greatly benefits consumers. It
>is an important process to our standard of living.
>
>If every market leading company was kept from adding features because it was
>an illegal maintenance of its monopoly, then our most successful companies
>would be greatly impaired to the detriment of the consumer.
I'm not following you. Are you saying that enforcement of anti-trust
laws somehow decreases the features of the market leading products? No
market leader has ever been kept from adding features because it is an
illegal maintenance of a monopoly. But the only difference between that
an a monopoly willfully acquiring or maintaining monopoly power is
whether there is more competition or less, when the smoke clears.
Honestly.
Now you know why they call it "market power", and why it can be better
not to get too much of it, if you're not very careful. And why
companies that do have a lot of it, by nature, because they compete in a
market which can support few producers, are very very careful about
every action they take, in view of anti-trust law.
>What makes these companies maintain market share by using revenues to do
>research and add features? Well guess what, it's the COMPETITION. So Lessig
>is not going to impress the appeals court.
Or maybe its their desire to decrease the amount of competition they
have? That's going to impress any federal judge; its half-way to a
conviction when that happens. You better be pretty damn sure that a
whole lot of people really LOVE the new features, and practically nobody
complains about it. In fact, it'd be best if you kept selling a version
without the new features, just in case. Wouldn't want to give a
competitor an easy market opportunity; if you don't sell it without the
feature, someone else can sell one without the feature.
What's that you say? Nobody else can sell one of those without the
feature? Uh-oh. Think fast; federal judges don't like "but this makes
it 'superior'!" when the prosecution has half a dozen witnesses that
told you they didn't want the feature added to the product to begin
with, and would just as soon like to be able to get one somewhere else,
anyway. If you don't have an active 'pro-competitive' anti-trust
compliance program, or a chinese wall, or something... you are fried,
dude.
>You know, unlike Judge Jackson, who is in his middle 60's and not one of the
>brightest guys, the Federal Circuit appeals court handles not only routine
>federal matters (appeals from District Courts like Judge Jackson's), like
>all the other circuits around the country, but has a special jurisdiction
>that handles everything from federal claims to patent appeals.
>
>This court is used to complex issues. The judges are very conversant with
>the many complexities of the modern economy.
Which I assume would justify that little 'tying test' fandango. Anyway,
the point is that the Circuit court said "it isn't per se technical
tying, and we have no grounds for any other examination". Jackson had
the grounds, made the examination, and convicted the tying on precedent
and rule of reason, not the per se test.
>Unlike the Max, who stumbles over simple interpretations and then
>pontificates to cover his errors with nice sounding concepts, these judges
>have spent their careers as top lawyers, then usually judges at the trial
>level, before being selected to the appeals court.
Yea, so I'm not a federal justice. What's your point? Are you saying
you know what the judges will say better than I? Have you spent your
career as a top lawyer? Or are you one of those really bright people
who just sort of assume that the previous decision and this are
'obviously' the same and so will 'obviously' work like your 'popular
wisdom' says they will.
I've done the research, clown. Quit with the childish attempts at
ridicule.
>They are used to slicing and dicing intricate, complex multi-tiered issues,
>that would have the Max drolling like the village idiot and dispensing
>homilies and cliches to cover his intellectual incompetence.
I'd like to see them create a set of NerveCenter behavior models to
monitor the VCCs and LANE ports for NCR's ATM backbone...
>In other words, these judges spend their lives cutting through all the
>craptrap that Max loves so dearly.
You moron. Its the 'popular wisdom' that's a clap-trap. You've
presumed the law is so easy, you can put it in a cliche and it will
still makes sense.
>And pity a lawyer or judge who tries the
>"apples and oranges" game. You know, just when the "apple" construct is tied
>down such that the Max loses, he switches to "oranges" and goes on about his
>merry way in triumph.
Bullshit; you're fantasizing now.
>Since the judge has the power, such lawyers that play these "village idiot"
>games don't go far. The clients fire them.
Well, 'village idiot' (I hate reaching for the plus sign key on this
keyboard, so that's your new name, OK?) its gonna be fun if your still
here when what happens, happens. I'm not going to be surprised, I'll
tell you that. I wonder if you will.
--
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
******************************
