Linux-Advocacy Digest #360, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 11:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:59:33 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 18:22:52 GMT;
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>It is the *consumers*, not the *producers*, (actually an abstraction of
>>the interactions between them know as "the market", but the consumers
>>have all the power, and the producers are mere supplicants) that set the
>>value of something. How much is a song worth, IN TERMS OF PRODUCTION
>>COST AND COMPETITIVE PROFIT? If the value of the song is inflated
>>outrageously simply because the owner makes it unavailable at a
>>(profitable but lesser) cost, then that is not "the value of the song".
>
>Do you really think that this is the way the statute would be applied?
I really think I could not guess what would happen in a courtroom.
>If I remember correctly, the sentencing guidelines for assessing the
>criminal penalities for the act explicitly use the retail value of the
>copied work. That's highly suggestive that the same computation would
>be used for determining whether the criminal copyright statute had
>been violated.
You honestly think it would be feasible for someone to charge a Napster
user with criminal charges?
>More interesting questions might be what is the assigned value of an
>individual song when the song is only obtainable through legal
>channels as part of an album or for a work which is out of print
>and not available at any price.
It is the same issue, just put less contentiously. It'll get you mired
in a quagmire of philosophical truths even quicker though, as the
metaphysical debates begin about what constitutes 'value'.
>Let's remember that the context for this discussion is the criminal
>statute and the triggering of penalties and not it's value to a
>given consumer who can obtain an illicit copy at little or no cost.
The value would HAVE to be the value to the given consumer, if he
couldn't obtain illicit copies, or there is simply no ethical support
for the law. Which means a Napster user would have to rip several dozen
albums to get even close to the legal threshold of $1000. But you know,
due to the oppressive curtailing of freedom driven by the corporations,
they'd want to count each download and multiply the value by that.
Thus, the epistemological discussions. We are not slaves to the
corporations, and we are not planning to be.
>As Jay pointed out, interpreting the statute with the song value
>interpreted your way would allow the infringer to avoid prosecution
>by destroyiung the market value of the song. No court would allow
>that.
My only intent was to compare the minuscule 'value' of a song to an
individual (very close to zero, even if you buy the CD) in comparison to
the 'value' of 'a song' to the producers. Which 'value' is the one that
the Napster user must confront? To say the first is to clean and gut
any legal condemnation of Napster, to say the second is to support
profiteering. I'd prefer to do neither, but there seems no third
alternative. Left without options, I have to defend Napster. I'm still
looking for alternatives, though.
>You were simply wrong about there being no criminal statutes concerning
>infringement.
No, I was simply mistaken. There are no criminal statutes concerning
non-commercial infringement. Or at least that was the intent of the
$1000 threshold. Unfortunately, the explicit figure gives the wrong
spin, having been codified before almost infinite replication of a song
at almost zero cost was feasible.
> You backpedalled a little by stating that a commercial
>enterprise was required, but that too was wrong. Willful copying of
>10 copies or $1000 worth of copyrighted material is a violation of
>paragraph 506(a)(2) of Title 17 even if not for commercial or personal
>gain. Note the "or" at the end of paragraph 506(a)(1).
>
>Just go on to something else. Wallowing around in this is just making
>you look worse. It's costing you the last of your usenet credibility.
I have never been even the tiniest bit concerned about 'usenet
credibility'. Only real credibility. You seem to be under the
impression that I'm not owning up to my mistakes. This is untrue. I am
merely interpreting the law as I understand it. I see no reason to
quibble about some mythical pirate who gives out ten copies of a CD from
the goodness of his heart. The intent was to curtail commercial
infringement (actually, plagiarism: piracy) WITHOUT criminalizing
private copying. That much seems clear. If you'd like to argue the
point, I suggest you do so directly, rather than trying to site me as an
authority somehow in danger of losing credibility.
Thank you (well, Lee, actually) for correcting my mistake concerning
criminal violation of copyright; you are right that I was in error on
the broader point. *Commercial* infringement is, indeed, criminal. My
bad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:59:44 GMT
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 23:54:42 GMT;
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>You seem to have missed the very point of my statement. Whether
>>something is criminal is based on its value, so it is YOU that is
>>begging the question and basing your position on the presumption it has
>>already been proven correct.
>
>I base my position on the advice of a friend who's a practicing copyright
>attorney. I have no idea where you fished your opinions out of.
The writings of judges, mostly. Believe it or not, judges are known to
disagree with practicing attorneys. (!)
>>It is the *consumers*, not the *producers*, (actually an abstraction of
>>the interactions between them know as "the market", but the consumers
>>have all the power, and the producers are mere supplicants) that set the
>>value of something. How much is a song worth, IN TERMS OF PRODUCTION
>>COST AND COMPETITIVE PROFIT? If the value of the song is inflated
>>outrageously simply because the owner makes it unavailable at a
>>(profitable but lesser) cost, then that is not "the value of the song".
>
>Wrong.
>
>The value of the song, *as far as the court is concerned*, is determined
>simply: The standard measure of damages is the profits that the corporate
>owner lost. This is settled law. This applies to criminal cases as well as
>civil damages.
>
>You are, quite simply, wrong...once again.
Yes, that was the point I was trying to address. Do you honestly think
this makes sense, that a corporation can claim that they "lost" millions
of dollars in revenue because someone posted a song on Napster?
Shouldn't the fact that they are obviously gouging the public (are you
saying the technology that made it possible to share a single copy of a
song with millions of people for very very little cost somehow didn't
cause the price of a copy of a song to drop several orders of
magnitude?) indicate that songs should be worth what people are willing
to pay for them, regardless of how much the profiteers might demand for
'legal' copies? People who download music from Napster are obviously
not willing to pay for those songs. The supposition that they "would
have" purchased a full-price copy is, frankly, ludicrous.
So I say, since a company cannot PROVE that they 'lost' any revenues,
the value of the song on Napster is closer to zero than it is to the
millions the company would claim, and certainly below $1000, unless the
guy who ripped it had to pay $1000 to get it to begin with.
Please, don't expect me to be shocked or concerned if a copyright lawyer
would disagree with this position. Du-uh.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:59:53 GMT
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 00:06:53 GMT;
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:38 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>Copyright protects the author's right to control who copy his work.
>>Why?
>
>Because Congress and the courts say it does.
No, because the Constitution says it must.
>It's apparent you don't take
>that as sufficient cause. That's your problem...but if you choose to act on
>that belief, you may well find that the real world reasserts its power over
>you, quite painfully.
Go suck an egg. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:00:02 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 06:24:21
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 00:42:56
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:45:43
>> >> >On Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:16 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [...]
>> >> >Nonsense. Copyright protects an expression of the idea, not the idea.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that is the kind of metaphorical description that makes copyright
>> >> law "nonsense" in the hands of the naive. Copyright protects the
>bottom
>> >> line, whether authors get paid, not any 'expression of ideas'.
>> >
>> >No, it doesn't.
>>
>> Oh? Why doesn't it? How doesn't it?
>>
>> >Copyright protects the author's right to control who copy his work.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because it's *his*? Just because it's IP doesn't mean it can't be stolen,
>only that you need different set of rules, because people have clear
>distinction between real objects and IP.
Actually, you are mistaken. Because it is IP means it cannot be stolen.
It can be infringed, plagiarized, or pirated, but it cannot be "stolen".
>> >This mean that I can (legally) stop you from copying my work.
>>
>> To what end? Why do you have a right to control someone else's
>> behavior? (Note: claiming 'property rights' is only begging the
>> question; copyright law is what creates intellectual property rights,
>> and so you cannot assume that intellectual property exists to begin with
>> in order to justify copyright law.)
>
>No, IP is the justification of copyright, and is the way you control your
>IP, not the other way around.
I'm afraid you're mistaken again, quite pointedly. IP is *created* by
copyright, it is not 'the justification of' copyright. The basic
purpose, what you would think of as the 'existence' of IP, is created by
the Constitution (in US law, anyway). In the duties required of
Congress:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
You see, Ayende? This whole metaphysical substance, "intellectual
property", is really just a convention for figuring out how to pay
authors and inventors for their works. Simply "having rights" doesn't
do an author any good; the purpose of this mechanism is to ensure those
rights result in financial motivation, to provide the "public policy
purpose" of copyright. These 'exclusive rights', copyright protection
itself, have even been revoked, and partially suspended, by judges
because their application was found to be contrary to this 'public
policy purpose' of copyright.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:00:16 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 16:11:11
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:39 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Protcting "expression of ideas" is protecting the right to express
>the ideas.
No, "free speech" is protecting the right to express ideas.
>Protecting "expressions of ideas" is protecting a
>specific expression of a specific idea.
Copyright is a way of mitigating free speech so that the development of
science and art does not stop, for lack of financial incentive to
scientists and artists. Still, their financial incentive does not
really 'trump' free speech, as Lasercomb America found out.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:00:32 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 06:03:02
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> No, the question is whether it would be legal. If it would be legal for
>> the FSF, it would be legal for Microsoft; THAT is what determines
>> whether it *is* fair.
>
>You have a *really* twisted view about the law, if you think it has anything
>to do with fairness.
I have a twisted view about everything, Ayende. Stop thinking I'm going
to apologize for it.
If the law doesn't have anything to do with fairness, Ayende, it is not
a law, as far as I am concerned; it is simply an excuse for oppression.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:00:41 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
>On Tue, 8 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
>> [...]
>>> I think you meant to say that it's an irrelevancy. Especially since you
>>> tried to claim that a program written that uses an API is derivative of
>>> a particular implementation of that API ("a library"). Which is ...
>>> well, let's just say that it's one of your sillier ideas, which is
>>> something worth noting.
>> Stop acting like a simpleton. Your metaphysical idea of "an API" as
>> having anything to do with the matter is what is preventing you from
>> acting like a reasonable person, knowledgable of the issue and balanced
>> in your opinion. If you need to go study for a few years before you
>> could possibly understand that statement, it wouldn't surprise me.
>> Perhaps you're simply not bright enough to understand that it is
>> perfectly reasonable and accurate.
>
>One wonders, perchance, why Maxie feels it necessary to pretend that
Max wonders why you seem unable to address him like an adult would.
>everything is about metaphysics. Maybe he can't think of things in real
Because most people use a lot of metaphysical ideas in the way they
'explain' how the world works to themselves. Illogical, unscientific,
yet still undeniably practical. As long as ignorance doesn't bother
you, that is.
>terms, so he has to resort to meta-discussions ... where he sounds just
>as foolish as he does every other time.
You don't honestly think philosophers are insulted when everyone else
claims they're just playing word-games, do you?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:00:51 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
[...]
>You're right, of course, and he's long since exhausted his amusement
>value. I only bang my head against walls for so long before realising
>that this one really isn't going to budge from his unreality.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:01:05 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 16:13:43
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> I'm trying to point out
>>the metaphysical nature of this thing that everyone wants to treat as if
>>it were a concrete thing.
>
>It is a concrete thing, that's why your attempts to show it as
>being of metaphysical nature are so laughable.
Oh, yea, real concrete. Kind of like "vapid". A very concrete thing,
'vapid'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:01:07 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
[...]
>If you read what was said, instead of foolishly babbling on like you
>normally do, you'd have noted that Ayende was saying that working with
>an undocumented function call is like being in an elevator with
>unnumbered buttons that aren't necessarily in an easily-discoverable [...]
Talk about babbling on foolishly....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:01:16 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 05:42:32
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
>> >On Sun, 6 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
>20:23:30
>> >>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>>> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
>> >>>> unless the function is documented?
>> >>> Of course it would work. The problem would be that you wouldn't know
>> >>> what it does.
>> >>> Similar to standing on an elevator, when the floors' buttons has no
>> >>> numbers, or any other identification.
>> >> How much you want to bet that I can quickly get to the floor I want,
>> >> every time?
>> >
>> >If the numbers aren't anywhere on or near the buttons, and they're not
>> >necessarily wired in an ascending or descending order, then you're not
>> >going to get where you expect to quickly -- or at all.
>>
>> "If... if... if...." What's your point?
>
>There are no numbers, the buttons are in no particular order, and any or all
>of them might fill the elevator in poisoned gas, is that better description?
>Oh, they are also pressure sensitive, so you are going to be *very* carfeul
>about the time and strength you push a button, too.
[...]
And nowhere along the way it occurs to you that you're just building a
little unfalsifiable delusion, rather than an analogy, I'll bet.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:01:28 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 05:58:55
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >No, it certainly isn't expected to break if I don't have a full
>> >documentation of the library that it uses.
>>
>> Don't people notice when they make their statements unfalsifiable? Or
>> do they simply not realize how completely it refutes their own point?
>
>Within the scope of this discussion, this is no unfalsified statement.
There are no 'scopes' which make unfalsifiablity an acceptable thing, as
far as I am concerned.
[...]
>API is a real object, you could get hurt by it.
>Provable quite easy, ask a non-friend to throw at you one of Win32 API,
>complete annonated reference, see how much you can get hurt by a platonic
>object.
That would be the reference to the API, though. You don't seem to
understand what is meant by "API", if you assume it is simply the
reference book *for* the API. So just how much would the API (not the
documentation of the API) hurt, should it somehow get flung through
metaphysical space in my general direction?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:01:25 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 05:44:09
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 00:00:53
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
>12:15:23
>> >> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:Pg3J6.9817$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its
>> >function
>> >> >> does.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function
>call
>> >> >> > unless the function is documented?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He means that the program must be expected to break when you upgrade
>> >> >> the library to the next version if you use anything beyond what is
>> >> >> documented. If you link statically that might not be a problem.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not the library is expected to break if what is uses have been changed
>or
>> >> >remove.
>> >> >Otherwise, it can go on happily with any number of updates.
>> >>
>> >> "Can" != "will".
>> >
>> >Can == Will in computer world.
>> >This is a deterministic enviroment, T. Max.
>>
>> No, it is a conditional environment; "can" != "will".
>
>Do you *know* what deterministic mean?
Yes. Do you know what conditional means?
>If you don't break the contract, it can & *will* go on happily.
As long as it does, yes. Unless it doesn't.
>If you break the contract, it can't, and won't.
>Got that?
Yea, sure, it's easy to understand, as all metaphysics are, once you
convince yourself they're not metaphysics.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:01:39 GMT
Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 16:46:17 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I think you're just steam-rolling towards the destination you've already
>> picked out. There is plenty of evidence just like the letter Rick
>> showed. The point is, such evidence is non-compelling, in a legal
>> sense; Microsoft can't be convicted for simply choosing not to sell
>> Windows without DOS. Anti-trust doesn't work like that. It is the
>> monopolization, not the strategies used to monopolize, which are
>> illegal.
>
>There are laws and agreements, you know. I personally don't see why it
>should matter to anyone but the customer as to how Microsoft wants to
>package what they have to sell. If the consumer doesn't like it, the
>consumer will be more likely to buy an Apple computer or a Linux computer
>the next time. Microsoft isn't losing their customers, that's a fact.
>Maybe they could gain more by doing something different, maybe not. That's
>up to Microsoft's management to decide.
Microsoft isn't losing their customers, yes that is a fact. It is also
evidence of criminal activity, whether you want to believe it or not.
Now, the typical brain-dead excuse for an argument at this point would
be to play up some rhetorical opportunity. So you might want to claim
that I just declared that all companies who fail to lose customers are
breaking the law. But I've already answered that issue, in the very
paragraph you are referring to, so make sure you understand just how
clueless you'll look if you try to pursue it.
>But any tying contract where you have to buy two separate products such as
>Windows 3.1 and MSDOS was prohibited to Microsoft after 1995 as part of the
>Contempt Agreement. That became a law vis-a-vis Microsoft. Novell could do
>it with DR-DOS and Novelle Lite, but Microsoft could not. And, in fact,
>they have not done so since the agreement was signed. That is a fact.
Again, I'll refer you back to the explanation for these disconcerting
'facts' in the paragraph quoted at the start of this message.
>It is also a fact that the popularity of Windows software has not declined
>in the market subsequent to the 1995 Consent Agreement and the OEMs are
>still in need of being able to supply it to the consumers who do not want
>anything else. It's the same phenomenon as last Christmas when the Barbie
>Volkswagens were flying off the shelves and other models and similar
>products were not selling. The consumer is fickle and the vendors know
>that. They fall in line because their customers make them do so. Until
>somebody comes up with something that the bulk of consumers want instead of
>Windows, Windows is going to be the king of the hill. And that's a fact.
You couldn't be more clueless if you tried. And that is a fact, because
it is obvious you are trying very hard indeed.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
