Linux-Advocacy Digest #93, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 00:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:49 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 07 Jun 2001
>[snip]
>> >This seems rather weird to me. If Symatec thought
>> >highly enough of delegates to build WFC on them,
>> >why not support them in their own JVM?
>> >
>> >Perhaps MS insisted.
>>
>> That does seem likely, given the circumstances. Supporting WFC for Java
>> and Netscape would threaten the application barrier used to maintain the
>> OS monopoly.
>
>Not directly; WFC wouldn't magically work in
>Sun or Netscape JVMs, just because it didn't use
>delegates.
Why do you bring up magic?
>But MS needed an edge- some way for their
>product to be *better* than Suns.
What a naive attitude to have when examining anti-competitive actions,
to assume without even casual examination that they are competitive.
Rather counter-productive, don't you think? But, then, that is the
point, isn't it, to fail to actually examine any claim that MS
monopolizes?
>Otherwise
>nobody would use it; why sacrifice what portability
>Sun can give you if you gain nothing thereby?
People will use it if it is the only suitable alternative. The
difference between a 'superior product' and the lack of a 'suitable
alternative' is abstract, to some extent, I'll admit. That is why
judges consider opinions other than the accused when considering whether
a product has a large market share due to anti-competitive action,
rather than competitive merit.
Again, simply assuming competitive merit is counter-productive. If all
the edge that MS needs is control of prices or the ability to exclude
competition, then why do you presume that anything more of an 'edge' by
way of competitive merits would be necessary, or even attractive, to
them?
>For WFC and J++ to take off they needed to be
>better than Sun's offerings, and delegates offered
>a chance to do that.
Why? Why would they have to be "better" just to take off? Are you
under the impression that having two competing products in the same
market is somehow an impossibility?
>Just re-implementing Java exactly like
>Sun's Java is a ticket to nowhere.
Funny; one would think that if the market desired Java support, then
Java support itself would be a competitive advantage. Changing Java, as
a matter of fact, would then be a competitive disadvantage.
>It can
>never have any advantage over Sun's
>Java, since at best it is identical- and
>more likely it has some flaws.
More than likely, so does Sun's. You mistake the specification with the
implementation. This is the kind of abstraction error that make your
statements apparently dishonest. If you were forced to stick to talking
only about the code, or only about the "idea" of Java, then your
position would be logically self-contradicting.
>[snip]
>> >That seems a rather strange thing for IBM to cry about. Why
>> >should anyone expect Microsoft to product development
>> >tools for other platforms?
>>
>> To make money? If they're supposed to be so good at making tools, why
>> would they want to avoid turning a profit wherever they can?
>
>Building development tools for other platforms
>is high-cost,
This would indicate it can support high profits. You mistake the need
for capitalization with the need for production. Another one of your
supposedly invisible points of dishonesty.
>and you are at a permanent disadvantage
>against the platform vendor, because they can
>add any feature or address any problem and
>the most appropriate level- even if that is
>inside the OS. You can only change your
>IDE, compiler, and so on.
>This works in MS's favor on Windows, but
>against them everywhere else.
Indeed. So reverse the positions, recognizing that Windows, not Java,
is the platform under consideration, and explain to me how Microsoft's
actions in ensuring that all would-be competitors are at a permanent
disadvantage, using just the mechanisms you describe, are somehow
competitive? Hell, they're not even legal! A platform vendor does not
"own" the platform; confusion on that matter was laid to rest by court
decisions years ago. Any action they take to prevent competition *on*
the platform, or even *for* the platform, are unlawful,
anti-competitive.
>[snip]
>> >I'm sure there were 16-bit versions of VB. Didn't
>> >they predate 1995?
>>
>> Visual Basic? Hell no. Word had a macro language called WordBasic, but
>> even that wasn't any 'version of VB'.
>
>This makes the 16-bit nature of VBX controls
>hard to explain.
Then so be it. Much of MS's explanations about such things are really
just fibs. Whether meant to simplify the details, or obscure them, they
are inaccurate, inconsistent, and often impractical.
>> >I was under the impression that OCX controls
>> >were an effort to 'clean up' VBX controls and make
>> >them language-neutral and 32-bit compatible.
>>
>> Well, if so, it failed pretty badly. OCX controls don't seem much
>> better than VBX controls.
>
>Well, OCX controls *are* language-neutral, and
>they *do* work on 32-bit Windows.
Theoretically, perhaps. "Works" is a rather questionable concept when
dealing with monopoly crapware.
>So it appears they achieved their ends, if
>nothing else.
Rather badly, yes, as I said.
>> The whole thing was probably just more churn
>> to keep anyone from being able to compete on Windows. :-D
>
>Odd way to do it. Switching to OCX controls
>made it feasible for *other* development tools
>to use the same controls.
Meaning it made it rather unlikely they will use anything but
Microsoft's controls, enabling MS to monopolize with churn from that
point on.
>Making it possible for Borland to support
>OCX controls seems like a strange thing
>to do, if blocking competition is the aim.
I don't understand your logic. Excluding competition is a strategy, not
a tactic. Do you understand the difference?
>[snip]
>> >Mostly to keep all the goodies on your own platform,
>> >I should think.
>>
>> That makes no sense. It is only a successful gambit if you have "your
>> own platform". IOW, if you are monopolizing. MS owns their code, not
>> "the platform".
>
>MS owns Windows,
No, they don't. They own the copyright to the code, they own the
trademark to the brand, they do not own Windows as a platform. They
merely monopolize it.
>and if their development tools
>are available for Windows only, that is another reason
>why a developer might choose to target Windows
>only.
Indeed, and another reason they could be (and have been) convicted of
monopolizing.
>Which is, of course, exactly what MS wants.
Indeed, and another reason they could be (and have been) convicted of
monopolizing.
>> >Obviously, MS didn't think that important enough
>> >to keep MFC and WFC to themselves.
>>
>> No, they thought it would maintain their illegal monopoly; the only
>> reason they need to do anything.
>
>Collaborating with Symantec, IBM and so on seems
>like a strange way to do that.
To you, certainly, but you believe the idea that MS monopolizes is
ludicrous to begin with. So one suspects the problem is really just
that you are not thinking hard enough. Or simply pretending to think at
all. Sock puppets, trolls, children; these people don't need to think
very much. I will leave the category you belong to self-assigning.
>> All the other motivations you guys
>> give them are senseless flights of fancy. Why attribute to malice
>> (competitive aggression) what can be adequately explained by stupidity
>> (ignorance of the law)?
>
>I don't see how ignorance of the law can explain
>Microsoft's actions.
Ignorance of the fact that the actions are illegal explains why you and
MS defend the actions, Dan. It also explains Microsoft taking these
actions, unless you believe that they would knowingly act illegally.
>> >But farming things out to others has its drawbacks,
>> >for a platform vendor.
>>
>> Calling MS a platform vendor is like calling Firestone a car dealer.
>
>Well, they don;t make the hardware, but
>they *do* make everything that an applications
>sits on.
They specify the hardware; they have published a hardware standard for
the PC platform for years. The "sitting on" that you ascribe to
software components is a pointless abstraction, unless you are assuming
that all platforms are the basis of monopolization. They monopolize
what the applications sit on, that is the whole reason they have been
convicted in federal court of monopolizing.
I believe you are making that assumption, or at least pretending to do
so, that any and all 'platforms' are simply attempts to monopolize,
because your statements indicate that you do not realize that a) MS
monopolizes, and b) monopolization is illegal.
--
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:50 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Jun 2001
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> > Just re-implementing Java exactly like
>> > Sun's Java is a ticket to nowhere. It can
>> > never have any advantage over Sun's
>> > Java, since at best it is identical- and
>> > more likely it has some flaws.
>>
>> And watch the tide turn when MS gets out of beta with C#.
>> The shoe will somehow fit on the other foot all of a sudden.
>
>C# is IMHO something of a rehash of J++,
>actually- they are still pushing the same idea
>of "Java, only better at Windows", only they
>can't *call* it Java because Sun's lawyers will
>beat up Microsoft's lawyers.
Or, more honestly, because it would be illegal for them to do so.
>IMHO, C# will live or die on being better than
>Java, and I won't place bets on which it will be.
Of course you won't. Better to keep your options open. You never know
which position will be necessary to defend Microsoft's illegal
monopolization in the future.
>It could turn out that .NET will be no more than
>the Visual Basic of the next century.
According to Microsoft, VB revolutionized computing.
>Not that there's anything wrong with that, but
>IMHO MS means it to be a Java-killer, too, and
>that means they must succeed on the *back* end,
>too.
All they mean it to be, or need it to be, is a mechanism for maintaining
an illegal monopoly. As long as it does that, you will claim it "the
better product" and will then happily compare it to Java, but will claim
it was "the market", not Microsoft's anti-competitive actions, that
killed Java.
"Succeed" has a different meaning when you are talking about criminal
action or free market competition, you see. IOW, you are babbling when
you talk about 'back ends'. MS means it to be an anti-competitive
strategy to exclude competition, and that is what it is, regardless of
how you explain it or what fanciful and imaginary metaphors you use to
describe it.
--
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:53 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> >That is only because Symantec's Java machine (which Netscape licenses)
>for
>> >some strange reason does *not* support the WFC delegates feature (even
>> >though Symantec could have done so, as they are one of WFC's creators).
>>
>> They could have technically, but they needed access to MS source code,
>> so licensing probably would prevent them from doing something that might
>> directly help Java or Netscape. No such a "strange" reason, just an
>> anti-competitive one.
>
>They don't really need MS's source to do delegates,
>any more than they need Sun's source to do the
>rest of Java.
Actually, Sun doesn't use "churn" to monopolize Java, as MS does on
their platform, so you are, in fact, mistaken.
>[snip]
>> >I'm not saying that it would have been prohibitively difficult; I'm
>simply
>> >saying it wouldn't have made smart business sense.
>>
>> Business sense for a profit-seeking competitive firm, or for a criminal
>> monopoly? Does what makes sense for a criminal monopoly actually
>> qualify as "smart business?" Considering it is illegal and all?
>
>You seem very sure that there is *no* overlap
>between what a "profit seeking competitive firm"
>might do and what a "criminal monopoly" might do.
That is rather more astute of you to notice than I would have given you
credit for, to be honest.
>It is not obvious why competitive strategies
>that you would approve of (if there are any)
>would not work for MS.
They would work, but only competitively. If MS were to attempt to
employ *any* competitive strategy, at any time (except what we might
consider to be 'by accident'), then it would allow competition, thus
destroying their monopoly power. It certainly should be obvious that
only anti-competitive strategies allow maintaining monopoly power, since
only anti-competitive strategies can provide monopoly power to begin
with, or provide evidence of monopoly power, or describe the results of
monopoly power.
There really is, as you surmised, absolutely no overlap between what is
competitive and what is anti-competitive. There is, however, a great
deal of confusion on the matter.
>[snip]
>> MFC is an API; no licensing is necessary or possible.
>
>No. MFC is a framework and to use it you must
>have the source. Licensing is required. Win32 is
>the API under it, but it is not MFC.
So MFC is covered by a license similar to GPL, forcing anyone developing
an app relying on MFC components to be covered by a Microsoft license?
This is the reading I'm getting, though I am sure it is mistaken. I
don't understand what a "framework" is, or why source is required;
basically, I think you are just making up random abstractions to pretend
that MS's monopolization somehow "makes sense" in terms of conventional
software production.
>> Did these other
>> developers license Microsoft code to support this API?
>
>No. They write their own frameworks. Because
>quite simply, MFC isn't very good.
It isn't anything at all, from your description. It isn't the source
code, but is some mythical 'framework'. But nobody uses it and it isn't
any good?
Please, don't bother explaining. It is trivial nonsense, and has
nothing to do with the issues.
[...]
>The extension, by the way, is quite a lot
>like J++'s delegates.
>
>Is Borland a villain? Is what they did reprehensible?
Why would it be? They are hardly in danger of having monopoly power.
What makes you think that they do? Just the fact that their action has
a passing resemblance to some anti-competitive tactic that Microsoft
uses?
>> That is a
>> different thing; it indicates incompetence on MS's part, rather than any
>> third party, that you have to license MS code to get the MFC API to
>> work.
>
>You need source to get any framework to work; in a sense,
>that's what makes a framework different from an API;
>it's why frameworks are usually easier to work with, and
>it's also why can abandon backwards compatibility with
>comparative impunity.
You have managed to explain absolutely nothing. In this case, it makes
some sense for you to correct that oversight, so go ahead and try to
explain it in a way that makes sense this time. Perhaps if you provided
some alternative example of a 'framework' besides Microsoft stuff?
>[snip]
>> >Microsoft was also sensible enough to realize that some developers didn't
>> >want any part of Microsoft development tools for reasons having nothing
>to
>> >do with their quality (or perceived lack of it).
>>
>> Thus, the churn strategy to ensure that quality had nothing to do with
>> selling Windows development tools. I do *not* understand why people
>> *assume* that a product has competitive merit, when it is sold by a
>> monopolist. It just makes no bloody sense.
>
>Some of us use these products, and know how
>good they are. (Or aren't, in some cases)
Indeed, I've talked to many people who do. I've in general found that
those who think Microsoft's tools are good show a relatively low level
of competence and reason in other regards, and those that think they
aren't good tend to show more intelligence and ability, outside the
opinion on MS tools.
I imagine you can guess what conclusions can and should be drawn from
this correlation.
>> >Microsoft concentrated
>> >mostly on the higher-order languages (C++, Cobol. Fortran, etc.). It
>took
>> >Windows 95 for Microsoft to release Visual Basic upon an unsuspecting
>> >planet.
>>
>> Microsoft doesn't "concentrate" on anything but protecting what Gates
>> calls their "singularity". What the federal government calls a
>> violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
>
>No, he's right. Microsoft has an assembler, but the bulk
>of their efforts in this area has gone into higher-level
>kinds of things- especially IDEs, actually.
They have proven themselves unable to compete, and so retreat to their
leverage-based "integration" strategy, as usual. A sure sign that the
results are going to suck, when someone thinks there is some reason they
need to be bolted together.
>[snip]
>> >True, they *could* handle it all themselves.
>>
>> What on earth makes you think this is true? History clearly and
>> completely indicates that the truth is quite the opposite. They have
>> been unable to handle it themselves at all; why would you suddenly
>> assume that they could but simply 'choose' not to? Isn't that kind of,
>> I don't know, stupid?
>
>You confuse your own claims with "history" here;
>the notion that MS has only written a small fraction of
>the software sold under their label is, well,
>unique to yourself.
Hardly. The vast majority of their products are the results of
purchases, 'partnering', and acquisition. I am certainly not the first
to recognize this. There are some programmers, I'm told, who, ignorant
of the business history, realized that they could tell which code was
purchased and which written by MS in house by the general incompetence
displayed by Microsoft programmers.
I don't attribute it to incompetence of individual programmers, as they
did, but rather competence. It isn't easy to write crapware on purpose.
Like an actor who can convince you he is not acting, engineering
software anti-competitively requires a great deal of talent and
dedication.
>[snip]
>> >Merely looking at OS/2 should disabuse Justice of that notion.
>>
>> Why? OS/2's Windows compatibility is known to be imperfect.
>
>It was. It was the best. Better Win16 compatibility
>than Windows 95, as I understand it.
Until the churn made the point academic. What was that, three months or
so after the press got wind of the story? Windows 3.11, in fact, that
half-assed add-on upgrade that came between Windows 3.1 and Windows for
Workgroups, was apparently released solely to break OS/2's Windows
compatibility.
>> What
>> competitive value will you provide customers some reason to put up with
>> this inadequacy caused by Microsoft's poor design and keen-ness to use
>> "churn" to prevent competition?
>
>If you stick to developing a Windows-compatiblity
>system, you will lose because MS will always
>be ahead of you- working on new features while
>you copy what they already have.
>
>You need to run out in front of the parade.
You need not explain to me why it is fiscally impossible to overcome a
monopoly through competitive actions.
>[snip- Sun & Oracle bet on Unix and...]
>> >And are *continuing* to lose.
>>
>> "Continuing to lose" while making a profit equals "continuing to win".
>> Market share is only an issue for monopolists.
>
>Oh, come on Max. You're kidding, right? You
>don't believe *this*, do you?
Of course I do.
>Everyone cares about marketshare, unless
>they want to wind up like Apple has.
Unless you want to be a successful multi-billion-dollar company? Next
you'll proffer Sun or even IBM as a way to "wind up" if you should fail
to attempt to monopolize.
Market share is inconsequential and meaningless unless your business
model requires that you have substantial market share. This is
"monopolization", purely and simply. A valid business model refers to
*sales*, volume, units, prices, distribution. "Share", as a percentage
comparing your sales to putative competitors, has nothing to do with it,
and no honest business person would ever have any reason to be concerned
by it. Sure *marketing* people need to know about market share, because
they need to determine how to increase *sales*, and comparing your sales
to your competitor's sales is an easy way to accomplish this.
But in terms of making business decisions based on marketing
information, market share is something that, in fact, needs to be
consciously *avoided* as a factor, unless you seriously don't care about
violating federal law.
--
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:54 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fr2mu$gnv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:mT6U6.68368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Sometimes. What I have here is a question: how
>> > is IBM involved in WFC, really?
>>
>> I think the question is why, rather then how.
>
>My question is "how"; I'll ask why once
>I know how.
You can't know how until you know why; that's just the way the world
works. The answer to the question depends on why you are asking, unless
your intent is to assume your conclusion regardless of what the answer
is.
>[snip]
>> > I think MS's software is frequently well
>> > designed, and often better designed than the
>> > competition.
>> >
>> > They rarely get the implementation right on
>> > the first try; it's the good designs they use that
>> > allow them to overcome this in later
>> > revisions of their software.
>>
>> Okay, this is a rational explanation to MS' Ver 3.0 sympthom.
>> Scarry!
>
>I've heard it said that MS uses fresh-out-of-school
>grads for a lot of implementation work, but
>experienced developers for design.
>
>I dunno if this is true, but it explains a lot,
>if it is.
Whatever. Pointless babbling, really, either way.
--
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
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:55 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:04:49
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>Hey Max! Got a question for you: If I buy Corels' latest offering of
>Quattro Pro 10, will the data from Quattro Pro 5 be exportable?
I haven't a clue, but I'd guess it would be. AFAIK, Excel is the only
spreadsheet that routinely has problems with import/export. Why do you
ask?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:56 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:46:59
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Selling support contracts, CDs, even just books, is more than sufficient
>> to make developing an OS cost-effective. Developing an OS only takes
>> time the first time, and, no, it doesn't really take that much. Linux
>> advocates did it as a hobby, for example.
>
>Given that situation then, why can't Redhat et al make money.
Because that situation still includes an anti-competitive monopoly with
lock-in pre-load contracts with every major PC OEM. I would think that
should be obvious.
>> >Whether you've got sponsors paying for it (ala
>> >Redhat, VA et al), or you just your free time, or you work for an employer.
>>
>> Regardless, making money developing an OS as a programmer is not the
>> same situation as making money developing an OS as a software vendor.
>> Sure, it is possible for a single programmer to act as a vendor, or for
>> a vendor to rely on a single programmer. But in the real world, that
>> isn't the issue, and so your constant flipping back and forth from the
>> situation for one and the situation for the other without any honesty or
>> integrity is really making you look dumb.
>
>If company A is paying programmer A to develop their OS, they need to have a
>viable business model to recover the cost of programmer A. So far none of
>the linux companies have proved that their model is viable.
I don't understand why you would say that. Paying a programmer does not
require a great deal of capital. The business model isn't much of a
concern in those terms. BUT notice that IF the business model requires
clearing out the competition before the cost can be recovered, then it
IS in violation of federal law.
>> >If you
>> >are expecting to make a return on your development effort, then you need to
>> >recover your costs (and hopefully for your sharedholders turn a profit).
>>
>> If you cannot make that return selling at market rates and competing
>> fairly, then believe it or not it is illegal. Business models which
>> rely on first clearing out the competition before you can make a profit
>> are clearly in violation of federal law. Again, this is a "believe it
>> or not" situation. You have to be able to recover your costs *without*
>> monopolizing, merely competing equally on the merits with all other
>> alternatives, most of which will be selected by most consumers. This is
>> why, for instance, as little market share as 40% is legal proof of
>> monopolization, unless some competitive justification for the business
>> strategy can be demonstrated in court.
>
>Microsoft make a profit regardless of whether their competitors have been
>cleared out.
This is mathematically untrue, as well as apparently contradicted by the
fact that they purposefully work very hard at clearing out competition,
rather than competing with them and waiting for market efficiencies to
deal with 'clearing them out'. None of Microsoft's investments in
exclusionary deals to deter OEMs, ISVs, and ISPs to refuse to support
Netscape and to become purposefully dependent on IE could ever provide a
return on incitements unless they were substantially successful, for
example, and this amounts to several millions of dollars in costs and
potentially much more in lost revenues. They were, after all, spending
money to give something away for free. This is why these activities
merited a conviction for attempted monopolization, even though they were
not, in fact, so substantially successful as to merit a conviction for
restraint of trade.
This was one of the more fascinating details of the recent anti-trust
case, in fact. Thanks for bringing it up; feel free to ask questions if
you don't understand it yet.
I think it is very worthwhile to understand that these issues the trolls
and sock puppets bring up have already actually been looked at very
carefully by federal judges, and Microsoft is, in fact, guilty as
charged. Just because most people can't actually explain it doesn't
mean they can't understand it. I'd be the last to claim that any single
decision or judge is an absolute authority, but that doesn't excuse
assuming that a federal judge was somehow "out to get" someone just
because he thought them guilty.
--
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
******************************
