Linux-Advocacy Digest #964, Volume #28 Thu, 7 Sep 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. (Loren Petrich)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:09:50 -0400
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3Gvt5.53311$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > None of them have anything on "Scorch"
> > http://www.classicgaming.com/scorch/scorch12.zip
> >
> > It plays a little quick on todays computers if you don't slow it way
down.
>
> Wish I knew someone with the source to that... I could have quite a few
fun
> weekends updating it... :)
A network version would be cool but nothing beats a $buck a kill.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:19:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> [...]
>> >
>> >Well it works here, so I guess I must be dreaming.
>>
>> No, just naive and optimistic.
>
>So if I don't know that it doesn't work - it does? (actually, I proved
>this at work today. Just as my colleague was telling me something
>wouldn't work - it did)
No, just because you 'know' it 'works', doesn't mean it does. Anecdotal
evidence notwithstanding.
[...]
>I don't even think that. Working with Microsoft software pays my
>bills - it's a job, I get to meet & work with (exceptionally?)
>intelligent people on a daily basis. If MS software was perfect, I'd
>be out of a job.
It is the nagging suspicion that you are too stupid (and/or dishonest
and lazy) to work with real technology and this is your motivation for
spewing naive and ridiculous attempts to hand-wave the known
difficulties of using Microsoft's software as uniquely crappy and
problematic amongst all software, none of which is perfect which causes
us to attack you so briskly.
>If you had heard the number of times I've cursed poorly documented MS
>software just this week you wouldn't say that I think it's great
>stuff, works fine, lasts a long time. I think it's OK stuff that
>usually works.
That's how we know you're a moron, moron.
>Being a monopoly hasn't got a lot to do with it for me I'm afraid.
Unfortunately, it does. I won't bother trying to explain why to you;
you wouldn't be able to understand it, or even keep up with the
discussion. If you think I'm wrong, the 'monopoly' debate is going on
in several other threads; feel free to join in if you think you've got
something helpful to add. Try not to show your naivete, though; lurk on
the thread awhile and check back-thread, as we've already covered a lot
of ground and I'm getting rather tired of repeating myself, regardless
of the amount of practice it gives me in presenting my arguments.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:24:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>Either you're using static IP's & (obviously) static DNS, or DHCP with
>either static or dynamically allocated DNS. If DNS entries are static, no
>problem. If they're dynamic, change the DNS setting...
We may be using something else; your attempt to restrict the nature of
the network in order to implement your solution speaks volumes
concerning your technical capabilities.
[...]
>> What about the _msdcs illegal host names?
>
>Check out RFC 2181 (which is currently a proposed standard)
>http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/rfc2181.html
>& RFC 2782 (which replaces RFC 2052, and is also a proposed standard)
>http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/rfc2782.html
>
>RFC 2181 says that any binary character can be used for a resource locator
>record, and RFC 2782 is the resource locator RFC
Oh, yay. We get to change the rules for Microsoft's convenience.
Either that, or Microsoft wants to tie these improvements to the DNS
standards to their pathetic and broken piece of crap software. Either
way, you're not making me happy.
[...]
>> So, you can't see the "embrace and extend" going on here then?
>
>Possibly, but it is supported on BIND, so possibly not.
It doesn't work that way. If you can see the 'embrace and extend' going
on, then its going on. BIND doesn't mandate what kind of client you
have in order to benefit from *all* of its features. Microsoft does
that at both ends.
--
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:20:57 -0400
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3Gvt5.53311$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > None of them have anything on "Scorch"
> > http://www.classicgaming.com/scorch/scorch12.zip
> >
> > It plays a little quick on todays computers if you don't slow it way
down.
>
> Wish I knew someone with the source to that... I could have quite a few
fun
> weekends updating it... :)
Not to come accross like I know anything about programming but I can open
the executable file (scorch.exe) in MS Visual c++, I would assume it can be
modified or updated.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:28:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said sfcybear in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <8p4t5a$c8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> > b) You've just screwed up the corporate DNS
>>
>> Funny - Internet browsing works just fine. If DNS was screwed, it
>wouldn't.
Every failure causes all failures, right? Typical Microsoft-inspired
'idiot troubleshooting 101'. I didn't say you'd screwed it up in a way
that you are currently aware of. Others may be aware of it, or may
become aware of it, or incidental failures which it caused. There is no
'statute of limitations' on this kind of stupidity. You aren't at all
aware of how you might screw it up, so you figure you couldn't have
screwed it up, right?
[...]
>This just shows another reason why I never want to turn DNS over to a MS
>person.
--
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.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:27:19 -0400
lyttlec wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > lyttlec wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Person 7 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:06:58 +0200, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> > > > > ("Olivier Borgeaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >2. Memory is actually very cheap
> > > > >
> > > > > Memory is NOT cheap
> > > >
> > > > That's strange...every probject that *I* have worked on the last
> > > > 5 years was built on the assumption that the performance/price
> > > > ratio of memory is significantly higher than nearly any other
> > > > aspect of the system.
> > > >
> > > > In 1980, $500 would get you 16 Kilobytes of 1 micro-second read/write
> > > > memory
> > > >
> > > > Now, $500 will get you about 512 MEGABYTES of 10-nanosecond read/write
> > > > memory.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > > ICQ # 3056642
> > > >
> > > And how much does the computer that will accept 512 meg of 10-nanosecond
> > > ram cost? I have three systems running here that won't run 10-nanosecond
> > > memory as the refresh rate is too slow. Do I need to buy a whole new
> > > system to upgrade my OS?
> >
> > IF YOU CAN AFFORD THE SYSTEM, then the price of memory is trivial.
> >
> > If you actually *HAVE* 30GB of data to put into a database, then
> > 1 to 2 GB of 10-ns read/write memory is trivial.
> >
> > --
> No, its not. I have the money to spend, but the price of memory includes
> the cost of the system to host it. In fact, adding another 128meg to my
> current setup would cost me about $1200, as I would have to buy a system
> capable of housing it. I could find used systems for $100-$200, but they
> won't host the current memory chips. I would rather spend the $1200 on
> airfare to Europe or Costa Rica, thank you.
If you can't afford a grand for 1G of memory, then obviously, your
data isn't worth that much.
I do understand your spending priorities (airfare :-), though.
--
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] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: 7 Sep 2000 03:35:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >> >> It's because he lives in a grove of birch trees.
>> >> >> A special kind of birch trees, in fact.
>> >> >> John Birch trees :-)
>> Closest dictators?
>Yes, Loren, like you.
>Remember when you told us that the sign of success is to have
>"thousands of underlings groveling at one's feet" ?????
This picture was inspired by Mr. Kulkis's foaming at the mouth.
Also, let's get to some really fun stuff, like demonstrating that
Linux is a Communist conspiracy for the purpose of destroying capitalist
software such as Microsoft's.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:29:03 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Rick wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Rick wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rick wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Joe R." wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But a better thing would be to make the public schools at
> > > > > > > > > > least as
> > > > > > > > > > good as the private schools. I believe, perhaps naively,
> > > > > > > > > > that this
> > > > > > > > > > can be done; and even more naively, that it isn't simply
> > > > > > > > > > a matter of
> > > > > > > > > > money.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's much a matter of money; halving the class sizes
> > > > > > > > > requires doubling
> > > > > > > > > the number of teachers, for example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you believe that class size is the only thing wrong with
> > > > > > > > the schools,
> > > > > > > > of course.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is by no means the only thng wrong, but is a large part in
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > areas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please explain why the best universities in the world routinely
> > > > > > put their students through classes where the material is taught
> > > > > > in lectures where the class size is in the HUNDREDS.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Generally speak, those universities attract better students. Those
> > > > > students have learned how to learn.
> > > >
> > > > BINGO.
> > > >
> > > > Now, tell me why the public schools currently do everything they
> > > > can to PREVENT students from learning how to learn.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ***WE*** do not.
> >
> > Oh, really. Then why do American high school students' science and math
> > scores ABSOLUTELY SUCK compared to the rest of the industrialized world,
> > including such backwards places as Russia.
>
> Let's review:
>
> 1) American high school students' science and math scores are lower than
> average for industrialized nations.
> 2) Virtually every other industrialized nation has an educational system
> significantly more socialistic than ours.
> 3) BUT! The US educational system is secretly in the control of
> Communists!
The NEA is a thoroughly marxist organization deliberately sabotaging
the public schools.
> 4) So the only way to improve US education is to privatize it, moving
> _away_ from the way more successful countries do things.
No..the way to improve the US schools is to get the kids OUT of the
control of those who seek to make sure that they are incapable of
learning anything on their own.
>
> Are we supposed to take you seriously?
Open your eyes, blind man.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
> occurred during shipment.
>
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
--
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.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:29:38 -0400
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 04:30:35 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I wonder how the eco-paranoids can explain the ice ages and tropical
> >fossils well north of 40 degrees North latitude which occurred many
> >millions of years before the rise of man.
>
> Plate Tectonics. Look it up.
Doesn't work. Movement rates aren't fast enough.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
--
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: Eric Bennett <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:42:36 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Its particularly distressing, in
> light of your comments, to see (and I have) someone say, simply "it
> isn't illegal to _monopolize_" (emphasis added).
I don't think they're using "monopolize" in the legal sense. In common
use of the word, monopolize simply means to gain a monopoly, which can
in fact be done legally. The legal definition of monopolization is
defined to exclude these legal avenues, but most people aren't aware of
the distinctions between the common and legal usage.
> However, just
> because a law has not been explicitly written about something is no
> reason to avoid saying it is 'illegal', if there is no legal way to do
> it.
I've already explained how you can do it legally. The Vakerics text
makes it very clear. It's nearly impossible to accomplish in practice,
of course, but it *is* theoretically possible.
> Chances are more
> likely that your eyes read something else, but your mind, guided by the
> necessity to plug what you're reading into what you already know (and
> presuming that 'popular wisdom' is part of that), saw a clear mention of
> legal monopolies.
>
> If not, I'd appreciate a look at what you're thinking of, if you can
> track it down.
I've already provided extremely explict quotations, which you somehow
believe I've misread. I think you should consider that you yourself may
well have fallen into the mental trap you describe.
> Did Vakerics ever mention whether such a 'monopoly' was *possible*?
> Apparently, an earlier author, in a book called The Wealth of Nations,
> disagreed.
The Alcoa decision says it's possible, doesn't it? I agree that it is
*very* rare. Part of the reason, I think, is simple human nature: you
may have acquired monopoly power, legally, but once you acquire monopoly
power the temptation to avoid using it illegally proves to great. It's
much easier in the short term to weild that monopoly power than it is to
continue to stay ahead of the competition through true innovation.
> Why don't you remind me which duPont
> decision Vakerics referred to there, and I'll see what it says. I'd
> assumed it was the cellophane case, but I searched for 'intelligence'
> and then went through every occurrence of 'illegal', and couldn't find
> anything. The closest I could find is the phrase "monopolization of
> which may be illegal", but it appeared to be speaking in the abstract.
Vakerics was paraphrasing. So, it is certainly fair for you to ask for
the original text, which appears to me to be footnote 15 in the majority
opinion. The footnote quotes a Congressional debate over antitrust law
in which it is said that someone who acquires monopolistic powers
through superior skill is not to be condemned under the Sherman Act.
The footnote that Vakerics attached to his paraphrase says:
=====
[Footnote 5:]
In other words, in a situation where a person controls "the whole
business because no one else could do it as well as he could was not a
monopolist..." Id., 351 U.S. at 391 n.15 referring to legislative
history. See also:
Supreme Court: Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S.
752, 104 S. Ct. 2731, 2740 n.14, 81 L. Ed.2d 628 (1984) (stating that
the court has declared that Section 2 does not forbid market power
acquired as a result of superior business product or acumen).
Second Circuit: Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263
(2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1093 (1980) (while the courts
proclaim monopoly power is the evil at which Section 2 is aimed, the
courts have declined to declare monopolies unlawful per se).
Eighth Circuit: Super Turf, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 660 F.2d 1275 (8th
Cir. 1981) (the mere possession of monopoly power does not automatically
violate the Sherman Act)
=====
There are more citations in the footnote but unfortunately I am working
from a photocopy I made (the library does not permit anyone to check
this book out) and the footnote is cut off.
Some quotations from the Supreme Court cases:
=====
The conduct of a single firm is governed by 2 alone and is unlawful only
when it threatens actual monopolization. It is not enough that a single
firm appears to "restrain trade" unreasonably, for even a vigorous
competitor may leave that impression.
- Copperweld, majority opinion
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=752
=====
=====
For example, the Court has declared that 2 does not forbid market power
to be acquired "as a consequence of a superior product, [or] business
acumen." United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 571 (1966).
- Copperweld, majority opinion, footnote 14
=====
Note that this reading agrees with my own interpretation of Grinnell:
"The Court has declared that 2 does not forbid market power to be
acquired as a consequence of a superior product, or business acumen."
=====
21 Cong. Rec. 3151:
"Mr. KENNA. Mr. President, I have no disposition to delay a vote on the
bill, but I would like to ask, with his permission, the Senator from
Vermont a question touching the second section: "`Every person who shall
monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any
other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade, etc.' "Is
it intended by the committee, as the section seems to indicate, that if
an individual engaged in trade between States or between States and
Territories, or between States or Territories and the District of
Columbia, or between a State and a foreign country, by his own skill and
energy, by the propriety of his conduct generally, shall pursue his
calling in such a way as to monopolize a trade, his action shall be a
crime under this proposed act? To make myself understood, if I am not
clear -
"Mr. EDMUNDS. I think I understand the Senator.
"Mr. KENNA. Suppose a citizen of Kentucky is dealing in shorthorn cattle
and by virtue of his superior skill in that particular product it turns
out that he is the only one in the United States to whom an order comes
from Mexico for cattle of that stock for a considerable period, so that
he is conceded to have a monopoly of that trade with Mexico; is it
intended by the committee that the bill shall make that man a culprit?
"Mr. EDMUNDS. It is not intended by it and the bill does not do it.
Anybody who knows the meaning of the word `monopoly,' as the courts
apply it, would not apply it to such a person at all; and I am sure my
friend must understand that."
Id., at 3152: "Mr. HOAR. I put in the committee, if I may be permitted
to say so (I suppose there is no impropriety in it), the precise
question which has been put by the Senator from West Virginia, and I had
that precise difficulty in the first place with this bill, but I was
answered, and I think all the other members of the committee agreed in
the answer, that `monopoly' is a technical term known to the common law,
and that it signifies - I do not mean to say that they stated what the
signification was, but I became satisfied that they [351 U.S. 377, 391]
were right and that the word `monopoly' is a merely technical term
which has a clear and legal signification, and it is this: It is the
sole engrossing to a man's self by means which prevent other men from
engaging in fair competition with him. "Of course a monopoly granted by
the King was a direct inhibition of all other persons to engage in that
business or calling or to acquire that particular article, except the
man who had a monopoly granted him by the sovereign power. I suppose,
therefore, that the courts of the United States would say in the case
put by the Senator from West Virginia that a man who merely by superior
skill and intelligence, a breeder of horses or raiser of cattle, or
manufacturer or artisan of any kind, got the whole business because
nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist, but that it
involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for
other persons to engage in fair competition, like the engrossing, the
buying up of all other persons engaged in the same business."
- United States v. Du Pont, majority opinion, footnote 15, discussing
the Congressional history of antitrust law
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=<%LINK
URL%>&graphurl=<%GRAPHURL%>&court=US&case=/us/351/377.html
=====
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
http://play.rbn.com/?url=swave/abc/g2demand/000904bush.rm&proto=rtsp
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
