Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > "Aragorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders. > > >If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath. > > >>A psychopath is someone who lacks ethics and/or the

Re: OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>There is a difference between what is *illegal* and what constitutes >>>a *crime*. >> >>Why thank you, you've really made my day. That's the funniest thing I've >>heard in months. Please, do tell, which brand of corn flakes was i

Re: OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There is a difference between what is *illegal* and what constitutes > > a *crime*. > > Why thank you, you've really made my day. That's the funniest thing I've > heard in months. Please, do tell, which brand of corn flakes was it that > you got your

Re: OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:56:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > > >>There is a difference between what is *illegal* and what constitutes >>a *crime*. > > > Why thank you, you've really made my day. That's the funniest thing I've > heard in months. Please, do tell, which bran

Re: OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:34:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > > > >>A) I don't much care if people wander off topic from time to time - >>that's what filters are for. But as a matter of general courtesy >>is it too much to ask that the subject line be so marked? >

Re: OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:29:26 +0100, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote: > Now, tell me: is the polluting of a newsgroup with off-topic postings, > a crime, Not in any nation that values personal freedom over petty laws controlling people's behaviour for no good purpose. -- Steven. -- http://mail.pytho

Re: OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:25:45 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Accounting software comes to mind. But just because Microsoft >did not, or was unable to, illegally squelch competition in one market >does not excuse them for doing so in another. Just as a factual matter, while Mic

Re: OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Hi, Though out of the streamline, I find your post to be one of the most reasonable and well-formed arguments I have read in a long time. Keep it up. Great work. Steven D'Aprano wrote: Real standards, like TCP/IP which is the backbone of the Internet, aren't controlled by any one company. Anyone

Re: OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Jaywalking is a crime. So is littering. So is merely belonging to certain > organisations, such as the German Nazi party or any number of allegedly > terrorist groups. Walking around naked in public is a crime, and in many > places in the world, including the USA, you then

Re: OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:34:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > A) I don't much care if people wander off topic from time to time - > that's what filters are for. But as a matter of general courtesy > is it too much to ask that the subject line be so marked? Fair enough. > B) Rhetoric is not

OT - Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Blomstrom wrote: > "Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with some > less controversial criminal behavior, you act like > they > accused MS of holding people up at gunpoint." > > Screwing literally millions of consumers and taxpayers > and holding entire schools hostage is far worse tha

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

John W. Kennedy wrote: > IBM was genuinely innovative, and did their best to provide value for > money. Microsoft hasn't been able to produce anything but me-too > products since the 80's. (Multiplan, Word for DOS, the QBASIC engine, > early sponsorship of mouses, and the gutsy decision to morph MS

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

entropy wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... > >>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:54:13 +, John Wingate wrote: >> >> >>>Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> That would be a good guess, except that Microsoft's predatory and illegal behaviour began long before OS/2 was even planned. It be

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Morally, lying in court is a tough one. For example, suppose you are in > a court case with someone who is definitely lying in court. You are in the > right, but it's clear the court won't bel

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is >> one case where the word "theft" was used (while earlier in the thread, >> actual physical force

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for everyone but MS. >>> To substantiate that cla

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for >>> everyone but MS. >> To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I >> talk

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for >> everyone but MS. > To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I > talk about something other than MS. You do that *every time* someone compares MS wi

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

It's good to see that tilting at windmills hasn't gone out of style since Cervantes' time. [[hehehehehe...]] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Another straw man. I'm not trying to oblitarate that difference No matter how many times I quote to you where you specifically do exactly this, you insist you aren't. Yes, you are. You equate metaphorical force wit

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity >> to distinguish between, as you put it, "guns and arguments." You >> always act as if every mention

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity > to distinguish between, as you put it, "guns and arguments." You > always act as if every mention of a crime committed by someone other > than micro

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Microsoft's behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not >>> involve force, the threat of force, fraud, or the threat of >>> fraud. This is perhaps the most vital dist

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Microsoft's behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not >> involve force, the threat of force, fraud, or the threat of >> fraud. This is perhaps the most vital distinction that there is. > Wrong. Either your defin

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Paul Rubin wrote: > >> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> To call it an "established legal fact" is to grossly distort the >>> circumstances under which it was determined and upheld. > >> Who is paying you to post such nonsense? > >

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Maybe true, maybe not - but it doesn't matte

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use >>> of force". >>

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use >> of force". > I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates you > to engage

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it your position that Micorosoft's monopoly was illegal when they > first acquired it? It's utterly irrelevant whether it was illegal when they acquired it. The law is against acquiring OR MAINTAINING a monopoly by anticompetitive means. Tha

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ok, let me just make my opinion very clear on this and then I'll just > leave this thread altogether. > > I think you are comparing apples and oranges so whatever conclusion you > manage to draw from that i

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use > of force". I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates you to engage in such crazy distortion. Of course the quote about

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with some less controversial criminal behavior, you act like they accused MS of holding people up at gunpoint." Screwing literally millions of consumers and taxpayers and holding entire schools hostage is far worse than holding up an individual at gunpoint

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Okay, I admit I'm wasting time answering this stupid thread, but what the hey, what's usenet without a flame war now and then. ;-) Into the fray ... On Thursday 27 October 2005 05:17 pm, David Schwartz wrote: > No. I have never received a dime from Microsoft, either directly or > indirectly.

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/25/2005 at 09:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime, Actually, it is a crime and they've been convicted. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Unsolicited bulk E-mail

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about > browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion > dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it? Wonder why MSN.com is one of the most visited sites, I speculate that it is largely because it is the

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

http://www.idpz.net/wolfgang/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote: > > >>David Schwartz wrote: > > >>>Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger >>>patties wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless >>>you take the whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing package.

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > "Eike Preuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>Right, except that's utterly absurd. If every vendor takes their tiny >>>cut of the 95%, a huge cut of the 5% is starting to look *REALLY* good. > > >>Sure, that would be true if the

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> "Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals >>> with >>> guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior >>> is >>>

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> There's a huge difference to the non-techy consumer. One of the >>> buggest reasons Linux has had a reputation of being harder to use >>> than Windows was the fact that Linux had to be installed, while >>> Windows

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> "Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals >> with >> guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior >> is >> equated to the actual use of force where that is not in

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> I've noticed something strange that makes me wonder the same >> thing. Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with that of any other >> criminals, he responds about MS's a

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mike Schilling wrote: > >> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one >>> preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD.

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I've noticed something strange that makes me wonder the same > thing. Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with that of any other > criminals, he responds about MS's activity being "equated to that of > criminals with

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no >> court >> ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to >> characterize >>

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin writes: >> Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no court >> ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to characterize >> the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous. > > Who is paying you to tell these

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Was this a test of Godwin's Law? Hitler wasn't mentioned explicitly, but he was certainly implied in the initial post. So we learn: Hitler must be _explicitly_ mentioned to invoke Godwin's Law (or) Xah Lee is immune from the central laws of the universe Personally I suspect Xah Lee is a bot

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no court > ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to characterize > the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous. Who is paying you to tell these ridicul

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When you say "it only become illegal", you are just being vague. Nothing > becomes illegal. The abuse is illegal, but it never was legal. You're splitting hairs. But hey, what's usenet for? -- John Gordon"It

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"John Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What is an "illegal monopoly"? > A monopoly that acts in certain ways, abusing its monopoly power. There's > nothing inherently illegal abo

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is an "illegal monopoly"? A monopoly that acts in certain ways, abusing its monopoly power. There's nothing inherently illegal about having a monopoly; it only becomes illegal when you abuse the power. -- John Gordo

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Espen Myrland wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What is an "illegal monopoly"? > The opposite of a "legal monopoly". For example, in Norway we have > "Vinmonopolet", a monopoly which are the only one allowed to sell > wine and spirits to the public. Seriously, I h

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think >>> Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not. >> What is an "illegal monopoly"? > It's what Microsoft still stands convicted of ha

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is an "illegal monopoly"? The opposite of a "legal monopoly". For example, in Norway we have "Vinmonopolet", a monopoly which are the only one allowed to sell wine and spirits to the public. -- espen -- http://mail.python.org/mailma

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think > > Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not. > > What is an "illegal monopoly"? It's what Microsoft still stands convicted of having. http://cyber.law

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice >> illegal for a company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they >> did, I'm going after Doctor's Associates and Kenmore. > Of course it's legal for non-monopo

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice illegal for a > company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they did, I'm going after > Doctor's Associates and Kenmore. Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem t

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote: > David Schwartz wrote: >> Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger >> patties wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless >> you take the whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing package. >> With very few limits, companies

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote: > > >>I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word >>"Microsoft" as part of the shop name, there would be some rules >>dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those >>rules are set forth in a law s

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote: > I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word > "Microsoft" as part of the shop name, there would be some rules > dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those > rules are set forth in a law somewhere or Microsoft set the

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : > > >> Right I understand that. You could have complied simply by only selling >>computers with Windows preinstalled. In other words, you coul

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> If the trial court >> determines a fact and it's upheld on appeal, it's an established >> legal fact regardless of whether you or Microsoft likes it. I just found this article: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=88 I don't agree with all of it,

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > Iain King wrote: > > >>Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work? > > > No. > > >>It would only be >>fitting if Microsoft OWNED the outlet. > > > Huh? > I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word "Microsoft" as part of the shop na

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > 1. it was a threat to destroy a business -- e.g vandalise tens of > thousands of dollars of property. For all practical purpose they > threatened to steal my business. It would be roughly the same dollar > value as threatening to burn down a large house. No, it was a th

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Right I understand that. You could have complied simply by only selling >computers with Windows preinstalled. In other words, you could have treated >this the same

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Iain King wrote: > David Schwartz wrote: >> Roedy Green wrote: >> >>> The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by >>> threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS >>> product to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days. >> >> Right, I get tha

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > Roedy Green wrote: > > > The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by > > threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product > > to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days. > > Right, I get that. You owed your entir

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Iain King wrote: > Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work? No. > It would only be > fitting if Microsoft OWNED the outlet. Huh? > Places which sell Whoppers > are Burger King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell > Big Mac's. Right. The Burger King corporate fra

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Peter T. Breuer wrote: > That's UP TO THE FRIGGING STORE (in contrast to the MS situation). No, it's not up to the store. In all the cases I mentioned, it's the manufacturer of the product that imposes the restrictions and the manufacturer of the product is not the store owner. >> I don't

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > Roedy Green wrote: > > > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:31:41 GMT, Roedy Green > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or > > indirectly quoted someone who said : > > >> I used to be a retailer of custom computers. MS used a dirty trick > >> to compete with IBM's OS/2. They said to

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business >> with you if you broke your agreements with them. > I am going to summa

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>Right, they send gun-wielding thugs to use force against people. >> That's a lot like refusing to do business with people who won't >> uphol

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter T. Breuer wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Microsoft was not going to let a business >>> parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the >>

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with >you if you broke your agreements with them. I am going to summarise this then drop out. My bl

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The appeals courts upheld that the trial court did not abuse its >> discretion. However, both a finding of "yes, Microsoft had a >> monopoly" and a finding of "no, Microsoft did not have a monopoly" >> would both have been wi

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote: > David Schwartz wrote: >> Roedy Green wrote: > >> competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell >> Big Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.) > Rather odd comparison don't you think ? No, it's dead on. > A better comparis

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Peter T. Breuer wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Microsoft was not going to let a business >> parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the >> advantages of competing products. > Well, it should have, because t

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with >you if you broke your agreements with them. You could have a more productive debate with a ta

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Right, they send gun-wielding thugs to use force against people. That's >a lot like refusing to do business with people who won't uphold their >contractual obligati

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:07:50 -0700, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >That is a bit questionable, I admit. It is questionable because the >intent is pretty obviously to get the individuals more interested in being >nice to you than lo

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The appeals courts upheld that the trial court did not abuse its > discretion. However, both a finding of "yes, Microsoft had a monopoly" and a > finding of "no, Microsoft did not have a monopoly" would both have been > within the trial court's

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz wrote: > Roedy Green wrote: > competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big > Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.) Rather odd comparison don't you think ? A better comparison would be if Burger King purchases the fries from a factory tha

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Microsoft was not going to let a business > parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the advantages of > competing products. Well, it should have, because that's what manufacturers of op

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:31:41 GMT, Roedy Green > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or > indirectly quoted someone who said : >> I used to be a retailer of custom computers. MS used a dirty trick >> to compete with IBM's OS/2. They said to me as a retailer. You must >> buy a

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, both a finding of "yes, Microsoft had a monopoly" and a > finding of "no, Microsoft did not have a monopoly" would both have been > within the trial court's discretion. Well, of course, and they said YES (as a

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Sibylle Koczian wrote: > David Schwartz schrieb: >> When you are not in the majority, you are going to face >> inconveniences. You'd face the same inconvenience if you wanted to >> buy a new car without seats. Most people wants cars with seats, so >> that's the way they're packaged. >> > Wha

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > The tactic Univac/Burroughs/Prime used, at least for big sales, was > for example invite the potential customer to view some installation to > talk to a satisfied client about how they were using their gear. There > might be a convenient client in say ... Las Vegas. Yep,

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that >> Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> But there is no law against that type of conduct, *unless* you >> are a monopolist. So your conclusion hinges on the determination >> that Microsoft had a monopoly, and that hinges on the definition of >> the "market". That's

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:31:41 GMT, Roedy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >I used to be a retailer of custom computers. MS used a dirty trick to >compete with IBM's OS/2. They said to me as a retailer. You must buy >a copy of our OS for EVERY machine

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Paul Rubin: [Snip...] > The trial court determined and two different appeals courts upheld > that MS had an illegal monopoly. And M$ is still intransigent about that LEGAL FACT, much to the dismay of the federal judge overseeing the latest (toothless) consent decree: I

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz schrieb: > When you are not in the majority, you are going to face inconveniences. > You'd face the same inconvenience if you wanted to buy a new car without > seats. Most people wants cars with seats, so that's the way they're > packaged. > What a stupid comparison! A compu

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:13:39 GMT, Roedy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >To put this in perspective, IBM's salespeople made much nastier >threats in their heyday. Dick Toewes, head of Inland Natural Gas, was >in charge of a tender for a new mainfram

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that >Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the >absence of a writ

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But there is no law against that type of conduct, *unless* you are a > monopolist. So your conclusion hinges on the determination that Microsoft > had a monopoly, and that hinges on the definition of the "market". That's a > different can of wor

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:58:42 GMT, Roedy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >>I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that >>Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the >>absence of a written co

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that >Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table in the >absence of a writte

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:48:25 -0700, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >> We are not talking about legal agreements. We are talking junior Mafia >> style enforcement. > >Can you cite any evidence of Microsoft actually using or threatening

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one >> preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to >> ot

Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Roedy Green wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>The Microsoft agreement is also up front. It's not "imposed" in >> any sense except that it's one of the conditions for buying Windows >> w

  1   2   3   4   5   >