Linux-Advocacy Digest #46, Volume #29 Mon, 11 Sep 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Gary Hallock)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T.
Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Sidlinger")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Sidlinger")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:10:51 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Damien wrote:
> No freaky stuff. Just a segfault. Everytime. No cascade failure.
> No crash. If I had more time I would write the program you described
> and run it a few thousand times on a Linux and Sun box. If some one
> would be so kind as to write the C code I'll still do it.
>
No need to. I've been doing program development and testing all day. I got a
little too ambitious and tried running the program upon first successful
compile (hey, it was only a few thousand lines of code). Lots of core
dumps. No crashes :-)
Gary
------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:43:31 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >I don't think they're using "monopolize" in the legal sense.
>
> I think they're using it in the 'we don't understand why monopolization
> is illegal, so we'll make up whatever ad hoc rules appear to explain the
> government's behavior in preventing it' sense. I'd prefer the legal
> sense, since the simplicity of the Sherman Act is an important part of
> understanding what is and is not allowed. It is illegal to monopolize.
> There is no other sense.
Here is another sense for you:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=monopolize
2.To dominate by excluding others: "monopolized the conversation."
I submit that the behavior described in this sense is not illegal.
> I have just spent several weeks, months if you include the fact that I'd
> already had very similar arguments last year with David Petticord on
> alt.destroy.microsoft, going over all this same ground concerning first,
> the term 'anti-competitive', then the word 'monopoly'. Now you expect
> me to go through it all again because you're going to switch the word
> you insist I'm redefining to 'monopolize'.
You're really overreacting. All I did was point out that there are
other definitions of "monopolize" out there. I didn't say yours was
wrong, just that you need to recognize that sometimes people are using
other definitions.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Lighthouse, n. A tall building on the seashore in which the government
maintains a lamp and the friend of a politician.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:38:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ville Niemi in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> You're being pedantic, I'm afraid. You're also slightly misrepresenting
>> what was actually asked, which was, "How you can monopolize without
>> being a monopoly?" You are the one who went post-modern and confused
>> whether you call someone a monopoly with whether they are a monopoly.
>
>Yes on being pedantic. And I'm not mispresenting what I (as in me) was
>trying to say. I did not confuse anything, except you it seems. What I did
>was to be pedantic in an irritating, bad joke fashion. In this I was
>successful.
>
>What is this with post-modern? Don't you like post-modern literature? Or
>post-modern philosophy? Or the word or the concept? If you have a button to
>push please tell me, I love irritating people. Besides, we seem to have so
>many similar views that your opinions are of interest to me in general.
The only 'button' I really have is ridicule. As for 'post-modern', it
is 'post-modern philosophy' that I 'don't like'. The concept. It is a
conceptual trap that many fall into, even outside the world of
philosophy. General soft-headedness. I won't drag it out.
Besides, I am actually the one who asked "how can you monopolize without
being a monopoly"; I did it to illustrate the problem you were having
with the word 'monopoly', which is common.
>> Well put. What you may be missing is that I've been on something of a
>> little crusade for the past few months to discourage people from calling
>> a company that is not monopolizing "a monopoly", simply because they
>> have a large market share. European anti-trust laws are essentially
>> similar to American ones (though I'd love to see some examples, to be
>> honest; do you have anything like the Sherman Act?) so while common
>> usage of the term may vary due to socio-political factors, the point is
>> that a monopoly is a company that monopolizes, regardless and
>> independent of whether they have exclusive or predominant market share.
>
>Well, okay, I suppose having a different concept of monopoly causes a
>different concept of monopolizing. Makes sense actually. Or is it the other
>way, different ways of monopolizing causing a different way of being a
>monopoly?
All monopolization is anti-competitive actions. All monopolies act
anti-competitively. The richness of US anti-trust law is based on this
basic tenant, which is called 'the rule of reason'. The Sherman Act is
a very strange law, in many ways. The first section outlaws all
contracts in restraint of trade. The second section outlaws
monopolization, which is a 'way' of restraining trade. The courts, in
trying to figure out what Congress meant the law to mean, have said that
the second section outlaws "all means which may lead to" restraint of
trade. In either case, it isn't a particular action or even type of
action, but a *class* of action; any that intentionally restrains trade,
in the first case, and any that intentionally increases market share (at
the cost of profit or competition), in the second.
>As for the legislation bit, I don't know. Historically, monopolies have been
>state owned or controlled, or had so good political connections they might
>as well be. Now with the union and integration superceding national
>legislation (in theory, at least) and creating at the same time a bigger
>pond for the sharks to swim in the question of what to do with private
>monopolies has been pretty academical.
It sounds like you're going through what we went through a hundred years
ago. I don't mean to intone that Europe is regressive (though their
support for free market economics is certainly still growing), but
simply that the issues you're describing are the same as we dealt with
then. The railroads were a precipitating matter; the government
provided 'land grants' (a kind of 'sovereign monopoly', you might say),
and the railroads expected to be able to use it as if they were grants
of monopoly. They soon found out that they weren't. In 1890, Senator
Sherman championed the law which bears his name, outlawing directly all
monopolization and attempted monopolization. In the US, we don't have
'government granted monopolies'. We do have public utilities, which are
close, but not quite the same thing.
>All I know is that monopolizing is a big no no. I think, from observing
>actual cases on the press, that the directives allow the authorities to
>simply order the company to stop monopolizing and allow competition equal
>access to the infrastructure that would give an unfair market advantage.
In extreme cases, the same can be done over here. The Bell Telephone
system (AT&T) was given the status of a public utility in the early part
of the twentieth century, in order to provide 'universal service'. It
is the rules under which they built our national telephone network which
allows us, still, to have unlimited 'local dialing'. Which is why US
citizens rarely pay per-minute fees for Internet access, but Europeans
generally do. (Do you?)
Once universal service was in place, the gov't restricted AT&T from
monopolizing the infrastructure (the local connections). We're still
working on the 'equal access' part, but I think that fallout from the
Microsoft case might actually start opening up the 'local loop', once
its over with.
>Also bundling one service or product with another can be simply forbidden if
>the authorities think its unfair marketing, and I'm typing this on a
>material example of this so I know.
How's that? (Read further for the explanation; its kind of bizarre,
really - tmd)
>Anyway, the idea seems to be to prevent anyone from gaining a dominating
>market position in the first place, and if they have one to force them to
>let competition enter the market. In fact on this general idea I'm pretty
>certain since Finland just joined (´95 or maybe '92, irrelevant detail) the
>union, and we had several state owned monopolies and anti-competitive market
>practices that are being dismantled with transition periods.
Yes, this sounds like a reasonable understanding. I've explained the
rule of reason to others (though I am no authority on it myself) as "if
what you did decreases competition, and you knew it would, then you've
committed a crime." *ANYTHING* a company does which raises 'barriers to
entry' for new competitors is considered forbidden. Free markets are a
matter of market *sales*, not market *share*.
>Did Netscape complain to the Union? If they could convince the authorities
>that operating systems and browsers are separate markets, and if Washington
>wouldn't stand up to protect an American company from foreign protectionism,
>they propably could force Microsoft to stop bundling a functional browser
>with the operating system.
By the time that might have happened, the idea of 'a functional browser'
would have disappeared entirely. Its only been two years, and a lot of
people in the US already forget the difference between a browser and an
OS. It goes without saying, I think, that those are the people that
have the least clue about how computers work, but that's beside the
point. Nobody starts out knowing how computers work.
[...]
>I'm writing this and suddenly realizing that I am actually answering your
>anti-trust law question by deduction after I confessed publically my
>ignorance on the subject. If I understand the concept of a trust correctly
>(using your market share on one market to make it impossible to compete in
>another, usually by bundling products either straight out or by giving a
>sizeable discount, right?), I actually KNOW from actual cases that it is a
>market violation.
I didn't realize you were actually so different in your conception, as a
citizen, but I should have. As a citizen of Finland, I have to say that
you literally have *no idea* how anti-socialist Americans are. Over
here, there's people screaming to privatize *primary school education*.
Can you believe it?
Anyway; a 'trust' is a business or combination of businesses that lock
out competition, by various means. What you've described is called
'technical tying', sometimes referred merely as 'bundling', which is
forcing the customer to accept one product in order to purchase another,
and 'dumping', which is selling products at below cost until the
competition goes out of business. The term 'trust' is a broader one
than 'monopoly', as it can extend to multiple businesses "colluding"
with one another, which is also outlawed, by the Clayton Act.
> The computer I'm using to write this came bundled with an
>internet connection, EXCEPT I am only getting the use of computer (necessary
>for internet), the computer itself belongs to the ISP... The point is that
>originally you did get the computer for yourself, (the ISP doesn't need
>obsolete computer), but the competition complained about a market violation,
>and the ISP had to rewrote the deal so that the computer is no longer
>bundled in. Also the phone company I'm using had to completely restructure
>their financial structure. And of course in the few years of union many
>mergers have been stopped (they need approval here) because it was felt they
>would give a dominating market position. At the moment they are arguing
>about the schedule for opening the postal service to free competition.
Companies used to need approval for mergers here, as well, but now its
just an administrative pretense, most of the time. We need to start
enforcing that, I think. "Growth by acquisition" is not a competitive
business model.
>Frankly, considering how hard it is to monopolize in Europe, private
>European monopolies seem at the moment pretty ephemeral. If monopolizing is
>strictly forbidden, the market would propably kill any monopolies without
>direct intervention, making separate anti-monopoly laws would seem
>redundant. It doesn't mean there aren't any, just that finding an example
>would be difficult.
LOL. Adam Smith (who I think was Scottish) explained several hundred
years ago precisely what you just said: free markets prevent monopolies.
But his theory of free markets presumed pro-competitive action by all
producers (and consumers). When a business acts anti-competitively,
they can get a 'market edge' that enables them to control prices or
inhibit competition, particularly if they have a very large market
share.
That's the basis of the 'rule of reason' in US anti-trust law. Since a
free market will prevent monopolies from forming through competition,
any time a single company gains very large market share, it means they
haven't been acting competitively. By 'competitive action', we mean
"make the best product you can at the cheapest cost you can and
distribute it as conveniently (for the consumer) as you can." Anything
else is against the law. :-)
>It does seem that the administrative approach we (you) mentioned earlier,
>does make a great difference in the actual implementations of laws or
>directives that have the same goals and principles. It's propably because in
>the US the free market is a basic right people take for granted, while in
>the EU we are having to actually work if we want to gain it. I expect the
>people who wrote those free market directives spent some time studying 'the
>American Way' and then tried to improve on the implementation part in order
>to solve the uniquely European problems your legislation doesn't need to
>worry about.
>
>> I'm sorry for being an ogre. The reason I seem so adamant about what
>> many consider a trivial point is that they don't teach it in any
>> business courses, as far as I know. The immediate cause for my ranting,
>> which began weeks ago, was getting frustrated at the frequent posting of
>> the statement "its not illegal to have a monopoly, its only illegal to
>> use one to gain another". This is prompted by obvious causes, notably
>> the Microsoft verdict. One of the strong proofs I use to show that
>> "having a monopoly", which is to say 'monopolizing', or, at best,
>> 'having a large market share and monopolizing' (in contrast to merely
>> having a large market share), is in and of itself illegal.
>
>Ogre? You think big of yourself, don't you?
<G> I just meant that it might have seemed like I was 'jumping all over
you' and not paying attention to what you were saying. It happens
sometimes when you start posting to a newsgroup, and presenting the same
arguments that have already been discussed a thousand times before.
>Many people seem to confuse 'breaking the law' with actually getting caught
>and convicted. One of the side-effects of political correctness and having
>to call known criminals suspects, I suppose. Since its difficult to get
>convicted for having a monopoly, many people WILL think monopolizing is
>legal. Its bit like red lights (or old greens), you rarely get caught so you
>think its okay to do.
Yes, that seems to be the situation we have here. I would say that the
majority of business people think that 'winning', rather than competing,
is the goal of business. By 'competing', you make a profit. By
'winning', you get a conviction.
>I read some years ago a book about the development of moral sense, I don't
>have it for reference, but the main point was that as people mature the way
>they view right and wrong changes from 'mama will get angry' thru 'it's
>illegal' to actually understanding the issues. Some people get stuck at
>'mama will get angry' level. Most people never gain real understanding of
>the actual ethics behind the laws. I found this quite interesting, which is
>why I still remember it. It would seem to explain lots of things that seem
>incomprehensible. Like why your ranting has so little effect.
Quite incisive. I do think big of myself, though, so I hope it has some
little effect, at least. If just one or two people say "yea, that *is*
anti-competitive" and understand the issues a little clearer and make
decisions (as either consumer or producer) in a more ethical way, it is
all worthwhile.
>> Section 2 of the Sherman Act outlaws monopolizing and attempting to
>> monopolize. Its not common knowledge, but Microsoft was convicted on
>> _two_ counts against section 2: one for *having a monopoly* in PC OSes,
>> and one for attempting to monopolize the market in web browsers. In
>> *addition*, they were convicted of one count of 'restraint of trade', a
>> section 1 offense, for tying the browser to the OS. They were acquitted
>> on a single count, of restraining trade by 'exclusive contracts'
>> intended to prevent Netscape from finding any distribution channels for
>> their browser.
>>
>> When I want to sound really extremist, I define the crime of
>> monopolization as 'paying any attention whatsoever to your market
>> share'.
>
>Would 'Letting your market share determine any part of company policy' sound
>okay to you? I could build a case for that, propably...
That's it, yes. Any consideration at all of market share is simply
monopolization, plain and simple. A lot of Americans (not just because
of Microsoft) are convinced that the only way to be successful in
business is to try to prevent others from doing so.
>> [BTW; is there something you can do about your newsreader? Like, get a
>> real one? Outlook Express is doing nasty things to the subject lines,
>> and regularly appears to botch threading, as well. Thanks.]
>
>Propably, but as long as it doesn't corrupt the content I just chalk it up
>as one more reason to dislike Microsoft. I am going for a little trip but
>when I return I'll try to fix the subject line. What is it doing to
>threading?
I have no idea, but the subject lines adds a 'VS:' at the beginning
every time you respond, and the "Reference" header doesn't identify
valid message IDs. I don't know why.
--
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: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:33:46 -0500
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That could crash Windows 98, but do you honestly think writing to an
invalid
> memory location is going to crash Unix? Possibly in a device driver, but
no
> way in an app running in user mode.
>
> Gary
>
>
Exactly my point. You would have to have access to kernel memory to do it
in NT, also. Personally, I don't like the everyone comparing Windows 9x to
any other OS. 9x was never meant to be a robust OS (whoops, did I say
something negative about MSFT? Maybe I'm not blindly loyal to them after
all). I think that you can really only draw comparisons between Unix/Linux
and NT (or 2000). 9x does not have any type of security, for instance.
Also, the level of expertise required to run any Unix variant is far greater
than the guy who just wants to play Tiberian Sun. (Or whatever the latest
craze is, I've been out of that loop for a while). By the way, did anyone
know that Compaq is *guaranteeing* 99.99% uptime for its Win2000 Datacenter
servers?
- David
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:06:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The point is you buy a copy
>> of the IP; the trade secret license you are forced to accept is
>> secondary. You aren't 'purchasing a license' in the *copyright* sense,
>> because you don't need permission to purchase, own, or use a copy of
>> someone else's IP. You only need a copyright license in order to
>> produce or distribute copies. The licenses you agree to when you
>> 'purchase' software have nothing to do with copyright permissions. It
>> is copyright which prevents you from copying software, not the license.
>
>You do in fact need a license to use someone elses IP if they have
>specifically restricted use of it. The copyright act of 1976 specifically
>allows for license of copyrighted works.
What utter inverse logic. You need a license to use IP "if" (because)
copyright law says you do. Yes, any commercial transaction can be
'specifically restricted', but that hasn't anything to do with IP. The
copyright act of ANY YEAR specifically *requires* permission (license)
to copy a copyrighted work in any of the ways listed in copyright law.
[...]
>This makes no sense.
That means you didn't understand it. Read it again, until you do. You
may to do some research. Once it makes sense (you understand it), if
you disagree with it, feel free to ask questions.
>If you were required to agree to a license before
>acquiring the software, they couldn't sell shrink-wraped license products.
LOL. They used to put the license on the outside of the box, for just
this reason. When they started putting them inside the box, there was a
bit of a stir, but nobody really cared. When they started putting it on
the CD (Click "agree" to agree to this license) it was questioned again.
The fact is, nobody's ever bothered to try to fight these licenses, and
that's the only reason they still exist. But, yes, you have to agree to
the license in order to legally acquire the software. I didn't say
anything about opening the box; that was something you made up. (I'm
not saying it was inappropriate, I'm just saying it isn't really an
issue.)
>You would have to sign the agreement before purchasing the software.
Sign? Nobody's "signed" a shrink wrap license for decades, if ever.
>You
>would also not be able to download software that has a click-through
>license, because the mere act of downloading it would violate the license.
You do understand the concept of 'click-through', don't you? You did
use the term, after all.
>> This understanding is based on the Lasercomb America v. Reynold's case,
>> in 1987. http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html#fn61
>
>Case law must be taken in context. No one piece of case law adequately
>describes every situation.
Which is to say....?
(The url, by the way, is a paper on 'overreaching', and cites a number
of pieces of case law to describe the situation.)
>> "{39} On appeal, the Fourth Circuit decided that the non-compete clause
>> of the license agreement was anti-competitive and
>> contrary to public policy.[68] The court upheld the defendant's
>> copyright misuse defense and held that the plaintiff's copyright,
>> as well as the license agreement, were unenforceable.[69]"
>>
>> Note that by attempting to egregiously use the requirement to agree to a
>> trade secret license to limit the rights of the owner of a copy of the
>> intellectual property, the owner of the IP itself not only invalidated
>> the license, but also their copyright!
>
>No, the court found that the license was not legal, and therefore was not
>enforceable.
The court found the license was not legal, because it was overreaching
(by going beyond the bounds of copyright itself pursuant to copyrighted
works), and therefore *BOTH THE LICENSE AND THE COPYRIGHT* were not
enforceable.
>There's a difference between this and a legally enforceable
>license (and shrink-wrap licenses have been enforced in court. Example:
>Microsoft vs. Stac. Stac was found guilty of violating MS's no-reverse
>engineering license.
Could you provide some reference? An url would be preferable.
>Further, the court found that because they were misusing their copyright,
>they forfeited the copyright.
Who? Stac?!? I'm afraid you'll have to provide some more information;
as far as I was aware, Stac won the suit, and Microsoft lost. Maybe I'm
thinking of some other case...
>> The point is an EULA does *NOT* confer the 'right' to use the software.
>> You already HAVE that right, as the legal owner of the copy. What the
>> EULA does is *restrict* YOUR RIGHT to use the software, by requiring
>> that you agree to a trade secret license, unrelated to copyright
>> protection, in order to *acquire* the software.
>
>The caselaw you cited said no such thing.
I don't believe I said it did. Are you trying to refute the statement,
or not?
--
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: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:03:20 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Because you want an Oracle-optimized version and support for it, I would
> presume, which is to say that you don't *have* to do any such thing.
> Since the OS itself is free, you're entitled (and hopefully able) to
> purchase such services elsewhere, or hire someone to do it as
> work-for-hire, if you like. Its only the code that's free, not the
> services which might make that code useful to you.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Red Hat sells 10,000 copies of the optimized
OS. I think this is a fair conjecture, as many companies would like to run
Oracle, and Oracle for Linux is free, so the relative cost of running Oracle
on a Linux server is small compared with running Oracle on NT or Unix. I'm
assuming that what you're getting with this package is a tweaked kernel, and
some enhancements (perhaps something like wizards or maybe full-blown
executables) that facilitate your running of Oracle on the server. The
gross revenue from these transactions would put Red Hat up $25,000,000.
Now, I don't know the lengths that Red Hat went to customize the OS, but I
think it would be fair to say that they may have paid 100 developers (pretty
high estimate) about $50,000/year for about six months to pull this off.
Factor in another 50 phone support techs at $35,000/year (support only lasts
a year), and you get the grand total of $4,250,000 paid out by Red Hat.
Let's double this figure for testing, marketing, etc.
So, now, we have a net profit of fifteen and a half million dollars by Red
Hat. Have they really added *that* much value to an essentially free
product. I just don't see how that can be. Aren't they (Red Hat) gouging
the customer on this one?
- David
Post Script: I know these figures may be a bit naive, as I have never
attended business school, but I think we *can* assume a 40% profit margin at
10,000 copies sold, and that margin would increase with volume.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
