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
"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 m
"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
"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 beh
"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 &
"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
> peopl
"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]
>>>
"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 o
"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 appl
"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
>&g
"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
"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
"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
>&g
"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
>
"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 Mic
"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
&g
"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'
"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 enligh
"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 b
"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.
>>>
&g
"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 sharehold
"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, t
"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 disobey
"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
>>
"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
"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
"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
"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)
>&g
"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
> sh
"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.
"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
"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 at
"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 monopoli
"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 defi
"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 w
"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
>>> pl
"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
"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
"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 t
"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 pr
<[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.
"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 pr
"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 do
"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 as
"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
"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
"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.
<[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
<[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 totalit
<[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 "
<[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, yo
"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 "
"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" a
"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.
"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
"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
> hardwa
"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 Micros
"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 discri
<[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 agreeme
"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
"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.
"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
"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.
"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]
>>
"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
"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]
>>
"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 r
"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 w
"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 &
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
operatin
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, e
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 sys
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 no
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
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 wi
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
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
>>
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 excep
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 Fre
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 hinge
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 yo
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,
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
>>
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
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.
>
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 ?
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, Micros
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 ref
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 y
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
Iain King wrote:
> Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work?
No.
> It would only be
> fitting if Microsoft OWNED the outlet.
Huh?
> Places which sell Whoppers
> are Burger King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell
> Big Mac's.
Right. The Burger King corporate fra
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 sur
Roedy Green wrote:
> 1. it was a threat to destroy a business -- e.g vandalise tens of
> thousands of dollars of property. For all practical purpose they
> threatened to steal my business. It would be roughly the same dollar
> value as threatening to burn down a large house.
No, it was a th
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
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:
> I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word
> "Microsoft" as part of the shop name, there would be some rules
> dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those
> rules are set forth in a law somewhere or Microsoft set the
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 p
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 Associat
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 m
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 allowe
"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, ab
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
