Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively
On May 20, 12:00 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > Indeed. And the algorithms that are employed to perform the operations > so described are recursive. Actually, they almost never are. Iterative algorithms are almost always used to avoid a stack explosion. However, the terminology is still correct. When you are asked if the operation should be performed recursively, it is asking whether you want the same effect you would get if a recursive algorithm was used. Essentially, there is an implied 'as if' rule. The user doesn't care how the program accomplishes the task, the user just needs to specify what task the program should accomplish. This is common throughout the discipline of programming. (Most standards have an explicit 'as if' rule that says that when the standard specifies X, they don't literally mean that X must happen. They mean the behavior must be indistinguishable from X happening.) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic > practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large > PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of > Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they > didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ. Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car without an engine. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Tim Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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? It really isn't that hard to understand that web-based applications that work in any browser on any OS threaten to make it irrelevent what OS you're running. MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important to be running on one of their OSes. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"John Bokma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Tim Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> 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? >> It really isn't that hard to understand that web-based >> applications that >> work in any browser on any OS threaten to make it irrelevent what OS >> you're running. > And it's even easier to understand that your statement is nonsense. To you, if you don't understand it. > It doesn't matter which Linux distribution you pick, all use the Linux > kernel. On all I can run OpenOffice, and get the same results. Yet people > seem to prefer one distribution over one other. Right, and that's what Microsoft wants to avoid. They wants to make sure people *have* to choose a Microsoft operating system to get their applications to work. He doesn't want most applications to work the same on all operating systems. MS was afraid the browser would replace the operating system in the sense that it would be the target platform for applications. >> MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important >> to be running on one of their OSes. > Maybe *they* do have a point :-). Well, they have their vision of the future of computing, and you can bet all things made by Microsoft are at the center of it. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Måns Rullgård" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic >>> practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large >>> PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of >>> Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they >>> didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ. >> Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car >> without an engine. > That's more like buying a computer without a CPU, which I can in fact > do. Buying a computer without ms windows is more like buying a hifi > set without a Britney Spears CD. I can do that too. I guess I wasn't explicit enough. Most people who want cars also want an engine. Some don't. Dealers could sell cars and engines separately. They just (generally) don't. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"John Bokma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web based, > and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions matter? It > doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example, OpenOffice. Yet > people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one reason is that people > like to belong to a group. So even if it really doesn't matter which OS > you are going to use to access a web application, or even which browser, > people will pick a certain browser, and a certain OS, just because. You don't get it. The point is, you can pick any Linux distribution and still use the same applications. This is exactly what Microsoft *doesn't* want. They want applications to be locked to Microsoft OSes. For then to do this, applications have to be as tied to the OS as possible. The browser as a target platform threatened this Microsoft vision, so Microsoft reacted by trying to corner the browser market and balkanize Java. You can agree or disagree with the rationale and by sympathetic with or antagonistic to Microsoft's motive. But these are historical facts. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:48:18 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic >>> practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large >>> PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of >>> Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they >>> didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ. >> >> Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car >> without an engine. > That's a false analogy. A better analogy is, "go to your local car dealer > and see if you can buy a new car with the tyres of your choice." How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you have on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent upon your choice of OS. > Even non-technical types can choose to run a non-Windows operating system > on an Intel-compatible PC. So why do the tier-one vendors and all laptop > manufacturers make their machines available only with Windows? Or on the > very few occasions they will offer a naked PC, the price is the same as > for PC + Windows. I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has a lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of deals Microsoft offers. The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or problemmatic about it. If you don't think the total package is worth the total package price, buy elsewhere. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you >> have >> on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent >> upon >> your choice of OS. > Which cars let you install another engine as easily as you can install > a new operating system? Admit the analogy sucks, like all car-computer > analogies invariably do. What? If you install a new operating system, all your existing software stops working. You would encounter precisely analogous problems if you replaced your car's engine. The transmission might no longer fit, for example. I'm not sure why this analogy matters, but it does seem to be pretty accurate. >> I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has >> a >> lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of >> deals >> Microsoft offers. > Microsoft apologists always assume that training cost for Windows > users are zero, that people "know" Windows from the start. If that was > true, there would not be a multi-million market in Windows user > support. I neither said nor assumed that. The fact is, they have to support Windows because it's what most of their users want. So whatever that costs, they have to pay it. I think it's pretty low, actually, only because their solution to any problem is to reinstall. Yes, that works, but it does kind of screw over the user. On the other hand, supporting Linux is not something they have to do to stay competitive. The market for Linux desktops is small. It's better served by niche companies that can grab a larger share of the smaller market. >> The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or >> problemmatic about it. If you don't think the total package is worth the >> total package price, buy elsewhere. > But when Microsoft were doing their illegal arm-wringing of dealers, > there was no "elsewhere" to go. There were always other places to go. There was never a time in this story when you couldn't buy computer components, without an OS, and put together your own computer. As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft doing it. There's nothing illegal about a car dealer not selling a car without an engine. And the only reason it was illegal for Microsoft was because Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly, and the only reason they were deemed to have a monopoly (well, not the only, but a major reason) was that the market was defined as "desktop operating systems for x86 computers". DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"John Bokma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You don't get it. The point is, you can pick any Linux >> distribution and >> still use the same applications. This is exactly what Microsoft >> *doesn't* want. They want applications to be locked to Microsoft OSes. >> For then to do this, applications have to be as tied to the OS as >> possible. The browser as a target platform threatened this Microsoft >> vision, so Microsoft reacted by trying to corner the browser market >> and balkanize Java. > And when are we going to see this browser as a target platform? It may not happen, or it may. The future of computing is not known at this point. >> You can agree or disagree with the rationale and by sympathetic >> with or >> antagonistic to Microsoft's motive. But these are historical facts. > No: the historical fact is that MS whiped Netscape of the planet. That > you come up with "They were afraid that everybody would be running NS > Office online using Netscape" is just a guess. No, it's well-documented fact that Microsoft's entry into the browser war was precisely because they feared that browsers would become the new operating systems. > MS just seems to ignore a certain development for some time, then state > it's not significant, and next they are an important player. This is not > limited to "MS missed the Internet, almost...". They don't miss > anything, they just don't jump on every hype. What is your explanation for why MS decided it was so important to control the browser market? You think MS was too stupid to realize that web-based applications threatened to make desktop OSes interchangeable? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:48:18 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car >>without an engine. > Given that that the OS and the hardware come from completely different > companies, I think that a specious analogy. With many cars, the engine is made by a different manufacturer from the body. The point is, they're sold as a unit because a car won't run without an engine and most people in the market want a car with an engine. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"John Bokma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > So you think that MS, based on something that might (or might not > happen) somewhere in a future, burned a lot of money? Yep. Why do you think Microsoft tried to balkanize Java? >>> No: the historical fact is that MS whiped Netscape of the planet. >>> That you come up with "They were afraid that everybody would be >>> running NS Office online using Netscape" is just a guess. >> >> No, it's well-documented fact that Microsoft's entry into the >> browser >> war was precisely because they feared that browsers would become the >> new operating systems. > Where can I read that well-documented fact? Pretty much in any history of the browser wars. For example, the DOJ writes, in their appeal brief: In May 1995, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer William Gates wrote that Netscape was "pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API into the client [Web browser] to commoditize the underlying operating system." There are many, many other sources. This was never a secret and was never in dispute. You are welcome to keep your head in the sand, but it's just you. >>> MS just seems to ignore a certain development for some time, then >>> state it's not significant, and next they are an important player. >>> This is not limited to "MS missed the Internet, almost...". They >>> don't miss anything, they just don't jump on every hype. >> >> What is your explanation for why MS decided it was so important to >> control the browser market? You think MS was too stupid to realize >> that web-based applications threatened to make desktop OSes >> interchangeable? > And you think MS is so stupid to just jump through hoops because > something that still isn't here, might have been there like 8 years ago? I can only surmise that you are completely unfamiliar with the history of the browser wars. > Can you show me what companies MS bought to justify their fear for a > major move to thin client computing? They explicitly said that this was their fear. You don't need to read tea leaves, you can read memos and speeches. It is very clear that MS was (and to some extent still is) afraid that thin clients and web-based applications will commoditize the OS. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"John Bokma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > So you think that MS, based on something that might (or might not > happen) somewhere in a future, burned a lot of money? By the way, this is based on the same flawed premise that a lot of post-Y2K griping was based on. It went like this, "wow, we get all concerned and spent all this money on a problem that never even happened". Well, perhaps it didn't happen because we were all concerned and spent all this money on it. It is still a realistic possibility that operating systems will be commoditized and something other than the end-user's OS will be the target for most software development. It could be the language (like Java), the server (like the guts of web-based applications), or the browser (like the UI of web-base applications). Microsoft's current stance is to prevent this from happening if they can. If they can't, then they'll try to make sure that whatever they can't stop has Microsoft at the heart of it whether that's by "Microsoft thin-client OS" or "Microsoft Java" or whatever. By the way, if you read my other posts, you can see that I have no anti-Microsoft bias. They have every right to have their vision of the future of computing and to put their resources behind it. And it's hard to find a company whose future vision doesn't include their products in some important place. ;) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:29:36 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>By the way, this is based on the same flawed premise that a lot of >>post-Y2K griping was based on. It went like this, "wow, we get all >>concerned >>and spent all this money on a problem that never even happened". Well, >>perhaps it didn't happen because we were all concerned and spent all this >>money on it. > The worry was that the work would not be completed in time. The work > had to be done or the programs would simply stop working. There was > no way to avoid the expense. I understand why the argument is invalid. I'm presenting it as an example of a similar invalid argument. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:36:53 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft >>doing it. There's nothing illegal about a car dealer not selling a car >>without an engine. > But that is not what was happening. It was not Microsoft selling > computers with MS OSs. MS was arm-twisting retailers like me to > bundle a copy of Windows with every sale whether the customer wanted > it or not. I think some imagine a computer is worthless without > Windows. It is Microsoft's view that a computer is worthless without Windows. They are fully entitled to have that view. > That gave their OS a grossly unfair price advantage. It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or fraud. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:44:55 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's >>obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with >>Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or >>fraud. > I think that what they did borders on force/fraud. I don't think any of it bordered on force or fraud. However, their obligation to their shareholders requires them to do anythign that borders on force/fraud so long as it isn't force/fraud. However, the use of things too close to force/fraud often backfires. Microsoft has an obligation to be strategic and look nice where those things beneficially impact the bottom line. It's Bill Gates' job to make his company worth as much as possible. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:21:55 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>I don't think any of it bordered on force or fraud. However, their >>obligation to their shareholders requires them to do anythign that borders >>on force/fraud so long as it isn't force/fraud. > I avoid MS products whenever possible. Surely others feel the same > way because we have had it up to the teeth with MS dirty tactics. That > has to be factored into profitability as well. Definitely. Sometimes you have to make nice if you want to make money. I have no complaints with people who choose to avoid a particular company's products because they don't like that company's tactics. And I have no problem with them spreading their views and sharing their beliefs. Heck, I work for a company that probably has made quite a few sales because people were looking for a product by "anyone but Microsoft". That said, I do agree there were some "dirty tactics" in the sense that they were pure hardball and could have resulted in inferior products getting greater market share. However, I don't think they came anywhere near force or fraud, with very few exceptions. Notable exceptions included cases where Microsoft told companies they had no intention of releasing a competing product to get technical details and later turned around and released competing products or cases where Microsoft threatened legal action they knew they had no chance of winning at a fair hearing. These did border on force/fraud and in some cases, Microsoft did get spanked for these tactics. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"John W. Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mike Meyer wrote: >> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's >>> obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with >>> Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or >>> fraud. >> >> >> Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders. > > If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath. That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think". DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >>>> Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders. > With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most > psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish vicious > brutes who care only for themselves and perhaps a few others. Or rather, > to stop *acting* as selfish vicious brutes. Not caring about the harm done > by your corporate machinery is not a crime. Actually doing that harm is, > or at least should be, although sadly when we allow the psychopaths to > make the rules, they tend to make rules that allow themselves to prosper > at our expense. You are making the assumption that Microsoft shareholders want Microsoft to do harm. *If* they did, you would be correct. I don't think that they do. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"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 ability to respect > his fellow human being. They are quite often narcissistic and perverse > individuals. They make good dictators and successful businessmen. You have provided an excellent refutation. A psychopath would say that Microsoft's executives only obligations are to themselves. A psychopath would not consider obligations to fellow human beings important. Believe it or not, from the point of view of a Microsoft executive, shareholders are fellow human beings. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders. >>> >>> If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath. >> >>That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think". > Taken literally, you think MS has no obligation to obey the law, to > its customers, to its employees. No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobeying the law constitute a betrayal of their obligation to their shareholders? > I don't think you will find many CEOs espousing those sentiments, > though you will in alt.politics.bush from those who have just read > their first book outside of school reading and picked an Ayn Rand > novel. The validity of an idea does not depend upon who it comes from. This is a sad attempt at guilt by association. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>>> Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders. >>> If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath. >>That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think". > If your only obligation is to a group of person, that makes you a sort > of slave. If you voluntarily take on a job that includes obligations, and have the right to leave any time you want, you are not any sort of a slave. > What about obligations to family, community, yourself? Microsoft has no family, and doesn't have a self in this sense. Microsoft executives have obligations to family, but this should not affect their performance as executives, in which capacity their obligations are to their shareholders. As for obligations to community, no, there is no such obligation. An executive who devoted his company to his community against his shareholders' wishes should be fired. The company exists as a vehicle to execute the desires of the shareholders. That's why they get to vote on who runs it. That does not mean that acting to support the community can't be the shareholder's wishes or can't be in the bests interests of the shareholders, of course. But qua corporation, it's purely a vehicle to execute the shareholders' wishes. Corporate executives also have an obligation to obey the law, of course. If, hypothetically, you had a company that had a majority of shareholders who wanted to break the law, an ethical executive would pretty much have to quit. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On 18 Oct 2005 13:21:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted : >>Yes, he deserves credit for what he did. He nevertheless created a >>false impression in what he said. If he hadn't created that false >>impression, there would not have been any jokes about him. If all he >>said was what he actually did, this would never have been an issue. > It is standard procedure to twist another politician's words and tease > him like a gang of 4 year olds. I agree. Gore made an very unfortunate choice of words that left him open to pot shot type ridicule and abuse. There's really no reason to think he was actually trying to take credit for the creation of the Internet itself. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:30:42 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobeying >>the law constitute a betrayal of their obligation to their shareholders? > You stated it literally as if making maximum profit for the > shareholders were the only consideration in determining conduct. No, I did not. I said that their obligation is to their shareholders. > If that is not what you mean, I think you need to hedge more. I was perfectly clear. This is a lot of deliberate misunderstanding going on in this thread and very little of it is from my side. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:34:55 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >> As for obligations to community, no, there is no such obligation. An >>executive who devoted his company to his community against his >>shareholders' >>wishes should be fired. The company exists as a vehicle to execute the >>desires of the shareholders. That's why they get to vote on who runs it. > Why should loyalty to company trump all other loyalties -- family, > law, species, community, country, religion ... ? Perhaps you aren't following the thread, but I was talking about the obligations a company has, not the obligations any individual has. And I was talking about obligations *to* individuals. Your criticism would be very appropriate if I said that individuals only owe loyalty to companies. But what I said is that Microsoft (a company) owes an obligation to its shareholders (people). That is, that companies exist purely to benefit people. It is funny that your accusation is based on assuming I said exactly the opposite of what I actually said. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry
"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Rethink what you are saying. You'll see that what you propose as > reasons for one, is actually for the other. Nonsense. It is plain error to change what someone said and claim they said it, even if you think that what you are changing isn't important. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Luke Webber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > As much as I hate to jump in on this thread, well I'm gonna... > I think you'll find that companies have all manner of legal obligations. > Certainly to their shareholders, but beyond that they have an obligation > to their clients, who pay them for their services, and to any individual > or entity which might be harmed by their actions. They have obligations to their clients because (and only because) failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the harm these failures will do to the shareholders. First and formost, companies exist to do the will of their shareholders. > A classic case in point would be Philip Morris, who did everything they > could to protect their shareholders, but who shirked their duty of care to > their customers and the the public at large. They have since paid heavily > for that failure. You mean their shareholders paid heavily. ;) >>>If that is not what you mean, I think you need to hedge more. >> I was perfectly clear. This is a lot of deliberate misunderstanding >> going on in this thread and very little of it is from my side. > All that means to me is that your misunderstanding is not deliberate. No misunderstanding. Corporations exist specifically to do the will of their shareholders. There are other theoritcal models of corporations (for example, wherein the shareholders only provide the capital to execute the will of the directors), but Microsoft is certainly not a corporation of this type. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:18:31 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>Perhaps you aren't following the thread, but I was talking about the >>obligations a company has, not the obligations any individual has. And I >>was >>talking about obligations *to* individuals. > To me that makes no sense. Microsoft is an abstraction. It can't do > anything. It can't make decisions. Only the individuals to work for it > or on the board can, though they may do it in Microsoft's name. If > you want to talk about moral action, obligation etc. you can't divorce > that from the people who do the actions. If anything that makes the objection even less meaningful. The objection was: > Why should loyalty to company trump all other loyalties -- family, > law, species, community, country, religion ... ? And the answer is that I'm not talking about "loyalty to company" but loyalty to shareholders, which are people. Of course, a person is never required to do anything that actually conflicts with their conscience, although in some cases this may require you to quit. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:54:14 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>They have obligations to their clients because (and only because) >>failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in >>lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the >>harm these failures will do to the shareholders. > That's the view of Republican, but it is not the only view. Some > might say the law trumps that. It does not matter if breaking the law > would be more profitable, you still don't do it. Did I say their obligation was to secure their shareholders as much profit as possible? I said their obligation was to their shareholders. I am only continuing this off-topic thread on newsgroups that probably don't want it because it is a basic principle of fairness that a false or distorted comment deserves an rebuttal anywhere that false or distorted comment appears. However, it doesn't deserve a full debate anywhere except where it's on-topic. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models. > They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave > it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis > shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second. > > As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model. It is impossible to respond to this with anything shorter than many pages. Google for "prudent predator" if you want all sides to this question. The short answer is "maybe". To the people who think that you obviously shouldn't, ask them the following hypothetical: You have a million pounds of grain. Destroying it will probably cost at least ten lives due to starvation. The grain, however, is contaminated, and selling it will likely make ten people sick, of which three will probably die. Should you destroy the grain? You do have an obligation to the shareholders not to commit fraud in their name. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I guess I wasn't explicit enough. Most people who want cars also want >> an >> engine. Some don't. Dealers could sell cars and engines separately. They >> just (generally) don't. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this. > There would be if an engine manufacturer refused to provide car > manufacturers with ANY engines for any model, unless all buyers were > charged for THEIR engine in every model, whether their engine was in > there or not. > > You want to cease this line of apologism. I'm sorry, that's just crazy. An engine manufacturer could refuse to provide car manufacturers with ANY engines at all if they wanted to. It's their engines. They can use any mutually agreeable method to determine the number of engines provided and the price. This is not apologism. Microsoft has nothing to apologize for here. Microsoft has no ability to make anyone pay a penny more for their software, or the right to distribute it, than it is worth to them. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we > started. In other words, what they did was wrong because it was them who did it. It is fine if anyone else does, just not fine if Microsoft does it. And what is it they have a monopoly in again? Operating systems? What about OSX? x86 operating systems? What about Linux? Oh yeah, they have a monopoly in "desktop operating systems for x86-based computers". Can you cite any rational reason whatsoever for defining the market so ridiculously narrowly? Of course not. There is no rational way Microsoft could have expected the irrational and nonsensical basis for this argument. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > An employee who refuses to act as directed, claiming that he's thinking of > the shareholders' interests, can be fired for cause. His only recourse > would be to become a shareholder (not hard), and then get the attention of > either the board or a large block of shareholders (much harder). If > management is actually breaking the law (say by Enron-like looting) rather > than simply making decisions he considers suboptimal, he can also go to > the authorities, but he does this in his capacity as private citizen; his > status as employee gives him no additional rights or responsibilities in > this respect. A shareholder (whether employee or not) who feels that management is not acting in the interests of all shareholders can file a derivative action (a form of lawsuit). This is supposed to prevent management for acting in the interests of the larger shareholders at the expense of the smaller ones. (Which is really easy if more than half the stock is owned by a single entity.) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > That's basic economics. Something which can be allowed or ignored or even > encouraged when done by small businesses in a competitive market can > easily become harmful and bad for the economy when done by a monopolist or > duopolist in an uncompetitive market. Microsoft goal is and should be their own success, not the success of the economy or the market in general. Microsoft's status of a "monopolist" is only meaningful if you define the market as "desktop operating systems for 32-bit x86 computers". There is no way Microsoft could have expected the market to be defined in this way and no way to argue that Microsoft had any reason to believe their conduct was illegal. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:47:27 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >> There is no way Microsoft could have expected the >>market to be defined in this way and no way to argue that Microsoft had >>any >>reason to believe their conduct was illegal. > If what they did to me in the 90s was not illegal it damn well should > have been. If the deal didn't give you more than it cost you, all you had to do was say 'no'. I understand the frustration at being forced to pay for something what it is worth. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:47:27 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >>> That's basic economics. Something which can be allowed or ignored or >>> even >>> encouraged when done by small businesses in a competitive market can >>> easily become harmful and bad for the economy when done by a monopolist >>> or >>> duopolist in an uncompetitive market. >> Microsoft goal is and should be their own success, not the success of >> the economy or the market in general. > Neither I, nor you, nor the government of any nation, should care a > monkey's toss specifically for Microsoft's success. Microsoft is one > special interest, out of a potentially unbounded number of possible > players in the economy of a country and the world. No, not at all. It is the gravest act of self-contradiction to maintain that one should be allowed to pursue one's own interest while denying that same right to others. > Unless you or I are specifically shareholders in Microsoft, we should not > care about their specific success; and the government should be entirely > agnostic about who are the winners and losers in an economy. We should certainly care that Microsoft be allowed to pursue their own success. The government should be agnostic about who the winners and losers are, but must respect each entity's right to attempt to be that winner. > The > government's role should be to ensure a level playing field, and minimum > levels of health, safety and environmental standards. There is no place > for government giving special-interests like Microsoft favours. The problem is, people complain when the playing field is in fact level. For example, Microsoft's "exclusionary" Windows agreements didn't ask for more than Windows was worth (or nobody would have agreed to them). Yet they are considered examples of the playing field not being level. > Society regulates where and how we park our cars: for instance, none of us > are allowed to park our car in the middle of busy road. and if we try, our > car is likely to be impounded. This is not because there is anything in > and of itself *wrong* with parking at such-and-such a place, but because > of the effect it has on others. Umm, no. It's because the government owns the roads and operates them for the benefit of all. This analogy applies *only* to government property. > A sensible government cares for smooth > flowing traffic on the roads, with the minimum of delays and the maximum > flow practical. You could replace "government" with "road owner" and the analogy would then be correct. Governments don't give a damn if traffic flows smoothly on private roads. > Perhaps Walmart or Safeway might find it convenient to > park their trucks on public roads for any number of reasons. Too bad for > them: the benefit to them does not outweigh the loss to everyone else, > even if they don't specifically block access to their competitors. And this is what any road owner would do. > Microsoft's behaviour over-all has been just as anti-social, > anti-competitive and harmful to the over-all running of the economy as a > hypothetical Walmart or Safeway that regularly parked their trucks in the > middle of the main road for a few hours while they unloaded. The problem is, the government does not own the economy. So it does not get to manage it the way it gets to manage the roads it in fact owns. > Maybe, just maybe, if Mom & Pop's Corner Store tried it once or twice, we > could afford to turn a blind eye, especially if the disruption caused by > towing their delivery van was greater than the disruption caused by their > double-parking. Thousands of people break the law by double-parking for a > few minutes, and society doesn't collapse. But something that we can > afford to ignore when done by M&P's Corner Store becomes a serious problem > if done by somebody with the economic power of Walmart, with their > thousands of deliveries by 18-wheelers every day across the country. Again, the analogy fails. You are comparing the government's right to manage its own property with the government's "right" to interfere with other people's right to manage their property. >> Microsoft's status of a "monopolist" >> is only meaningful if you define the market as "desktop operating systems >> for 32-bit x86 computers". > That is *precisely* the market we're talking about. Not "any item that > runs off electricity", not "orange juice", not "pork bellies", not "all &
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Neither I, nor you, nor the government of any nation, should care a >>> monkey's toss specifically for Microsoft's success. Microsoft is one >>> special interest, out of a potentially unbounded number of possible >>> players in the economy of a country and the world. >> No, not at all. It is the gravest act of self-contradiction to >> maintain >> that one should be allowed to pursue one's own interest while denying >> that >> same right to others. > Not at all. No one is denying anyones right to purssue their own > interest. What's being denied is the right to use illegal means to do > so. If MS restricted themselves to legal means, no one would have a > problem with them. The conclusion that the means were illegal is predicated on the definition of the relevent market as "desktop operating systems for 32-bit x86 computers". Conduct is not illegal unless some law puts people on adequate notice that their conduct is illegal. What law put Microsoft on notice that the relevent market would be defined in the bizarre and almost nonsensical way? >>> Unless you or I are specifically shareholders in Microsoft, we should >>> not >>> care about their specific success; and the government should be entirely >>> agnostic about who are the winners and losers in an economy. >> We should certainly care that Microsoft be allowed to pursue their >> own >> success. The government should be agnostic about who the winners and >> losers >> are, but must respect each entity's right to attempt to be that winner. > Nice thought. Unfortunately, the government doesn't work that > way. They believe that a practical monopoly is a bad thing, and limit > the things such a company can do, and have been known to disassemble > companies they believe are harming the economy in general. In other words, they believe the rights of Microsoft to do what they please with what is theirs is subservient to some general obligation to help the economy as a whole. I am saying that Microsoft has no obligaiton to the economy as a whole but instead has an obligation to its stockholders. It would be the gravest dereliction of that obligation for Microsoft to sacrifice itself for some general benefit. >>> The >>> government's role should be to ensure a level playing field, and minimum >>> levels of health, safety and environmental standards. There is no place >>> for government giving special-interests like Microsoft favours. >> The problem is, people complain when the playing field is in fact >> level. >> For example, Microsoft's "exclusionary" Windows agreements didn't ask for >> more than Windows was worth (or nobody would have agreed to them). Yet >> they >> are considered examples of the playing field not being level. > No, they didn't ask for more than Windows were worth. They tilted the > playing field against MS competitors by causing consumers to pay MS > money for products they didn't receive. In most countries, taking > money from unwilling victims without giving them anything in exchange > is called "theft". It is not theft if you can simply say "no" to the deal and all that happens is that you don't get the product. Your argument is preposterous. If you accept arguments that equate guns with arguments, the next step is that using a gun is a rational response to an argument one doesn't like. Oh wait, you're already there. >>> Microsoft's behaviour over-all has been just as anti-social, >>> anti-competitive and harmful to the over-all running of the economy as a >>> hypothetical Walmart or Safeway that regularly parked their trucks in >>> the >>> middle of the main road for a few hours while they unloaded. >> The problem is, the government does not own the economy. So it does >> not >> get to manage it the way it gets to manage the roads it in fact owns. > Sorry, but you're wrong. The government *does* own the econnomy. If you believe that, then there is no reaching you with reason. > Who > do you think originally created all the money that is flowing through > it? The government created a medium of exchange, but that is not the same as saying it created the wealth that money represents. The government created the money simply as a stand in for the wealth that was created by others. > The government charges you for the privilege of participating in > their economy - it's called "income tax". 2000 years ago Christ knew > who owned the economy, and said "Render unto Ceaser that which is > Ceasers." The government charges you, notionally, for the services it provides. It is somewhat silly to phrase as this as charging you for the privilege of participating in *their* economy. I am familiar with just about every theory for justifying government power, and I know of none that justifies a claim of complete government ownership of the economy other than those that lead to Communism or To
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:10:24 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >>If the deal didn't give you more than it cost you, all you had to do >> was >>say 'no'. I understand the frustration at being forced to pay for >>something >>what it is worth. > The choice was go along with MS arm twisting or go out of business. Only because the product they were providing you was so important you were unable to do business without it. > I call that extortion. Microsoft had something you need so badly that you could not go into business without it. So they demanded from you that you pay them what their software was actually worth to you. That is not extortion. Everyone who sells something tries to get the maximum possible value for it. (Of course, you could have gone into business selling servers. Or Macintoshes. Or another business entirely. It was only to go into the business of selling PCs with Windows that you had to deal with Microsoft.) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> No, not at all. It is the gravest act of self-contradiction to >> maintain >> that one should be allowed to pursue one's own interest while denying >> that >> same right to others. > This is perhaps the most ignorant thing I've seen written down by somebody > educated for a long, long long time. An individual's self-interest may > very well include theft, murder or rape, to mention just a few examples. You are dishonest, lying sack of shit. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:02:44 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> I see you are a totalitarianist or perhaps a communist. If you want
>> to
>> live in America and discuss things that are relevent to America, let me
>> know.
> In other words, "why don't you go back to Russia, you commie pinko
> fascist Jew Nazi".
No.
> Mike Meyer has got just as much right to live in America as David
> Schwartz. Nice to see how quickly Americans' supposed love of freedom
> disappears once they are exposed to views that contradict their own.
This is about whether we're talking *ABOUT* America, you idiot. It's as
if he said the press has no freedom, and I replied, "if you want to talk
about some country where that's true, fine, but this discussion presumed
America as the basis".
Remember, he is the one who said the government owned the economy. That
may be true in some countries, but it's simply *FALSE* in this country. Our
government has limited powers and ownership of the economy is not one of
them.
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not saying Microsoft did not know the law. I am saying that no rational person could have expected the law to be applied to Microsoft that way it was. The law *must* put a person on notice of precisely what conduct it prohibits. However, in this case, the law's applicability was conditioned on an abritrary and irrational choice of what the relevant market was. >>> MS has a long history of dancing with the DOJ, and has been repeatedly >>> warned about the legality - or lack thereof - of their behavior. No >>> rational person who knew of that history could expect the law to be >>> applied to MS in any way other than the way it was. >> Since when does the DOJ get to make the law? (George Bush's claims to >> the contrary not withstanding.) The issue is whether the *LAW* put >> Microsoft >> on notice. A just law must itself put people on notice as to precisely >> what >> conduct constitutes a violation of that law. > In that case, we hav an *awful* lot of unjust laws, because laws > seldom disallow "precise" behavior. That is true. A law *must* put a reasonable person on notice of precisely what conduct it prohibits and what it does not. At the "fringes", the tie goes to the runner, that is, the conduct is not illegal. The law is not supposed to care about things that are trivial. (Except in genuine private entity versus private entity non-criminal cases, where the law really is about the slightest tip of the scales and there is no presumption for either party.) >Which is the only rational way for > a system of laws to work. Requiring that the law predict *everything* > that someone might do to harm others and explicitly listing all those > cases is silly. That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking that the law *clearly* put people on notice of what conduct is prohibited. That's very easy in legitimate laws, because we all know what it means to punch someone or to rob them. It becomes very difficult in illegitimate laws, because there is no reasonable test to decide whether something is a 'monopoly' or not. This burden makes it harder for the government to pass unjust laws, and that is a good thing. > Instead, you outline a class of actions and tag them > all as illegal. That's why we have laws against assault and battery > and unsafe driving. And laws against exercising monopoly power in an > unfair manner. Interesting how you, again, equate a gun and an argument. It is very important to you to justify responding to arguments with guns. However, I reject that premise at its roots, not just in your application of it. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.lang.perl.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >>> Sorry, but nobody but the government actually owns property. In most >>> places, you can't make non-trivial changes to "your" property without >>> permission from the government. They even charge you rent on "your" >>> property, only they call it "property tax". >>I see you are a totalitarianist or perhaps a communist. If you want to >> live in America and discuss things that are relevent to America, let me >> know. > Why would you say that - Mike Meyer made a point to which you have > obviously no answer. Or do you deny that his comments on this matter > of property are true? His comments are not applicable to America. They are applicable to a country where the government owns the economy. No reply is needed to his comments except to point out that they only apply to a communist or totalitarian state. We don't have one here, so his argument doesn't apply. I am not saying "because you are a communist, your argument is wrong". I am saying, "because your argument is based upon communist or totalitarian premises about the relationship between the government and the economy, it does not apply to the United States, and we were talking about the United States." I really felt that this was obvious, but I guess it wasn't. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > David claimed that everyone had a right to do whatever they wanted > with their property. This is simply false throughout most of the > civilized world - zoning laws control what kinds of business you can > run on your property, various laws designed to control the looks of > the town dictate what you can do to the exterior or lawn, flood and > earthquake laws state what kinds of structural changes you can make, > and so on. I took the view of a political extremist to point out that > he was wrong. David predictably used that to tar me as an extremist > from the other end of the spectrum. Here's a question for you, Mike. Presumably, you have the right not to be shot for no reason at all. Does that right act as a bulletproof vest that actually physically prevents me from shooting you? If I argued that a person had a right not to be shot for no reason at all by a random stranger, would you point out that such shootings occur throughout the civilized world as some kind of refutation? The way you respond to what I'm saying shows that you really don't have any clue whatsoever of what the words I'm using *mean*. Do you even know what a "right" is? (Such that, for example, it's possible for rogue governments to violate the rights of their citizens even if those governments don't recognize those rights.) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Matt Garrish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I'd be interested in hearing what you think a right is? A right is a scope of authority. That is, a sphere within which one's decision is sovereign. > In Florida, for example, you have the right to gun someone down if you > think they're a bit too menacing. In Canada, most people find that > reprehensible. So does a Floridian visiting Canada have their rights > infringed on by our rogue government because they're not allowed to gun > down menacing looking Canadians at will? That's obviously a complicated question but totally unrelated to the issue at hand, which was one's sovereignty over one's own property. Obviously issues where a person has to use force against another are going to be complicated. The existence of complicated questions doesn't make the simple ones complicated. > Should they be able to exercise that right regardless and not have to face > the consequences of our laws? I think there are objective criteria in which the use of force is justified regardless of the laws. However, the strategic decision of whether to use objectively justifiable force when one may not be able to justify it to non-objective observers who may use force against you is going to be a complicated one. > I think "right", however, was the wrong choice of words in this thread; > there is rarely anything codifying a company's "right" to succeed at all > costs and at the expense of all competition (except Crown Corporations and > the like, which are created (in theory, anyway) in the interest of general > population as opposed to it). My point was that the Microsoft corporation was not an impersonal entity. It is an entity that is supposed to embody the will and rights of its shareholders and exists to allow them to act together for their own benefit. > Your question here appears to be one of ethics. Is MS ethically bankrupt > for pursuing business practices that run counter to society's established > norms, and should they be punished for doing so? And is their behaviour > the more reprehensible because of the contempt they show for the decisions > of society's judicial arm. It is only proper to show contempt for bad decisions. MS obligation was to comply with the law and not perform actions that the law put them on clear notice were prohibited. The court's determination of the relevent market, on wich all of their other decisions were predicated, was arbitrary and bizarre, and the law did not provide any notice of how the market would be determined. In the sense of interchangeability, almost all operating systems are monopolies. And if you go by application, Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD are all interchangeable -- there is nothing significant you can do on one that you can't do on the other. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Instead, you outline a class of actions and tag them >>> all as illegal. That's why we have laws against assault and battery >>> and unsafe driving. And laws against exercising monopoly power in an >>> unfair manner. >> Interesting how you, again, equate a gun and an argument. It is very >> important to you to justify responding to arguments with guns. However, I >> reject that premise at its roots, not just in your application of it. > Another straw man. I never mentioned the word "gun" at all, and none > of the crimes I discussed require a gun. You can't be that stupid, can you?! Tell me it wasn't obvious to you that the phrase "a gun and an argument" means the difference between force and disagreement. > You apparently aren't interested in constructive intercourse on the > question. You're just interesting in knocking down your own > arguments. Personally, I'd rather not watch you masterbate. You're are the one who brought up assault and battery and unsafe driving, equating Microsoft's persuasive negotiation tactics with force in an attempt to justify responding to them with force. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Matt Garrish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>A right is a scope of authority. That is, a sphere within which one's >> decision is sovereign. > Then why were you claiming that a government can infringe on a person's > rights if those rights are not codified or even accepted by those people? > The idea of inalienable rights for anyone in a Western society only exists > if you believe that the rights of Western societies are inalienable and > should be respected everywhere. There is a huge arrogance in that > assumption, though, and once you enter a jurisdiction that does not hold > your rights to be inalienable they are no longer your rights. > > You can have generally agreed upon rights, but as you note, those rights > can only be hoped for if the systems exist to enforce them. Once those > systems erode, you no longer have rights only hopes. The more you allow > those systems to be eroded, the less you can expect your rights to exist. This would suggest that rogue governments can't infringe on the rights of their people because those people have no rights since their societies don't recognize any. This is another principle I reject at its roots. Your rights exist whether or not others choose to respect them. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Alan Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > AC You wouldn't be this Alan Connor would you: http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/why/connor.html DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Microsoft had something you need so badly that you could not go into >> business without it. So they demanded from you that you pay them what >> their >> software was actually worth to you. That is not extortion. Everyone who >> sells something tries to get the maximum possible value for it. > If a company wants to be paid for things it didn't deliver, then I think > that is extortion. Microsoft want te be paid a license on windows for > P.C.'s that were sold without windows. I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can walk up to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must pay me $1 every time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say "no" and all that happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I have no obligation to do anyway), it isn't extortion. The funny thing is that if Microsoft really had a monopoly on x86 operating systems, their deal would have been fair. Since you can't use a computer without an operating system and theirs would have been the only one. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.lang.perl.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>This is about whether we're talking *ABOUT* America, you idiot. It's >> as >> if he said the press has no freedom, and I replied, "if you want to talk >> about some country where that's true, fine, but this discussion presumed >> America as the basis". > >>Remember, he is the one who said the government owned the economy. >> That >> may be true in some countries, but it's simply *FALSE* in this country. >> Our >> government has limited powers and ownership of the economy is not one of >> them. > I see that you cannot make a reasoned argument against the fact that > property in the form of houses is taxed in America. What does that have to do with anything? Look, this isn't a politics or an economy newsgroup. I don't have to make rigorously valid economic or political arguments. It's sufficient that they be valid with respect to the subject at hand. And you can watch people reply to me by saying, "yeah, well that isn't correct for Afghanistan". Well, guess what, Microsoft isn't an Afghanistan company. > Also may I remind you that these newsgroups are international. So what? We are talking about a United States' company's actions with respect to United States laws. There is no reason to make this about philosophy, politics, law, international relations or any such things. If we did that, we would wind up on tangents (just like this one!) that have nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft. Yes, in a discussion about Microsoft, I will make economic or political statements that aren't 100% valid in every possible imaginable case. But guess what? They'll be 100% valid for the case we're discussing. And you can watch all the replies about how my statement isn't true in every possible case. Well, guess what? I only care about one case. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>His comments are not applicable to America. They are applicable to a >> country where the government owns the economy. >>No reply is needed to his comments except to point out that they only >> apply to a communist or totalitarian state. We don't have one here, so >> his >> argument doesn't apply. > The last time I looked, property taxes were enforced in many states of > the USA. Do you deny this? What do property taxes have to do with Microsoft? >>I am not saying "because you are a communist, your argument is wrong". >> I >> am saying, "because your argument is based upon communist or totalitarian >> premises about the relationship between the government and the economy, >> it >> does not apply to the United States, and we were talking about the United >> States." > Then you are sadly deluded if you think that the US government does not > make decisions on the economy. That's true. Of course, I do think the US government makes decisions on the economy. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Not that I care much since eggs bring on a rather strong reaction > within me, but his arguments were totally false. So you maintain that the United States government owns its economy? It might be instructive to google for "non-government economy". Not even the Chinese government claims to own its country's economy. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can >> walk up to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must >> pay me $1 every time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say >> "no" and all that happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I >> have no obligation to do anyway), it isn't extortion. > Extortion isn't the right word, of course. Nevertheless, being unable > to pay for a computer without also having to pay for an operating > system I don't want seems wrong to me. Then don't do it. > Yes, I have alternatives, I generally buy components and put them > together myself. But why should I have to do that simply to avoid > paying for an OS I'm not going to use? 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. > The way this seems to work in practice strikes me as questionable at > best. Perhaps not illegal (IANAL so I don't know that) but certainly > one-sided. For one example, see > > http://www.netcraft.com.au/geoffrey/toshiba.html This, I think, is unacceptable. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:59:33 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. > In the days prior to Win95, Microsoft said "Co-operate with us is this > immoral scheme to screw OS/2 or go out of business. Your choice." > I call that extortion, even if their lawyers were careful enough to > skirt the letter of the law. Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, "we will only sell Windows wholesale to dealers who don't sell other operating systems?" DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can walk >> up >> to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must pay me $1 every >> time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say "no" and all that >> happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I have no obligation to do >> anyway), it isn't extortion. > If you would happen to have a monopoly on the mowing business, which > would make it very hard for me to have my lawn mowed unless I took > your offer, it would be. Yes, but that's the "if". I have a monopoly on *me* mowing your lawn. You can, of course, go to someone else to have your lawn mowed. Microsoft only had a monopoly on *Microsoft* operating systems. Microsoft had no control over OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and so on. Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is, arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished to sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is, >> arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished >> to >> sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual. > It soitenly is, stanley. In case you hadn't noticed, the shops sell > more than one kind of washing powder. Your argument is nonsensical. Because you can find one category of goods that don't have the property I'm talking about it follows that the property is unusual?! Operating systems are not like washing powder at all. Try to sell both Big Macs and Whoppers in one store. Heck, try to sell Craftsman tools without being a Sears. Microsoft gets to decide whether they sell their operating systems software like washing powder or like burgers, not you. > Please stop this shillism. If you could produce a strong argument, it might make sense to accuse me of shilling. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:06:36 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, "we will only sell >>Windows wholesale to dealers who don't sell other operating systems?" > I had an existing independent business. I was not as though I were an > MS franchise. They imposed this extortion well into my business's > life. My choice was comply or go out of business. > It was not as if I had a choice of sell Hondas or sell Kias if I did > like the franchise deal. Okay, I give up. As far as I can see it, there are only two realistic possibilties: 1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this case, you are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft OS, but the deal they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless you intended to sell PCs with no OS at all.) 2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In this case, you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost out on the realistic competing markets. That is, unless Windows only really was a better deal, in which case you were wise to take the deal and have no reason to be upset. > To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine > wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under > the table or pay full retail for all magazines. Of course you pick an analogy where MS analogically peddles kiddie porn. I can play the same game, watch this: What MS did was similar to the major magazine wholesaler in a town telling retailers they must carry gay and lesbian publications if they want to carry its mainstream magazines. > I broke my own ethical code rather than go out of business. I will > never forgive MS for putting me in that position. You certainly have a legitimate personal grudge against MS. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3) there are plenty of other OSs that are developed or could be > developed but which cannot get a foothold or even manage to be put on > the shelves because the majority product producer insists on charging > hardware manufacturers for every box produced, whether or not it carries > their o/s, and does other nasty things like sabotaging their own > products so they won't work with a clone o/s. How could he resell an OS that "could be developed"? If nobody wants these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to be able to sell them. If people want them, then he could have shown Microsoft the door. You are responding to an argument that was specifically about the effect of this particular arrangement on this particular business. This third case was not one that he could find himself in. In fact, it's case 1 for him. > Sorry - that's not legal, fair, just, or good for the market. It means > that anybody with a 51% share of the market automatically gets 100%. That's just absolutely absurd. If some OS had 51% of the market, plenty of other distributors and manufacturers would gladly take other 49%. > Stop this apologism now. "Apologism"? Merriam-Webster says: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right." Dictionary.com says: "No entry found for apologism." Fortunately I finally found what you mean, from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/ap/apologism.htm which says: Apologism is the metaphysical philosophy that argues that it is wrong for humans to attempt to alter the conditions of life in the mortal sphere of influence. It is opposed to the idea that absolute "progress" is a desirable goal for the pursuit of human endeavors. I'm not sure how I've said it's wrong for people to try to alter the conditions of life. I strongly believe that progress is a desirable goal. In fact, thanks to you, I now know that I am a meliorist. Never knew there was a word for it and never knew there were people who weren't. But then I found what I think you meant, "Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist." So perhaps you are asking me to stop systematically defending my position. Don't worry, my defense is not and has not been systematic. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Eike Preuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Shouldn't it be my right as a seller, to decide that I want to sell an > operating system 'that nobody wants' _as well as_ operating systems that > 'everybody wants'? Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a seller to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may not particularly what operating systems your customers use, but Microsoft does. > So it *hurts* me if I am not able to sell these. That > it doesn't hurt me financially doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt me > (e.g. my freedom, ideas of morality, whatever). You may want to start a restaurant that sells both Big Macs and Whoppers. But I don't think you'll get either McDonald's or Burger King to let you. Perhaps this hurts your freedom, your ideas of morality, or whatever, but the reality is that these companys don't want you selling both their products and competing products. It is McDonald's position that a Big Mac is superior to a Whopper and there is no reason to pick a Whopper over a Big Mac. To them, a store that sells both makes no sense. Microsoft's corporate view at the time was that an x86 desktop without Windows was a brick. And if you want to sell bricks, they don't want their customers dealing with you. When you sell a product, you also mention that product in your advertising. When you sell competing products, you take some customers who want the product you advertised. That is why a lot of products are only sold through exclusive dealerships. Microsoft, like any other company, has the right to set the conditions under which its product is sold. Prohibiting the distrubution of competing products is not really all that unusal, and the agreement Microsoft actually insisted on was much less restrictive than that. Is it fair to Microsoft if the big "Windows" sign on your store and in your advertising brings in customers looking for Windows and you then sell them OS2? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a >> seller >> to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may >> not > No it is not their "right"! That would be a discriminatory practice, > not to mention an anti-competitive practice. Totally. Businesses have the right to be discriminatory and anti-competitive in this way. McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties. This is both discriminatory and anti-competitive, but also perfectly legal, moral, and proper. You only run into a problem under United States law if the company is a monopoly. And I've already addressed that issue in this thread. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is > no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS > business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with > such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition? > > Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime, > etc. However when they use their market position to disallow > competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and > trying to squelch it. If they have a choice, should their competitors have 1% of the market or 0%, they'll choose zero. Who wouldn't? What they're worried about is a customer going to a store because they advertise that they have Windows and being switched to another OS. In fact, they weren't draconian. A draconian agreement would have been one that prohibited you from selling any other OS if you want to sell Microsoft OSes. Instead, what they did was much less restrictive in that it only affected discount levels rather than right to resell and only increased the cost of selling other operating systems rather than prohibiting them. Many other companies totally prohibit you from selling competing products if you want to get the wholesale price on their products. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"John-Paul Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > David Schwartz wrote: >> If nobody wants these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to >> be able to sell them. If people want them, then he could have shown >> Microsoft the door. > > If only 5% want another operating system, the vendor has to choose between > selling to those 5% -or- to the 95% who want Microsoft. Had it not been > for the underhanded tactics, he could have sold to *both* groups. > > From a purely economic standpoint, the sensible thing is to accept that > 95% and let the 5% go elsewhere. > > But if *every* vendor has to make that same choice, there is no place for > that other 5% to go to buy another operating system. So the other > operating system(s) die off. And those 5% become customers of Microsoft > since there's no other choice left. And *that* is where the legal > problems start: they gained market share by preventing consumers from > finding competing products. 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. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion > based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be > allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others. Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit. Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm hungry after 10. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Not Bill Gates wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... >>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +, Not Bill Gates wrote: >>> Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much. >>> You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by >>> the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft? >> You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been crippled, >> don't you? > How about their "java" implementation between 1998 and 2004? > Sure killed the _easier_ write once run everywhere mantra, of course they > where not alone in the killing, SUN helped a great deal. It's easy to point to things you think are mistakes and claim that if you had been in charge of the world, those mistakes would not have been made. If you are trying to balance completely different possible paths the universe might have taken, you need to make sure to include everything on both sides, and that's really really hard to do. Perhaps the desktop software is good enough that how much better it would have been wouldn't make much difference. And perhaps the lack of competition steered the innovators into other fields where their innovations made huge differences. Perhaps not -- perhaps the desktop software we would have had in a more competitive market would have made other people's lives majorly better. Who knows? I don't think it's possible or sensible to try to have a reckoning of this type. There are so many variables and unpredictable possibilities. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties. > McDonald's are not in the business of wholesale distribution of burger > patties so your statement is simply sited in the wrong universe of > discourse. I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation most certainly is in the business of the wholesale distribution of burger patties. One key reason to become a franchisee is to access their wholesale distribution network. > Coming back to the current universe of discourse, I assure > you that a McDonald's director can go into a Burger King and buy a > burger like anyone else, so no discrimination. Mind you - I'm not sure > if they'd let Ronald in. He's obviously dangerously nutty. That's not even remotely analogous. Microsoft didn't say that customers who bought OS2 couldn't buy Windows. They said (in acutality something less than that) people who buy Windows wholesale can't also resell other operating systems. This is perfectly analogous to McDonald's saying that retailers who buy their burger patties wholesale can't also sell Whoppers. >> You only run into a problem under United States law if the company is >> a >> monopoly. And I've already addressed that issue in this thread. > If MacDonalds were wholesale suppliers of hamburgers to the > distribution trade, They are wholesale suppliers to those people who agree to their distribution terms. This requires, among other things, that you prepare them in a precise way and only sell approved items. > then they couldn't discriminate among their > customers for the purposes of altering the competitive nature of the > market in hamburger sales to you and me across the counter. I'm afraid I don't understand what "altering the competitive nature of the market in hamburger sales" actually means. What is it that you are claiming they can't do? > Companies > have been sued for trying that - sports shoe manufacturers, I seem to > recall. They've tried to make sure their shoes are sold only by > specified outlets at specified prices, in order to artificially manage > the market. That's illegal. Sued they got (or perhaps "suede"). What, precisely, is illegal? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion >>> based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be >>> allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others. >> Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit. >> Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm >> hungry after 10. > They can close when they like because the policy is not discriminatory, > nor is part of an attempt to manage the market. If they were to do > things that harmed the market - such as telling meat suppliers that > supplied them that they couldn't supply anyone else, that would be a > possible candidate for anti-competitive behaviour suits. It would have > to be shown that the arrangement WAS materially anti-competitive, > though, and that's difficult to conceive of because MacDonalds does > not constitute a major portion of the market demand for corned beef, > so they don't have the leverage. In other words, who or what it harms is not the issue. Which was precisely my point. Private individuals and corporations are allowed to harm other people, so long as they don't violate the rights of those people when they do so, for example by using force or fraud. If a McDonald's opens across the street from my little burger joint family business, that hurts me. However, it isn't force, it isn't fraud, it doesn't violate rights, it's just part of life. Not even the amount of harm is at issue. Burger King firing someone for cause might result in their family going hungry. The issue is whether the action is within the scope of the actor's authority. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Of course he cares. He is a shill. He licks that hand that feeds him. In an indirect sense. The company I work for does get a lot of sales because we are "anyone but Microsoft". So we actually profit from people's dislike of Microsoft's products. FWIW, I do think most Microsoft products are utter crap with one exception -- in a sufficiently controlled situation, the product can be demonstrated to be able to do what most people think they want it to do. I'm not sure whether or not the market really wants crap. It may be that Microsoft correctly read that the mass market for software is for crap software, just like the mass market for science television is for crap science television. Frankly, I hope not. It's kind of like how a PBS science special, largely free from market forces, is generally of fairly high quality. On the other hand, a network science special shaped largely by market forces, is likely to be about a person who has learned how to speak with cats or the dead. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation >> most >> certainly is in the business of the wholesale distribution of burger >> patties. One key reason to become a franchisee is to access their >> wholesale >> distribution network. > Then they are not in the wholesale business. So lock the drugs cabinet. > (What they are marketting is a "brand", complete with clowns and > arches, and a secret formula for making up patties in buns). So is Microsoft, except the clowns write the software. When a shop sells machines that ship with Microsoft Windows, it is to some extent the power of Microsoft's brand that brings them into the shop. All I'm saying is that if Microsoft had insisted on exclusive deals to offer Windows at wholesale, that would have been entirely reasonable. Microsoft actually insisted on something less than this. The Windows name is a valuable brand, and advertising it and promoting it got you business. Microsoft doesn't want to see customers drawn in by the power of its brand being switched to competing products. How would the McDonald's corporation feel if you walked into a store because of the pretty golden arches (that in McDonald's opinion, assure the customer of getting quality McDonald's food) and the person at the counter said, "try a Whopper, it's cheaper and tastes better too". There is nothing unusual about wholesale agreements that restrict your ability to sell competing products. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"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 market would be / would have been really > global. In practice if you have a shop you have a limited 'region of > influence'. Optimally you are the only shop in this region that sells > the stuff, or perhaps there are a few shops that compete with you. Lets > say in your region are two shops competing with you, and you must decide > wether to sell product A (95%) or B (5%), but you may not sell both. > Decision 1: Sell A, share the 95% of the local market with two -> about > 32% of the local market for all of you, if all perform equally good > Decision 2: Sell B -> you get the 5% of the market, the others 47% each > > This calculation is probably still a very bad approximation of the > truth, but things are definitely not as easy as you state them. It depends upon how different the products are and how easy it is to shop out of your local market. If the products are equally good and reasonably interchangeable and it's hard to shop out of your local market, then you're right. The more the smaller product is better than the larger product, the less interchangeable they are, and the easier it is to shop out of your local market, the more wrong you are. How often do you hear, "I'd like to use Linux, but I just can't get ahold of it"? And how many people do you hear saying, "I'd like to use Linux, but I'm not willing to shell out the bucks to buy it since I already bought Windows with my computer". On the other hand, where you might be right is in the possibility that Microsoft's lock on the market prevented other companies from making operating systems at all. That is, that had Microsoft used different policies, other companies would have introduced operating systems to compete with Microsoft, and we'd all have better operating systems for it. If Microsoft's conduct was legal, this argument establishes that the conduct was necessary. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > entropy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the >> same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly. > ... and were told not to by a court. Which is the whole reason for the > existence of IBM clones, whether PCs or mainframes. And, perhaps, is the whole reason for the existence of Microsoft. (In its present form, as the OS vendor for the majority of desktops.) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No they aren't. A pc o/s is something you load on an IBM pc, and an IBM > pc is an open format. There is no "microsoft computer", and there is no > such thing as a "microsoft computer shop". That doesn't at all address my point. The point is, there are large numbers of people looking for computers with Windows installed on them. If you sell this type of computer, this type of person will come to you. >> When a shop sells >> machines that ship with Microsoft Windows, it is to some extent the power >> of >> Microsoft's brand that brings them into the shop. > No it isn't. Quite the opposite - look at a computer shop or a > computer advert, and you will see "Pentium 4 3.4GHz 1MB cache, 1GB DDR > RAM", etc. etc. And you will also see "Designed for Windows XP" or a Microsoft logo in the ad. > Really - bar all the argument-shifting and picking up from nonsense > points, I wish I could find some kernel of sensibleness in your > argument because at times in the past you have acted sane. But not > here! If you have an argument, out with the bones of it. What is it? > Something like "MS can do anything they like to make a profit"? No - > they can't. Is it "MS can't be criticised for behaving like mad bad > bullies"? Uh, uh, yes they can. And so on. What IS your line? No, my point is that this specific Microsoft tactic was a *lesser* tactic than offering only exclusive wholesale deals and there's nothing wrong with a company that only offers exclusive wholesale deals. What Microsoft didn't want was someone going to a store to buy a PC with Windows and being told that another OS is better and cheaper. If you want to sell a competitor's products, Microsoft wasn't going to let you use their popularity to draw that person in. Why should Microsoft let him build his business selling PCs with Windows and then let him sell the customers that he admits he would have only because he sells Windows PCs on a competitor's OS? He says he wouldn't have had enough customers to stay in business if he didn't offer Windows. Then he wants to concvince those customers to use a competitor to Windows. Why should Microsoft let him do that? If I am working on a new burger that competes with the Whopper, do you think Burger King corporate is going to let any restaurant sell my competing burger? So that people who go into a Burger King because they want a Whopper can be told how my competing burger is cheaper and better? Exclusive wholesale arrangements are not unusual at all. And one of the main reasons is that you don't want someone specifically looking for your brand to then be switched to a competitor. The point is, he wouldn't have customers if he didn't offer Windows. His customers are coming to him *because* he offers Windows. Microsoft wants a portion of the money that he gets solely because he offers Windows. Why aren't they entitled to it? He admits, he wouldn't have any business or any customers unless he offers Windows. That is, it is his offering Windows that allows him to build a business, a customer base, and so on. Why is it wrong for Microsoft to want a cut of the business that he has only because he offers their products? This is what Burger King does if you want to sell their burgers. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Peter T. Breuer wrote: > claim 1a) Microsoft's tactic is X (fill in, please) > judgment 1b) tactic X is somehow not as bad as (sense?) offering >"exclusive wholesale deals" (please define) Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every machine you sell without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy Windows wholesale. Someone could comply with this by not selling any other operating systems at all and never pay the fee. Therefore, this is a lesser restriction than saying you can only sell Windows wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing systems. If I have the right to say you can't use my car at all, I have the lesser right to impose the lesser restriction that you can only use my car if you pay me $10. Microsoft's specific tactic was to offer Windows wholesale only as part of a franchise arrangement. The franchise arrangement stipulated a fee per system sold, whether or not the system included Windows. This is a lesser version of the more typical franchise arrangement which only lets you sell branded products and doesn't let you sell or offer non-branded products. If you want to sell meals with Whoppers in them, you have to get permission to do so from Burger King corporate. And they will not let you also sell Big Macs in the same store, even if McDonald's had no objection. If you owned a Burger King and wanted to offer a competing burger, Burger King corporate might let you do so, but it would be totally reasonable for them to insist on a fee even for non-BK products sold. This is because it is their products, reputation, and marketing that creates the customer flow that you are using to sell your products. Similarly, by his own admission, it is his ability to sell Microsoft products that allows him to have a business at all and it creates the customer flow that he would use to sell the competing products. Microsoft's insistence on some money in exchange for this is not unreasonable. Many companies require you to agree to various types of things in order to obtain their products wholesale. The Microsoft Windows wholesale agreement was not vastly different from many such agreements. If another company with smaller market share made a similar insistence, nobody would have raised so much as an eyebrow. >> What Microsoft didn't want was someone going to a store to buy a >> PC with >> Windows and being told that another OS is better and cheaper. > Tough - that's what salespeople are for (notionally, in a shop you > trust). So should Burger King be required to allow McDonald's salesman in their stores? Or should Burger King corporate be prohibited from disallowing Burger King store owners from telling their customers that the burgers are better across the street at the McDonald's he owns? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If you want to sell meals with Whoppers in them, you have to get >> permission to do so from Burger King corporate. And they will not >> let you also sell Big Macs in the same store, even if McDonald's had >> no objection. > Why do you keep comparing Microsoft with Burger King? They are not > the same. Burger King is operating in a competitive environment. > Microsoft is a convicted illegal monopolist. Monopolists are not > allowed to do the same things that competitors are allowed to do. > So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft. Because the error I'm correcting is the belief that Microsoft's conduct was extremely unusual (unlike anything any reputable company had ever done, essentially). I understand that people think it was wrong because it was specifically Microsoft that did it and the specific circumstances they were in with respect to their market. I've addressed that in other parts of this thread. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Roedy Green wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:07 -0700, "David Schwartz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >>Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and >> other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every >> machine you sell without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy >> Windows wholesale. Someone could comply with this by not selling any >> other operating systems at all and never pay the fee. Therefore, >> this is a lesser restriction than saying you can only sell Windows >> wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing systems. If I >> have the right to say you can't use my car at all, I have the lesser >> right to impose the lesser restriction that you can only use my car >> if you pay me $10. > It makes a big difference that MS has a monopoly. See my other response to this specific argument. > If I open an washing machine store and Maytag says, "we only sell > wholesale to you if you agree to sell our brand exclusively." > > What Microsoft did is different for three reasons: > > 1. the Maytag agreement made up front, not imposed to shut down a > business who has never signed a prior exclusivity contract. 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 wholesale. > 2. The appliance store has lots of other brands to sell. In my case, > failing to comply with MS's illegal and immoral demand would put me > out of busness. They were forcing me into commit criminal acts or lose > my business. In other words, what Microsoft had to offer you was of such value that you'd have no customers without it. To put it another way, those are Microsoft's customers because it's your ability to sell Microsoft products that makes your business. > 3. Maytag makes the machines. In the computer instance, we at CMP > custom build the computers. Microsoft have no business telling me what > to do when they supplied only one component. I could not even sell a > BARE computer. The "one component" is what makes the product you're selling. It's "Windows PCs" that people are buying and it's the look and feel of a "Windows PC" that makes it what it is. There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to other with minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do compete with Windows PCs. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Roedy Green wrote: > On 26 Oct 2005 18:05:45 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone > who said : >>> IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the >>> same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly. >> ... and were told not to by a court. Which is the whole reason for >> the existence of IBM clones, whether PCs or mainframes. > Back in the early days, IBM was just as bad as MS. Competition and > some smackdown by the DOJ, have made them much better behaved. And opened the door for Microsoft. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Peter T. Breuer wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> . Microsoft said you can sell Windows >> and other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every >> machine you sell without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy >> Windows wholesale. Someone could comply with this by not selling any >> other operating systems at all and never pay the fee. Therefore, >> this is a lesser restriction than saying you can only sell Windows >> wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing systems. > No - you claim that allowing somebody (by contract?) to do Z at a > penalty is "lesser" than disallowing them from doing Z. Sorry - both > are equal in market economics (where the financial imperatve rules). Umm, no it's lesser in a strictly logical sense. > Indeed, no contract can "disallow" somebody from doing Z - you are > always at liberty to break a contract! (See the RH Enterprise licence > as an example of a contract that you are at liberty to break by > copying RHE to more machines at the penalty of losing RH maintenance > support- I recently had this argument with Rick Moen). The penalty > for doing so is what is at issue. > > So your definitions are anyway without semantic content, and hence the > argument cannot proceed. My argument proceeds exactly the same if they're equal as if they're lesser. It is totally not dependent upon how much lesser it is. > And even if the argument were too proceed, your use of "lesser" would > fail, because it appears to mean "is a (proper) subset of the ways > that" without having established what different (i.e. same) means, and > I'd submit that there is no diffence between the elements you exhibit > in the setting of market regulation law. My argument proceeds the same if they're equivalent. (Did you read it?!) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
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. One can quickly be converted to >> other with minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do >> compete with Windows PCs. > 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 just booted up. Is that really true? I mean, I remember distributions of Linux that you could just stick in the CD, boot from CD, and you were up in minutes. Installing was as simple as pushing the 'install to hard drive' button. I think one of the biggest reasons Linux has a reputation of being harder to use than Windows is that it *is* harder to use. However, the payoff is that when a Linux machine breaks, you can fix it. When a Windows machine breaks, you pretty much have to reinstall. And Windows machines break in this way more often because it's much harder to limit what a user or program can do. Linux, for example, would be easier to use if it had no permissions checks and always ran everything as root. However, it doesn't do this the way Windows does (or more accurately, the way Windows users typically do), because that's just not the Linux way. I'm trying to think of a good analogy to make my point clearer, but I can't. IMO, a person who doesn't find installing Linux to be easy wouldn't be able to use a Linux desktop (or do much with a Linux server either for that matter). But I could be out of date, I haven't really tried to use the more recent Linux desktop builds as desktops. But, IMO, that was certainly true in the time frame we're talking about. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Paul Rubin wrote: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft. >> Because the error I'm correcting is the belief that Microsoft's >> conduct was extremely unusual (unlike anything any reputable company >> had ever done, essentially). > MS's monopolistic conduct was uncommon, but not so extremely unusual > as to be unheard of. Congress had indeed seen conduct like that > before, which is why it saw the need for passing laws against it. 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 worms for a different part of this thread. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Roedy Green wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:28:46 +0200, "Peter T. Breuer" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who > said : >> I'm a bit curious about this. If I were a business person, I would >> simply have created two busineses (two accounts, etc.). One business >> sells only machines with MS on and pays the MS tax on all its >> machines. One business sells only machines without MS on and pays >> the MS tax on none of its machines. >> >> What's up with that? > Try the same thing to deal with a Mafia extortion racket. This is precisely my point. Your premise is that a gun is no different from a persuasive argument. You need this principle to justify responding to arguments you don't like with guns. I reject this premise at its roots. > 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 force? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 >> wholesale. > No it was not . It was never on paper. It was not imposed until I > had been in business for at least 5 years. 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 contract that said that? Or are you simply saying that they changed the terms of your agreement when it came up for renewal? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 >> other with minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do >> compete with Windows PCs. > You think it is OK to force someone into a choice of committing a > criminal act with the alternative of losing their established business > and having to put 8 employees out of work. What religion do you belong > to? You often say things that just seem to have come out of the blue with no connection whatsoever to anything else. What criminal act was someone forced into committing? What are you talking about? If you have a business that sells PCs only because those PCs come preloaded with Windows, and without Windows to offer, there would be no market, then you have a business that exists at Microsoft's pleasure. The same thing would be the case with any piece of software by any manufacturer. Now, not all manufacturers would use their leverage, of course. But don't you think it would be pretty stupid of them not to? Why shouldn't they get from you, and why aren't they entitled to, as much as the ability to sell Windows is worth? Since, by your own admission, it's what made it possible for you to be in business? You say you couldn't stay in business without the ability to sell Windows wholesale. That means that every customer you get, in some part you owe to Microsoft. Why shouldn't you pay them their fair share of that? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 a different can of worms for a different part >> of this thread. > The trial court determined and two different appeals courts upheld > that MS had an illegal monopoly. I think they have more experience > and knowledge of these things than you do. MS's illegal monopoly > is an established legal fact regardless of your irrelevant opinion. 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 discretion. They could just as easily have found that Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, and other operating systems competed with Windows. To call it an "established legal fact" is to grossly distort the circumstances under which it was determined and upheld. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 >> in the absence of a written contract that said that? Or are you >> simply saying that they changed the terms of your agreement when it >> came up for renewal? > They were demanding I sell a copy of windows with every machine I > constructed, whether the customer wanted or not, even if the customer > had us install some other OS. 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 as a demand for franchise or exclusivity if you had wanted to. > The threat was that I did not comply, they would put me out of > business by arranging that my wholesalers would stop selling any MS > product to me, with veiled threat of even worse strangulation. Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with you if you broke your agreements with them. > What I don't think you understand this threat would was just as > effective in putting he out of business as threatening to sending in > goons every week to smash my shop to pieces. I understand that it is just as effective, but that's not the issue. If I'm hungry, a person who refuses to give me a loaf of bread for free may be just as effective at killing me as a person who shoots me. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no obligation to feed a person and there is an obligation not to shoot them. > I could at least have a chance of legal recourse with the vandals. Only because their actions are unreasonable and Microsoft's are not. > It will be very hard to prosecute MS for their crimes because they > commit them much the way the Mafia does. 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 obligations. > No one has any paper. Everyone was terrified of MS and would never > dream of going public. I have talked about this publicly many times > because it always looked as if I were going to die in a few years > anyway. I think you're starting to go off the deep end. > 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 mainframe to do billing. I was > working on the Univac bid at the time. He said that the IBM salesman > said to him, "We know you have an eight year old little girl. We know > she walks along X street every day on her way to school. It would be > a terrible thing if somebody hurt her." Yep, way off the deep end. > I wrote a tender for about $1 million in computer equipment for BC > Hydro gas. There were many bidders hoping to get a foothold in a > solidly IBM shop. IBM sent a weird chap to see me, dressed as a > gangster, talking in a gangster accent, with a strange tic like Dustin > Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo in midnight cowboy. He made no specific > threats, but his act was straight out of Hollywood,"you knows what I > means" warning me about the "consequences" of picking anything but > IBM, how I might get the reputation as unreliable..." > There were the standard tactics on $1 million contracts. Imagine the > dirty tricks for the big ones. Mind you, back then $1 million was > serious money, especially when you considered the no-bid followons > over the years. If that kind of thing ever happened (which I seriously doubt), it's absolutely reprehensible. I find it almost possible to believe that individuals on commission might do this kind of thing with no knowledge of their corporate higher ups, or perhaps even that people one level up or so might do it if they are also on commission. But I find it almost impossible to believe that any major corporation could do this as a policy. Of course, the individuals who use actual force or threats of fraud (and blacklisting because they didn't buy from you is fraud), deserve to be prosecuted and imprisoned. Do you have any documentation or evidence to support these claims? Or am I supposed to take your word for it? (Honestly, it seems like you're just trying to mess with me.) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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, that's a classic. Notice that no force, fraud, or threats are involved. > The game then became to get the client to get drunk and laid and do > crazy things to help very uptight people cut loose. > > On one of these trips, we ran through fields chasing fireflies. 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 looking out for the interests of their employers when they make their purchasing decisions. On the other hand, it's a far cry from force, fraud, blacklisting, threats of false accusations, and so on. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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. >> > What a stupid comparison! A computer without Windows is a computer > with another operating system. It isn't even comparable to a car with > specially expensive non standard seats. It is comparable in the only sense in which I used a comparison. More people want a computer with Windows preinstalled than want it any other way. Similarly, more people want a car with standard seats preinstalled than want it any other way. Who said anything about 'specially expensive'? Are you pretending I said that just so you can refute it? It kind of reminds me of a scene from Futurama, which went roughly like this: Leela: We need to get some money. Fry: Well how are we going to do that? A daring daylight robbery of Fort Knox on elephant back? That's the dumbest idea I ever heard! DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 copy of our OS for EVERY machine you sell. The alternative is >> to pay full retail for the OSes. > Through intimidation, MS managed to control the entire retail computer > market in Vancouver BC to the extent you could not buy even the most > stripped down computer without having to buy a copy of Windows with > it, whether you wanted it or not. > > You might not want it because you bought OS/2. > > You might not want it because you already owned Windows from your > older machine you were upgrading. > > You might not want it because somebody stole your machine and they did > not steal all your software masters. Tell me, can you buy a new car without seats? Guess what, you have to buy those seats whether you want them or not. Try to start a business selling competing seats for a new car. Your seats may be cheaper, better, but how can you possibly compete when people have to pay for factory car seats whether they want them or not? The real reason PCs were not available without Windows was because not enough people wanted them that way to justify setting up a business to provide them that way, and Microsoft was not going to let a business parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the advantages of competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 that's what manufacturers of operating > systems, washing machines, and so on, are supposed to do. And so says > the legal system. Attempting to subvert market economics like that is > illegal. Actually, there are washing machines that are only available in particular stores. I believe Kenmore washing machines, for example, are only available wholesale as part of a franchise deal. I don't know why you think that's an attempt to subvert market economics, it's actually just a normal part of the way the market works. >> (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big >> Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.) > They're not obliged to. There is no comparison. Not even the same kind > of business in the abstract. Try :- Cow Meat Inc. will see that no > supplier will ever sell you cow meat again if you also sell vegetables > in your totally independent restaurant. So you are saying Microsoft wouldn't sell Windows wholesale to business A if totally independent business B wouldn't pay them a per-system-sold royalty? That makes no sense. The comparison is perfect. Microsoft made Windows available wholesale for resale only as part of a franchise-style agreement. This is a completely typical thing to do. (Though I don't think it's typical for operating systems, I'd be very surprised if it hadn't been done with an operating system before. Sun seems to have similar restrictions now, in fact.) DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 comparison would be if Burger King purchases the fries from a > factory that says that Burger King has to give out a pack of fries > with all meals, regardless of the type of meal, or they are going to > raise the price. In other words, you'll be forced to take a pack of > fries with your ice cream, salad or what not. Considering that > McDonalds have been selling meals with "potato-boats" (don't know the > correct english term for it, carved potato pieces fried), they'd have > to give you a pack of fries with your meal regardless, even if you > want to replace the fries with "potato-boats". The reason this is a much worse comparison is that the fries don't determine the nature, to the consumer, of the meal. On the other hand, there is a sense in which all PCs running, say Windows 98, are alike to the consumer. That is, what Microsoft provided is what put the product in its class to the consumer, and to the typical consumer, the meal is a unit. > Also, in this case Burger King "won't sell you" is not the same as > "can't sell you", which seems to be the case with this whole Microsoft > discussion. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to easily buy a > computer from Microsoft with OS/2 installed or vice versa either and > I'm not sure they would be obliged to do so either. However, > controlling what an independant outlet is doing, that's different. I'm talking about Burger King corporate, the wholesale distributor and franchise licensor. They control what any entity that wants to sell their branded products can do, and do so very strictly. The term "independent outlet" is hiding the entire point. Microsoft has no more obligation to sell Windows through independent outlets than Burger Kind corporate has an obligation to sell Whoppers through indepedent outlets, which is none at all. Microsoft elected only to allow Windows to be purchased wholesale through a franchisee like arrangement, so you were no longer a fully independent outlet. I think the history shows that Microsoft opted for a franchisee-type arrangement for much the same reason Burger King does. They want their company name to have value and bring in customers. To do this, they have to prevent their company name from being associated with products that don't provide the experience they want associated with their name and they have to prevent companies that draw based on the popularity of Windows but then switch people to other products. Because Burger King corporate doesn't want a person to see the golden arches, walk in, and get a crappy burger or be told that a competing burger is cheaper and better, they only allow their branded products to be sold at any business that can draw using their name and products. Microsoft, for much the same reasons, resticted people's ability to modify Windows or sell both Windows and competing products. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 within the trial court's discretion. > No, that finding would have been contradictory to the facts at hand. How would it have been contradictory to the facts at hand to find that OSX competes with Windows? >> They could just as easily have found that Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, and >> other operating systems competed with Windows. > Nice try, but those other OS's did not have enough market share to > prevent the finding of monopoly under the law. That's not what happened. With OSX, for example, the court decided that OSX didn't compete with Windows and therefore the market share of OSX was not even relevent. OSX could have sold twice as many units as Windows and under the court's reasoning, Microsoft would still have been a monopoly. >> 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? That's basically slander. > 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. Suppose hypothetically an issue of fact in a case is razor thin, as close as it can possibly be. The trial court judge says, "This is as close as something can possibly be. A decision of X is basically just as well supported as Y. Nevertheless, I will find X". (Assume the court must find X or Y and they are contradictory.) The appeals court says that either X or Y would be a reasonable finding for the trial court to make since they were essentially equally supported, so the decision is upheld. Does this make X an "established legal fact" in your mind? The trial court had several possible decisions about what the scope of the market was to be for purposes of determining what share of the market Microsoft had. Obviously, "software" was too large a scope and would result in the conclusion that Microsoft has some miniscule percentage of the market. "Operating systems that can run WIN32 software natively" was too small a scope, and would result in the conclusion that Microsoft had basically 100% of the market. However, the choice of the place in-between was critical. In fact, by the court's definition of the market, Apple is a monopolist with OSX. And what are Apple's rules for obtaining OSX wholesale? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 >> uphold their contractual obligations. > You stupid fuck! How many times do I have to tell you. > There was NO contract. Just a THREAT to make me do what they wanted, > to go along with their extortion racket. Getting information from you is like pulling teeth. This threat was to do what they wanted or else .. WHAT? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 summarise this then drop out. My blood pressure is at a > boil. > I was a computer retailer. We built custom computers. I had 8 people > working for me. This was in the time prior to Win95 when IBM had a > clearly technically superior solution with OS/2 to MS's Windows 3.1 > I had no contract of any kind with MS. I never bought anything from > them directly. I was far too small a fish. I bought the components > including software through dozens of wholesale suppliers. > MS threatened to put any retailer out of business who would not > co-operate with them in extorting money from people who had no use for > MS Windows who explicitly for various reasons did not want to buy MS > windows. No, MS decided only to sell Windows to essentially Windows-only shops. > To me that is no different from a popsicle manufacturer demanding I > sell $200 popsicles with every machine I sold. The machines needed MS > Windows no more than they needed a popsicle. You could have complied with their requests by selling computers only with Windows installed. That is, by only selling Windows PCs. All Microsoft was saying was "sell only our products or don't sell our products". This is a perfectly, normal typical franchise arrangement. You can't sell Whoppers and also sell any competing burgers that aren't Burger King branded. > 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 entire business to Microsoft. Without their products, you would have had nothing, by your own admission. The way you repay them is by trying to screw them -- attract people who come in only because you offer Windows and then say "here's an OS that's better and cheaper". > It was obviously quasi legal or the threats would have had paper to > back them up so I could go to court now to sue the fuckers. It's perfectly legal and normal (for non-monopoly products). What do you have to agree to in order to purchase OSX wholesale? What do you have to agree to in order to purchase Solaris wholesale? Honestly, I don't understand why you're so worked up and ballistic about a perfectly typical franchisee/authorized reseller agreement. Microsoft could have refused to sell you Windows wholesale completely. That would have meant no business for you at all. In exchange for making your business possible, all they ask is you don't steer the customers you have only because of them to their competitors. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 know why you think >> that's an attempt to subvert market economics, > Because "it is". Then every franchise on the planet and every company that sells wholesale only to "authorized resellers" and has non-compete in their authorization terms, is subverting the market. >> it's actually just a normal >> part of the way the market works. > > No it isn't. Yes, it is. > I think I'll just plonk you. Absurd and outlandish statements like > that put you beyond the pale. The law has spoken on the matter - the > courts have judged, and "that is illegal" and "that is a monopoly" > and "that is an illegal trade practice" are its judgments. 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. What do you have to agree to in order to get OSX wholesale for resale? What about Solaris? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 franchising agent only sells Whoppers wholesale to franchisees, and to be a franchisee you must agree not to sell competing products. > PC hardware stores do not belong to microsoft. 91% of Burger King restaurants are independently owned and operated. Burger King doesn't own the stores either. > There > just isn't any correlation. Huh? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 that. You owed your entire business to Microsoft. >> Without their products, you would have had nothing, by your own >> admission. The way you repay them is by trying to screw them -- >> attract people who come in only because you offer Windows and then >> say "here's an OS that's better and cheaper". > > Oh right. You're actually just a troll. Oh well. > > *plonk* I see, he presents the strongest possible anti-Microsoft argument (including analogizing Microsoft to people who *KILL* people) and that's fine with you. I present the strongest possible pro-Microsoft argument, and I must be a troll. Right ... If you think I'm a troll, why don't you try googling for all my posts on USENET. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 threat to stop providing you with a business by allowing you to resell their products. > 2. it was a threat to force me to commit a criminal act -- namely > extract money from people and hand it to Microsoft and give those > people nothing of value in return. That in principle is no different > from demanding I go out an night and rob people and give MS the > proceeds. The selected victims were those who expressed a contempt > for MS products by refusing to buy or even have any need for them. If you didn't think Windows was worth paying for, don't sell it. An wholesale agreement that prohibits you from selling competing products is not at all unusual. > 3. What MS did was theft, namely taking money from people and giving > them nothing of value in return against their will. Then don't agree to it. All you had to do was say no. All you would have lost was the ability to do business *with* *Microsoft*. > What if MS had simply made the threat without being specific about how > they were going to carry it off? Would you consider MS so innocent > then? If it could have been in any way taken as a threat to use force, lie to others about your company, file a lawsuit knowing it had no merit, or anything of the like, then I would not consider MS innocent at all. To my mind, that is where the line is drawn. But in this case, all it seems that Microsoft threatened to do was to prohibit you from doing business with them. And all they wanted in exchange was more of what being able to sell their products was actually worth to you. The point here is that Microsoft was offering you something of tremendous value to you. And they, in return, asked for a lot of money from you. It's really this simple -- is the money they want from you more or less than the value? If yes, you have no right to complain. If no, why ever did you agree? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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, and it contains a few minor technical errors. But it does sum up most of my view on this particular aspect of the topic. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 them forth > themselves, I would find it hard to believe that the law would > prohibit them from doing so. > Otherwise I could set up a shop, call it "Microsoft Porsgrunn" and > sell machines with only Linux installed. > I think Microsoft would be allowed to say "No, you can't do that". 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 do get to choose how their products are branded, marketed, and sold. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 do get to choose how their products >> are branded, marketed, and sold. > Yes, and that's not what Microsoft has ever done. There have always > been lots of shops selling Microsoft merchandise without being a > Microsoft franchise in the sense Burger King shops are. Right, Microsoft imposed a lesser restriction. They allowed you to sell competing products, but charged you a fee. > That's why I still say your comparison is a bad one. It shows that Microsoft's purportedly draconian restrictions are much less than restrictions that people don't even bat an eye at. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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-monopoly companies. You seem to think > Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not. What is an "illegal monopoly"? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 having. > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/msdoj/ I don't see anything there about what an "illegal monopoly" is or might be. Perhaps you could clarify. What do you think you mean when you say "illegal monopoly"? DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 have no idea what you he means by "illegal monopoly". I understand that one can be granted a monopoly by law, however not being granted a monopoly by law does not make the monopoly illegal. Is he claiming the monopoly itself violated some law? For example, I know what "illegal monopoly maintenance" is. It's illegally maintaining a monopoly. But it's not maintaining an illegal monopoly. As the appeals court put it, "the monopoly in this case was not found to have been illegally acquired, but only to have been illegally maintained." Both the district and appellate courts characterized Microsoft's monopoly as "lawfully-acquired". 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. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 about having a monopoly; it only becomes > illegal > when you abuse the power. That's just not true. When you abuse the power, the abuse itself is illegal, but it doesn't make the monopoly itself illegal. This is like saying a person who uses his bat to hit people has an "illegal bat". When you say "it only become illegal", you are just being vague. Nothing becomes illegal. The abuse is illegal, but it never was legal. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
