Here we go again...
Chris, please, at least spell check your messages before you send them.
>
> They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> wanted to run.
No, they bought an operating system, then designed a GUI for it based on
what was already being done by other GUIs (as in MacOS, or Presentation
Manager, the precursor to IBM's Workplace Shell in OS/2). There is very
little that is original in Microsoft's various and sundry operating systems.
It's cobbled together from pieces they bought and modified, or outright
copied.
Several other companies came out with arguably better operating systems, but
Microsoft, using practices that are questionable or downright illegal,
either bought or killed most all of them.
>
> what practice do you consider to be illeagle that they commited?
Oh, restraint of trade would be a start. Have you read any anti-trust law?
Are you familiar with any previous anti-trust cases?
>
> Microsoft didn't "force" the vendors to agree to this.. the hardware
> venders did this so they could get cheaper pricing...
No, it was the Microsoft way of the highway. Because Microsoft has an
effective monopoly in PC operating systems, any company who didn't agree
would be bankrupt almost immediately. If that isn't "force", I don't know
what is.
>
> Companies that don't agree with microsoft have managed to stay in
> busniess.. look at sun, redhat, corel, be, etc...
Let's see... Red Hat has *never* had a profitable quarter, and is a
relatively new company. Sun does not compete in the PC market, and is only
impacted in one business area in the browser market. Corel has not, until
now, been an OS manufacturer. Without the DOJ case somewhat restricting
Microsoft, the prospects for Corel and Red Hat are pretty bleak,
particularly if UCITA becomes law. That would have a chilling effect on the
Open Source community, considering that, as proposed, it would make reverse
engineering illegal.
>
> What do those laws actualy do though?
Allow for competition and a free market. Please read the appropriate laws,
specifically the Sherman Act, and Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's Finding of
Fact in the case.
>
> Ok so microsoft has a technology they baught/copied/developed however you
> want to lable it.. and they wanted more people to use thier product as
> apposed to IBM's product... so they ask thier competitor to leave a
> product behind... ok...
No, it is not OK
>
> I fail to see what wrong was done here.. these sorts of deals get made all
> the time.. in many diffrent industries... known as "I'll scratch your back
> if you scratch mine"
It was more like "Do it my way, or I'll shoot you in the head."
>
> I belive alot of what microsoft does is harmful to consumers..
I think that is about all we agree on.
> but it's not nearly as
> bad as how scewed up things could get if the government starts getting
> involved. I would prefer an "unscrupulous company" milk me then an
> organization like the US government which has the power to lock me up to
> milk me...
Is enforcing the law wrong? Would you prefer if no laws were enforced?
Would you prefer anarchy?
You seem to see any form of government involvement in the economy, or in our
lives, as an evil. Our government is not totalitarian. Our economic system
is not laissez faire Capitalism, nor is it Socialism, but rather it is a
mixture of both. Would you like the government to get out of education, for
example? How about social security? Medicare?
How is enforcing anti-trust laws going to "screw things up"? Be specific.
How is that going to impact your individual rights?
>
> What exactly do you want the government to do?
>
Make absolutely certain that Microsoft cannot continue the practices it has
used in the past to prevent competition. OS/2 is not going to be revived,
nor is DR-DOS (and yes, I know Caldera still sells it) . However, Microsoft
still controls 95% of the desktop OS market. Let them have to face current
and future challenges (including Linux) within the laws of the land. If
they win, let it be because they produce better products, not because they
use strong-arm tactics to destroy superior innovations. I would also like
to see some kind of punitive financial damages. I wouldn't want them to be
large enough to prevent Microsoft from moving forward, but I would love
there to be enough to fund some real innovation independent of Redmond.
>
> Ahh yes the evil train people... I'm SOOO glad that in america we have
> enforced passenger railroad compitition..
What are you talking about? Have you ever heard of Standard Oil? Do you
know the history there.
> I'm so glad that If I decided
> that Amtrack was doing a horrible job I could compete with them.. or
> heck.. if I wanted to start a mail system to compete with the us postal
> system.. ahhh yes... I'm soo glad we have these laws..
This has nothing to do with anti-trust. You are mixing apples and oranges
here.
>
> I would agree that alot of the laws were written with the best of
> intentions.. others were written in the intrest of certain other
> oganizations/corperations.. look into alot of those laws that were written
> and what they accomplised... you might be quite surprised...
This is really vague and generic. What laws are you referring to? I
agree if you are saying that some laws are good and some are bad. Nobody
here is trying to write new law. We are trying to say that enforcement of
existing laws is a good thing. Are you saying the Sherman Act is a bad law?
If so, why? Please be specific.
>
> > The only question
> > that remains is *which* laws Microsoft violated, and how they should be
> > punished for violating them.
>
> What are your views on these two matters?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I have followed this case though.
I believe Microsoft violated provisions of the Sherman Act, as well as
various related state laws. How they should be punished is something I
answered already.
>
> I agree microsoft will not be put out of business.. infact I'm quite sure
> whatever measures are enacted.. they will at somepoint intime backfire...
No new laws will be enacted. I do not share your utter distrust of the
governments ability to enforce it's laws in an equitable manner.
I do think you need to be familiar with the specifics, rather than throw out
vague generalities about the evils of government.
-Caity
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
