Linux-Advocacy Digest #868, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 22:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Bernd Gehrmann)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Bernd Gehrmann)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:22:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Its from the earliest anti-trust Supreme Court decision I've found, in
>> 1895. Notice "the monopoly denounced" seems to clearly point out that
>> 'monopolization' in the statute can be read "to have or attempt to have
>> a monopoly".
>
>Yes, but the courts' interpretation of "monopoliation" doesn't include
>the kinds of things listed as exceptions by the Supreme Court in
>Grinnell.
They aren't exceptions. It isn't that they aren't on the list. Its
that they are on an entirely separate list, labeled "pro-competitive".
The list which includes "monopolization" (and also 'monopoly power',
'restraint of trade', and 'attempted monopolization', et. al,) is
labeled "anti-competitive".
Let me ask you something, Eric. Have you ever read the actual Grinnell
decision, or just this quote?
>> Nobody said you should't research your market. If you're so incredibly
>> naive as to think that this allows you to simply consciously design a
>> superior product, then you overestimate the amount of time and materials
>> available to a manufacturer. I'm alleging that all the talk in the
>> world isn't going to guarantee your product isn't a steaming pile of
>> dung.
>
>Sure, but if it *does* turn out to be a superior product, are you in
>violation of the law if your market share happens to increase from 60%
>to 80% as a result?
I don't understand what you mean by "if it 'does' turn out to be a
superior product". You can't objectively judge whether a product is
superior unless there's a rather obvious competitive advantage in
whatever specific feature might have driven anti-trust accusations. I
mean, we're talking an unmitigated assessment, of demonstrable value to
*every* consumer of a product. It isn't that you demonstrate that your
product is preferable under a set of conditions, and then viola, your
not a monopoly. Its that if your business success is due to
competitive, rather than anti-competitive, actions, its that you aren't
a monopoly, just a competitive business with large market share.
Do you understand the difference between an exception and an exclusion?
[...]
>So if the DOJ uncovers an internal document that says, "I bundled
>Internet Explorer with Windows because I wanted to grow sales", it's
>legal, but if they uncover an internal document that says, "I bundled
>Internet Explorer with Windows because I wanted to increase market
>share", it's illegal?
Well, that obviously dramatically over-simplifies the argument, but
you've captured the issue rather well, yes. One is a competitive
strategy, the other is an anti-competitive strategy.
It isn't even that you have to want to exclude competition. Simply
trying to get the power, whether you 'use' it or not, is
anti-competitive. You don't even have to know or intend it to be
anti-competitive. If it *is* anti-competitive, its illegal restraint of
trade.
>The decision is the same, but the basis for each decision is different
>in the manner you described.
Correct. The reason this is a gedanken experiment is that the actions
resulting from that decision are not actually going to be identical.
The strategies used to increase market size are inherently competitive;
they increase *other businesses* ability to compete, by attracting new
customer to a market, or providing a broader array of competitive
products (and thus competitive opportunities), and they decrease prices
and increase efficiency, as well as adding convenience and functionality
for *all* consumers of your product.
The strategies that are going to result from a plan to increase market
*share* are inherently anti-competitive. They include tying, exclusive
contracts, 'forestalling, regrating, and engrossing' (I'm still trying
to find a definition for that middle one), dumping, price gouging, FUD,
and the ongoing host of additional activities which the public relates
to "monopoly", and the courts consider 'restraint of trade'. It is this
'class of act', those which will tend to decrease rather than increase
the number of real or potential competitors in a marketplace, thus
supporting prices at a higher level of profit than would be considered
competitive otherwise, which is made illegal by the Sherman Act.
[...]
>No, the problem I'm trying to get at is that "growth" and "acquisition
>of monopoly power" are not mutually exclusive. What happens when both
>have occurred? Apparently where we stand is that I say there is no
>violation, and you say there is.
The point of the text of the Grennell quote "as distinguished from" is
wholly and explicitly a statement that they *are* mutually exclusive.
Acquisition of monopoly power can come from growth, yes. Growth can
come from or lead to acquisition of monopoly power. None of this makes
growth illegal, nor monopoly power legal.
It isn't that any one act can only be one or the other; in that way, you
are right that they are not mutually exclusive. Its that the
anti-competitive effects of monopoly power exist, and, indeed, outweigh
the pro-competitive effects of growth, when they occur together. If
you're monopolizing, you're monopolizing, whether your business or
market is getting larger or not.
>> The same action
>> might be illegal, or might be legal, depending on why you are doing it.
>
>Yes, but not to the level of my example above.
Yes, at that level. It is the characteristic of anti-competiteness
which makes growth illegal, if it is considered, due to the existence of
those anti-competitive effects, to be considered monopolization. So
even if, without the anti-competitive effects, the act would be legal,
it is illegal if it does, in fact, have anti-competitive effects.
>> The free market is, indeed, a competition which you're not allowed to
>> "win".
>
>You're allowed to have 100% market share... that sounds like winning to
>me.
I know, that's what I mean. It isn't. Its a temporary state of affairs
to begin with (if its a free market). If its not a temporary state of
affairs, in fact, its criminal activity (it a monopoly). You can hardly
consider it winning if it results in up to three years in prison.
The problem is that people don't seem to be capable of conceiving of the
idea of 'competition' without 'winning and losing'. The abstract
competition of the marketplace simply doesn't have winners and losers.
It has producers and consumers. It has buyers and sellers. It has
supply and demand. But everybody is supposed to be a winner, that's the
whole point of having the 'competition'.
>Here is some material from the book "Antitrust Basics". Emphasis mine:
>
>
>======
>In order to be guilty of monopolization, a company must do something
>more than obtain OR MAINTAIN a dominant share of the market. Both the
>Sherman Act and the FTC Act are "conduct" statutes. . . . In other
>words, the antitrust laws do not prohibit a market structure without
>regard for how that market structure was created or is being maintained.
>Thus, a company can enjoy 100 percent of a particular market without
>being in violation of the antitrust laws. NEITHER THE SHERMAN ACT NOR
>THE FTC ACT PROHIBIT MONOPOLIES PER SE. These statutes only prohibit
>unlawful conduct that results in obtaining or maintaining monopoly power
>or that constitutes an attempt or a combination or a conspiracy to
>monopolize.
Nice quote. The point is the unlawful acts are what is outlawed, not
monopolies per se. This was recognized in 1911, when, in the Standard
Oil decision, Justice White wrote:
"And it is worthy of observation, as we have previously remarked
concerning the common law, that although the statute, by the
comprehensiveness of the enumerations embodied in both the 1st
and 2d sections, makes it certain that its purpose was to prevent undue
restraints of every kind or nature, nevertheless by the
omission of any direct prohibition against monopoly in the concrete, it
indicates a consciousness that the freedom of the
individual right to contract, when not unduly or improperly exercised,
was the most efficient means for the prevention of
monopoly, since the operation of the centrifugal and centripetal forces
resulting from the right to freely contract was the means
by which monopoly would be inevitably prevented if no extraneous or
sovereign power imposed it and no right to make
unlawful contracts having a monopolistic tendency were permitted. In
other words, that freedom to contract was the essence of
freedom from undue restraint on the right to contract."
Can you see the relevance? Does it provide more understanding of what
"Antitrust Basics" was saying, and, more importantly, why they were
saying it?
>In United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Cellophane), the
>Supreme Court, in discussing the legislative history of the Sherman Act,
>noted that the offense of monopolization involves something more than
>extraordinary commercial success and requires the the use of some means
>that make it impossible to for others to engage in fair competition.
>THE COURT NOTED FURTHER THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SHERMAN ACT
>CLEARLY INDICATES THAT A MONOPOLY ACQUIRED AND MAINTAINED AS A RESULT OF
>SUPERIOR SKILL AND INTELLIGENCE IS *****NOT ILLEGAL******.
Look; I'm well aware that there are countless examples, even within the
most authoritative sources, of the word "monopoly" being used in a
similar way to the one I'd like to get rid of. The point is that such
uses are understood in a partial sense at best, because without the
contextual understanding of anti-trust law in its gestalt, it becomes
difficult or entirely impossible to correctly read it. It may be
amphiboly, it may be rhetoric, but the fact is that, while many
authoritative statements have been made recognizing the fact that a
monopoly is not per se illegal, any accurate reference to the term must
recognize that a monopoly is not per se *possible* without breaking the
law. (Refer to the Standard Oil text, above, at
http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/stdoilnj.htm)
If you want to change the rhetoric to "its not illegal to have a
monopoly, its just illegal control prices or exclude competition", or
"its not illegal to have a monopoly, its just illegal to use market
share anti-competitively", or "its not illegal to have a monopoly, its
just illegal to keep it in the face of competition" or what have you,
I'm fine with that. The intent is not to mandate my personal definition
of the word 'monopoly' on anyone, regardless of how accurate,
consistent, or practical it may be. Any change to the 'popular wisdom'
saw is more than sufficient to make the point clear.
"Its not illegal to have a monopoly, its only illegal to engage in
anti-competitive activities" would probably be optimum, if you simply
*must* keep the silly idea that having a monopoly is not illegal, just
because its against the laws of market theory rather than the laws of
the federal government.
>From your Du Pont decision
"(b) A party has monopoly power contrary to 2 of the Sherman Act if it
has, over "any part of the trade or commerce among the several States,"
a power of controlling prices or unreasonably restricting competition."
>The rationale for not condeming mere possession of a monopoly, without
>more, under the antitrust laws is well stated in United States v.
>Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). The Alcoa opinion notes that the
>courts have generally recognized that THE ORIGIN OF A MONOPOLY MAY BE
>CRITICAL IN DETERMINING ITS LEGALITY, that the growth of an illegal
>monopoly must be something other than "normal" or "natural", with some
>evidence of wrongful intent or coercive or anticompetitive conduct.
IOW, that you can distinguish between normal business growth and
anti-competitive actions, yea. I think what the Alcoa court was
actually saying is that an origin in anti-competitive behavior is a
clear indication of monopoly. I think that would make sense, given that
the controversy of the Alcoa case was this 'only the owner of a mine can
use the mine, and that's not monopolizing'. Which, of course, is true;
that's not what Alcoa was convicted of. They were convicted of using
anti-competitive behavior to maintain monopoly power.
I'll try to wade through the Alcoa case next, but meanwhile, back in Du
Pont, they said:
"The burden of proof, of course, was upon the Government to establish
monopoly. See United States v. Aluminum Co. of
America, 148 F.2d 416, 423, 427. This the trial court held the
Government failed to do, upon findings of fact and law stated at
length by that court."
Note particularly that, from all indications, "monopoly" is the extent
of the charge, and Du Pont was found not to have it, even though they
were the only producer of cellophane.
Its often been noted that only the owner of something can sell that
thing, so they "have a monopoly" in it. I'm not entirely unaware that
the word "monopoly" has more than one precise meaning. I just don't
like seeing it used to excuse illegal behavior, merely because it is
tough to prove that somebody is restraining trade.
That's what monopoly means, by the way, in the eyes of the court.
Restraining trade. Monopolizing, being a monopoly, having a monopoly,
enjoying or possession monopoly power; all of these are mere synonyms
for 'restraining trade', in a very real sense. Go check Standard Oil
again, to see what I mean.
>Expanding the Alcoa rationale for not condeming "innocent" monopolies,
>the Second Circuit later characterized the Alcoa court as finding that:
>
>"...it would be inherently unfair to condemn success when the Sherman
>Act itself mandates competition. Such a wooden rule, it is feared,
>might also deprive the leading firm in an industry of the incentive to
>exert its best efforts. Further success would yield not rewards, but
>castigation. THE ANTITRUST LAWS WOULD THUS COMPEL THE VERY SLOTH THEY
>WERE INTENDED TO PREVENT. We must always be mindful lest the Sherman
>Act be invoked perversely in favor of those who seek protection against
>the rigors of competition."
Yea, so? The popular wisdom is used to avoid competition by celebrating
the very sloth that anti-trust laws prevent. Are you saying we have a
problem with people seeking protection against the rigors of
competition? I'll agree; I believe we do. Its called monopolizing.
>In order to violate the antitrust laws by monopolizing a market, a
>company must not only possess monopoly power but must also have
>willfully obtained or maintained monopoly power.
According to the laws of free markets, there's no other way to gain it.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THIS???
>The element of
>willfullness has generally been interpreted as requiring some form of
>predatory or anticompetitive conduct, as well as a showing of general
>intent to monopolize.
It is the predatory and anti-competitive conduct itself which is
outlawed by the Sherman Act's second section.
"[23] In this country also the acts from which it was deemed there
resulted a part, if not all, of the injurious consequences
ascribed to monopoly, came to be referred to as a monopoly itself. It is
also true that it came to pass that contracts or acts
which it was considered had a monopolistic tendency, especially those
which were thought to unduly diminish competition and
hence to enhance prices - in other words, to monopolize - came also in a
generic sense to be spoken of and treated as they
had been in England, as restricting the due course of trade, and
therefore as being in restraint of trade. "
" In other
words, having by the 1st section forbidden all means of monopolizing
trade, that is, unduly restraining it by means of every
contract, combination, etc., the 2d section seeks, if possible, to make
the prohibitions of the act all the more complete and
perfect by embracing all attempts to reach the end prohibited by the 1st
section, that is, restraints of trade, by any attempt to
monopolize, or monopolization thereof, even although the acts by which
such results are attempted to be brought about or are
brought about be not embraced within the general enumeration of the 1st
section. And, of course, when the 2d section is thus
harmonized with and made, as it was intended to be, the complement of
the 1st, it becomes obvious that the criteria to be
resorted to in any given case for the purpose of ascertaining whether
violations of the section have been committed is the rule of
reason guided by the established law and by the plain duty to enforce
the prohibitions of the act, and thus the public policy
which its restrictions were obviously enacted to subserve. "
Again, from Standard Oil.
http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/stdoilnj.htm
In the second section (quoted from paragraph 30), the phrase "it becomes
obvious that the criteria.. is... to enforce the prohibitions of the
act" seem to indicate that you are either misinterpreting the later
decisions in the abstract, or the justices were silently unaware of this
precedent. The way I read it is, "If you understand the Sherman Act,
you know that it is illegal to have or attempt to have a monopoly."
>If the monopoly power was acquired and is maintained as a result of
>superior products or services or superior business skills or historic
>accident, THIS WILL NEGATE A FINDING OF INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE.
Again, THIS WILL NEGATE KNOWN REALITY. A 'free market', by definition,
allows no monopolization. If there is a monopoly, it is an illegal one.
That's not to say "someone must be punished", which is, I think,
probably what the Alcoa and 'cellophane' decisions were referring to.
It is true that, just because you have a monopoly, you've broken the
law. But that doesn't mean you can monopolize under guise of doing
business; doing business and monopolizing are mutually exclusive, in
this regard.
[...]
>Improving a product is not classified as anticompetitive behavior.
No, but what some might claim is 'improving the product', other's might
claim is anti-competitive, and, in fact, illegal behavior. Thus the
'rule of reason' requirement. But despite the rule of reason, and its
survival to this day in precedent, there are still several per se tests
with which monopolists can be prosecuted, including technical tying and
overwhelming market share.
To prove that such an overwhelming market share is monopoly power, the
prosecution must prove it is. This would require either a theoretical
or a practical demonstration of how the defendant could control prices
or exclude competition. Obviously, the simplest method of doing this,
and quite likely the reason that monopoly power was suspected, is an
anti-competitive act which resulted from either acquisition or
maintenance of that monopoly power. So the only part you hear,
generally, about an anti-trust decision, is that 'use' of the monopoly
power, and this myth builds that having the monopoly power itself is not
illegal. The current example being Microsoft. Everybody knows they
were convicted for bundling. Very very few people seem to notice they
were also convicted for having a monopoly on PC OSes, and, had the case
been able to come to trial even if they'd never forced the point by
tying, they could have been convicted of that all by itself.
>Thus, if you do create a superior product and you gain monopoly power as
>a result, you have not violated the law under the standard give in the
>quoted material above.
You can't gain monopoly power as a result of a superior product. You
can only gain market power. Market power, used anti-competitively, is
monopoly power, and is illegal, regardless of how you got the market
power to gain/use/acquire/possess/enjoy monopoly power. The reason they
didn't say the words "its illegal to have a monopoly" in the statute,
said Justice White in 1911, is because it is the anti-competitive act,
not the market power, which is outlawed.
It's illegal to have a monopoly, but its not illegal to have a large
market share. The difference isn't in the conditions, its in the
actions; are they anti-competitive? Then its illegal. That is the rule
of reason.
>Here is a reference for the above:
>http://catalog.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Title&CNT=50+
>records+per+page&SA=antitrust+basics&PID=17030&SEQ=20000903035238&HIST=1
Thanks. That link, BTW, has a 'session' associated with it, so its not
usable. But I can work it out.
>I trust antitrust books I get out of the library more than I trust
>usenet posts from T. Max Devlin.
Well, Christ, I would hope so. But I wouldn't say its necessarily
always a good thing to trust your understanding of the book as much as
you trust the author of the book.
>The books clearly say you are wrong.
I don't think so, though I wouldn't doubt they disagree with my way of
putting it.
>If you still refuse to see the light, fine. I'm no longer going to try
>to convince you otherwise. If you keep repeating these incorrect
>arguments I may from time to time continue to correct you, solely for
>the benefit of other readers, but I'm not going to actively debate this
>with you any more.
What incorrect arguments? I didn't say any of yours were incorrect
arguments. Hell, they were damn good arguments, and I'd feel cheated if
you plan to just abandon them now. Things were finally *starting* to
get rolling. If you can't support your position anymore, and still fail
utterly to correctly understand my position, but just expect you can say
"oh, you're wrong"....
Just why was Microsoft convicted of monopoly on OSes *as well as*
attempting to monopolize and restraining trade in browsers? If you
can't respond, its only because you don't know, OK?
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:35:48 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> [...]
> >> Also, it's well within Troll's capacity to merely not make
statements
> >> that might serve to chill the atmosphere around a free QT
clone. The
> >> fact that they always retain the right to sue is trivial. They
retain
> >> that regardless of the statement of their intent. So merely
restating
> >> the obvious is gratuitious.
> >
> >Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
>
> They should say "No. We have no intention of suing any competitor
> attempting to clone QT." That is, as near as we can figure, their legal
> responsibility, and it in no way invites or encourages anti-competitive
> threats to their market.
So if a "competitor" cloned QT by a wholesale ripping-off of TT's code and
just changed the copyright notices, you wouldn't expect TT to sue ?
------------------------------
From: Bernd Gehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 18:56:28 +0200
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
>
> There is the ever popular "no comment".
And - not surpringly - this was also the answer in this case.
Bernd.
------------------------------
From: Bernd Gehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:44:51 +0200
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The only way they can in any honest manner be said to 'own
> the code' is if all copyrights have been assigned to them
> or if they were theirs to begin with.
>
> That doesn't tend to happen in Free Software unless the entity
> in question is the Free Software Foundation.
Or Helixcode. Or Raph Levien. Or Peter L. Deutsch.
Or "Cygnus, a Red Hat company".
Bernd.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:41:46 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oq3l1$u1v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8opviv$lrb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8opt07$2ta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8opni2$phf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8opjmj$o4m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > But don't they keep that information already?
> > > >
> > > > Only *if* you give it to them. I certainly don't. Your scheme
would
> > > > _require_ me to register with a company to be able to acquire
> > "upgrades".
> > >
> > > It is not my scheme, it is just the way thing used to be done. If you
> > chose
> > > to not register your software then that is your personal choice. If
> that
> > > means that you are not qualified for the upgrade, then that is your
> > personal
> > > choice as well.
> >
> > Thanks, but I like what little privacy I have. I'd much rather keep an
> old
> > CD around than be forced to register with a company just to be eligible
> for
> > an upgrade. All I should need to do to be eligible for an upgrade is to
> own
> > a previous verison.
> >
> > I find it quite surprising you're advocating forced registration with
> > companies like Microsoft to be eligible for upgrades.
>
> I am not advocating anything here. The question was asked, requesting
> information on other methods that upgrades could be limited to owners of
> previous version without needed to use qualifing media. This is one
option
> that was used by many software houses. As I said, it is not my scheme.
It
> is history.
Well, I asked for a better alternative, and that's what you offered - how
else am I supposed to interpret that except you advocating it ?
> Another option would be to use a binary patch package like to patch the
old
> installed version into the new version. This has been done many times in
> the past as well. The upgrade package does not contain to product just
the
> patch program and the delta file(s) that are used to patch the installed
> copy of the package. It also is history.
That's even worse. Dead for obvious reasons.
> Another option would be to provide an update package that is identical to
> the full purchase package except in box marking and price. At the time of
> purchase, the customer has to surrender a upgrade coupon, a particular
page
> from the preious versions manual or some other proof of ownership in order
> to qualify for the upgrade pricing. Again, it is history.
This is almost identical to the current scheme. The upgrade package is
identical except that the installation requires proof of previous ownership.
> As it is, all these options and one more the is best left forgotten has
been
> used by Microsoft. In the end, the worst possible option is the one that
> they are now using.
You're kidding, right ? You seriously consider the current method to be
*worse* than the ones above ? The only one that anyone might consider as
better is the "trade a manual page for an upgrade".
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
