Linux-Advocacy Digest #114, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 18:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:08:32 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>[snip]
>> >Not directly; WFC wouldn't magically work in
>> >Sun or Netscape JVMs, just because it didn't use
>> >delegates.
>>
>> Why do you bring up magic?
>
>Just to add some entertainment to by
>posts. You have complained that they are
>uninteresting. :D
They are uninteresting because you waste time with senseless prattle,
under the thin guise of entertainment. What would be entertaining would
be if you could come up with some intelligent points within the
discussion.
>> >But MS needed an edge- some way for their
>> >product to be *better* than Suns.
>>
>> What a naive attitude to have when examining anti-competitive actions,
>> to assume without even casual examination that they are competitive.
>
>I am saying what MS needed; it's not clear to me that delegates
>*do* deliver what they needed.
You may well be wrong about what "MS needed". As I have shown, in fact,
it is a rather pitiful excuse for a supposition. Whether it is clear to
you is irrelevant trolling. Ask a question if you don't understand
something; you just keep making stuff up instead and it makes you look
stupid.
>> Rather counter-productive, don't you think? But, then, that is the
>> point, isn't it, to fail to actually examine any claim that MS
>> monopolizes?
>
>To my knowledge, nobody has claimed that
See what I mean?
>adding the delegates feature is "anti-competitive";
You don't understand. It is not the action which is the issue; it is
the class of action. It is the intent, the purpose, the affect. It is
not a characteristic of the action itself, so to say that "adding the
delegates feature is 'anti-competitive'" is meaningless tripe.
Microsoft acted anti-competitively when they modified their software as
they did. This is rather conclusively proven by the fact that the
modification did not open the market to competition, but I understand
you'd have trouble understanding the logic, and might consider that
begging the question. Suffice it to say that *I* have seen nobody claim
that adding the delegates feature was *competitive*.
Just like when MS was brought to trial, and after the prosecution made
their case, providing sufficient evidence that MS was guilty, Microsoft
was given the chance, as jurisprudence requires, to defend themselves in
court. "What competitive reason did you have to do what you did?" they
were asked. And they hemmed and they hawed and they squirmed and the
quibbled (just like you're doing now!) and in the end they expected that
this would suffice as 'reasonable doubt'. It really shouldn't be hard,
you know. If they ever actually engaged in real businesses, if they
competed at all, they ought to be able to easily explain how they
planned to turn a profit by doing what they were doing or planned to do.
It's called a 'business model'.
And MS seemed to be confused on one rather simple point. If your
business model requires a certain "market share", rather than merely a
certain level of sales in numbers of units, then it is, believe it or
not, ILLEGAL! It is called "monopolization", and it was outlawed more
than a century ago, based on principles of common law that go back to
the sixteenth century!
>Sun's case was that it was a violation of the
>agreement MS signed to use the Java trademark,
>and so an abuse of that trademark.
That was part of it, yes. Trademark infringement is very commonly the
pretense for these kinds of suits.
>I won't be surprised if you do claim that it
>was anti-competitive, but I won't take it
>seriously either. You think everything is
>anti-competitve, if MS does it.
No, I think everything MS does is anti-competitive. Because it has to
be; they are maintaining a monopoly, and simple (and complex both)
economics proves that the only way to maintain a monopoly is by acting
anti-competitively. It really is kind of evident by the words
themselves. How can a company that has almost 100% market share
"compete" without losing market share? There's no way to know any
competition is occurring unless multiple companies sell products and you
compare their sales.
>> >Otherwise
>> >nobody would use it; why sacrifice what portability
>> >Sun can give you if you gain nothing thereby?
>>
>> People will use it if it is the only suitable alternative.
>
>This can happen only if it is somehow better- or if
>the other alternatives go away. I doubt MS would
>presume would just wander off...
Yes, but "somehow better" doesn't exclude "because the alternative has
been made more expensive or less attractive because of anti-competitive
actions of a monopolist." You have to exclude that from 'somehow
better', because that is the law, and because there is a reason why that
is the law. Just because you don't understand the reason is NOT enough
grounds for breaking the law.
Well, unless you're dishonest to begin with, and then you don't need any
reason to break the law beyond "I feel like it." In Microsoft's case,
it is "because we make money doing it." But the same can be said of
John Dillinger.
>> The
>> difference between a 'superior product' and the lack of a 'suitable
>> alternative' is abstract, to some extent, I'll admit. That is why
>> judges consider opinions other than the accused when considering whether
>> a product has a large market share due to anti-competitive action,
>> rather than competitive merit.
>
>The difference, then, is whether you like the company
>that makes it, right?
No, the difference is whether they have a profit-seeking business model,
or are monopolists. It isn't like it is hard to tell the difference.
>> Again, simply assuming competitive merit is counter-productive.
>
>You have in the past ignored my attempts to demonstrate
>technical merit in MS's produts.
That's because they are all rather poor demonstrations, I'm afraid.
>You clearly are not moved my such merit.
I am not snowed into fawning over acronyms. I judge technical merit
more like an 'average end user' than a technical expert. But I am a
technical expert, so it is a very discerning average end user.
Essentially, I'm just lazy. When something is worth my time, I'll
bother with it. Nothing MS products have provided has much merit, in my
expert and unmotivated-by-naivete opinion.
But you can keep trying. Generally, each of your 'demonstrations' ends
up being another lesson I can give in just why it is so hard to be as
discerning. Assuming 'competitive merit' in the absence of competition
is a fools game. And so you like to play it. But I haven't much time
for it, unfortunately.
>> If all
>> the edge that MS needs is control of prices or the ability to exclude
>> competition, then why do you presume that anything more of an 'edge' by
>> way of competitive merits would be necessary, or even attractive, to
>> them?
>
>They need some *means* by which to drive the
>competition out, and dominate the market. They
>can't just send Bill's horde of flying monkeys.
I don't understand what you mean by "means". Lock-in pre-load contracts
with every major OEM covering essentially their entire product line is
not "means"?
>> >For WFC and J++ to take off they needed to be
>> >better than Sun's offerings, and delegates offered
>> >a chance to do that.
>>
>> Why? Why would they have to be "better" just to take off? Are you
>> under the impression that having two competing products in the same
>> market is somehow an impossibility?
>
>Certainly not. But to *dominate* a market, you need
>some edge, some way to differentiate your product.
No, all you need is monopoly power. Why do you think it is outlawed?
Do you see now why I consider your position naive?
>MS needed users of the JDK to switch to J++-
>and they needed them to do it even though the
>JDK is free. (You know, like Internet Explorer).
So they manipulated their monopoly crapware products and their monopoly
lock-in licenses to make it so. Big deal. You think there was some
essential "feature" that was necessary? Well, pick one out that you
like; it doesn't really matter which one it is. It had nothing to do
with MS 'needing' anything but anti-competitive strategies to get users.
>> >Just re-implementing Java exactly like
>> >Sun's Java is a ticket to nowhere.
>>
>> Funny; one would think that if the market desired Java support, then
>> Java support itself would be a competitive advantage. Changing Java, as
>> a matter of fact, would then be a competitive disadvantage.
>
>Well, Java compatibility is an advantage, sure, but
>not a greater advantage than Sun posses.
Well, isn't Windows itself supposed to be an advantage over what Sun
possesses?
>MS had to differentiate their product because
>otherwise they would compete on price- and
>Sun's toolchain is free.
You're catching on. They needed some way to get people to pay for
something that they *might theoretically* get for free. Monopoly works
well. You aren't under the mistaken impression that MS and Sun's
"toolchains" were actually complete substitutes for each other, were
you? Does Sun's free 'toolchain' work well on Windows?
>> >It can
>> >never have any advantage over Sun's
>> >Java, since at best it is identical- and
>> >more likely it has some flaws.
>>
>> More than likely, so does Sun's. You mistake the specification with the
>> implementation.
>
>Sun controls both, and can make them coincide as
>necessary.
Well, they can make *their* implementation coincide. They haven't any
monopoly power to force ISVs to change their own implementations, unless
they change the specification. But that leaves them with being able to
define the spec, but only their own implementation.
>As long as MS is following behind Sun,
>they are at a disadvantage.
Well, that's just an obvious fact about Microsoft's product quality, is
all that is.
>> This is the kind of abstraction error that make your
>> statements apparently dishonest. If you were forced to stick to talking
>> only about the code, or only about the "idea" of Java, then your
>> position would be logically self-contradicting.
>
>I'm really talking about a number of things,
>but actual code isn't one of them- and neither is
>the "idea of Java".
Then you are just babbling, I guess. Talking about 'a number of
things', but somehow not the two examples provided, though your number
of things is still entirely unexplained. If that isn't babbling, I
don't know what is.
>I see no error in my argument. Perhaps you
>should point it out to me.
It is your error. Just accept my refutation and go find the error
yourself. Chances are it has something to do with the refutation.
>[snip]
>> >> To make money? If they're supposed to be so good at making tools, why
>> >> would they want to avoid turning a profit wherever they can?
>> >
>> >Building development tools for other platforms
>> >is high-cost,
>>
>> This would indicate it can support high profits. You mistake the need
>> for capitalization with the need for production. Another one of your
>> supposedly invisible points of dishonesty.
>
>No, it does not indicate that. It's very hard to turn
>a large profit of development tools. MS's greatest
>'innovation' was to find a way to beat the problem-
>by selling part of the tool in their OS, so end-users
>paid for it.
Now that is a truly innovative way to describe monopolization, I'll have
to admit. Too bad making someone pay for something they don't actually
get is kind of like "fraud". Don't worry, though, it is only
monopolization, given the circumstances. That has a maximum penalty of
three years in jail, in contrast to fraud which can get you a lot more,
I think. Do you have any other ways to explain how MS is ripping off
their customers?
>> >and you are at a permanent disadvantage
>> >against the platform vendor, because they can
>> >add any feature or address any problem and
>> >the most appropriate level- even if that is
>> >inside the OS. You can only change your
>> >IDE, compiler, and so on.
>> >This works in MS's favor on Windows, but
>> >against them everywhere else.
>>
>> Indeed. So reverse the positions, recognizing that Windows, not Java,
>> is the platform under consideration, and explain to me how Microsoft's
>> actions in ensuring that all would-be competitors are at a permanent
>> disadvantage, using just the mechanisms you describe, are somehow
>> competitive?
>
>It's just the reality of the business. You can complain
>about it, but it won't go away.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
I'm afraid your grip on reality is not anywhere near as strong as you
think it is. No, monopolization is not 'the reality of business'.
Whether it will 'go away' or not, it will remain illegal. Guffaw.
> MS's development tools
>have an edge on Windows, Apples on the Mac,
>IBM's on OS/2, and so on.
Sure do. Best they be careful how they market them, then. Restraint of
trade and monopolization can get you jail time. Whether it is
development tools or railroads makes little difference.
>> Hell, they're not even legal!
>
>It's unfortunate that these basic facts are
>illegal; but they do not change because of that.
How is it unfortunate that the most inefficient producers are not
allowed to illegally prevent more efficient producers from competing?
>> A platform vendor does not
>> "own" the platform; confusion on that matter was laid to rest by court
>> decisions years ago.
>
>Oh?
Indeed. Check out the video-game cartridge cases. Just look for "Sony"
on a legal site.
>> Any action they take to prevent competition *on*
>> the platform, or even *for* the platform, are unlawful,
>> anti-competitive.
>
>That is your opinion, Max. Need I say more?
Yes, indeed you do. Because it is also the opinion of the federal
courts, who get to decide such things. If you don't understand it, you
need to ask questions, and I will explain.
>[snip]
>> >> Well, if so, it failed pretty badly. OCX controls don't seem much
>> >> better than VBX controls.
>> >
>> >Well, OCX controls *are* language-neutral, and
>> >they *do* work on 32-bit Windows.
>>
>> Theoretically, perhaps. "Works" is a rather questionable concept when
>> dealing with monopoly crapware.
>
>Well, it's good stuff, even though you dislike it. You've
>shown considerable distain for even discussing
>the technical merits of MS products.
There really isn't any point in it. It is really just apologizing for
the monopoly. The technical merits of competitive products would have
been vastly superior, had they not been prevented from ever existing by
Microsoft's decades of criminal activity.
But I'm glad you're a big fan of COM.
Guffaw.
>[snip]
>> >Odd way to do it. Switching to OCX controls
>> >made it feasible for *other* development tools
>> >to use the same controls.
>>
>> Meaning it made it rather unlikely they will use anything but
>> Microsoft's controls, enabling MS to monopolize with churn from that
>> point on.
>
>No, that isn't what it means. And it isn't
>what happened, either.
Then what is what you meant, and what is "what happened" (according to
you)? And why should I care, and why have you not provided any kind of
information in support of your rather naive opinion?
At least *try* to keep up. Or just go away; you're going to get bored
with this spanking before I am.
>> >Making it possible for Borland to support
>> >OCX controls seems like a strange thing
>> >to do, if blocking competition is the aim.
>>
>> I don't understand your logic. Excluding competition is a strategy, not
>> a tactic. Do you understand the difference?
>
>It's irrelevant. It *still* seems strange to take
>a VB technology and modify it so Delphi
>(or anything else) can incorporate it, if
>excluding competition is the aim.
Why is it irrelevant? It is obvious from the repeat of your stupid idea
that you *don't*, in fact, understand the difference between a strategy
and a tactic. Obviously, that is relevant to why you don't understand
this "strange" tactic.
>IMHO, the aim is not that, [...]
Dan, when are you going to figure out that your opinion is not what
we're debating? When there are facts which prove things in a court of
law, your "opinion" in contradiction to them is rather meaningless.
ESPECIALLY since you provide not a single scrap of reason or evidence
(save your own ignorance and confusion on the subject) to refute the
facts. Even if *I* go so far as to help you along by presuming the
federal conviction isn't complete or necessarily correct, you STILL
can't even provide the hint of a reason to believe that MS isn't guilty
of all they are accused of, both by the federal court and me.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:08:34 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>[snip]
>> >They don't really need MS's source to do delegates,
>> >any more than they need Sun's source to do the
>> >rest of Java.
>>
>> Actually, Sun doesn't use "churn" to monopolize Java, as MS does on
>> their platform, so you are, in fact, mistaken.
>
>Sure they do. They keep changing the damn thing- especially
>by adding new APIs that other Java vendors must
>implement.
What other Java vendors are required to implement Sun's APIs? I'm not
familiar with those details. Likewise, adding APIs is not 'churn'.
Changing APIs are, and Sun does not churn their APIs, changing them for
no other reason than to deter competition. Microsoft *does* do this,
this is a *fact* and we *know* they do this because they documented it.
Doh!
>This is just exactly what MS does with Windows.
Whoops! You're wrong again!
>It means that Sun always has the latest and greatest
>stuff *first*.
It would, if they did this. They don't. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! Kind of
leaves you high and dry for an arguments, doesn't it? <*chuckle*>
>[snip]
>> >You seem very sure that there is *no* overlap
>> >between what a "profit seeking competitive firm"
>> >might do and what a "criminal monopoly" might do.
>>
>> That is rather more astute of you to notice than I would have given you
>> credit for, to be honest.
>
>You seem unable to justify this presumption, as well.
Then how is it you figured it out without my having to explain it to
you, just from reading my words? You don't seem to have a firm grip on
what "justify" means.
Microsoft was unable to justify their anti-competitive actions in court;
that's why they were convicted. Get it?
>> >It is not obvious why competitive strategies
>> >that you would approve of (if there are any)
>> >would not work for MS.
>>
>> They would work, but only competitively. If MS were to attempt to
>> employ *any* competitive strategy, at any time (except what we might
>> consider to be 'by accident'), then it would allow competition, thus
>> destroying their monopoly power.
>
>How so? Why would such actions 'allow competition'?
Depends on the actions. Doh!
>> It certainly should be obvious that
>> only anti-competitive strategies allow maintaining monopoly power, since
>> only anti-competitive strategies can provide monopoly power to begin
>> with, or provide evidence of monopoly power, or describe the results of
>> monopoly power.
>
>I suspect that once again you are using MaxSpeak(tm). Let
>me try to guess your meaning.
>
>I'm guessing that "anti-competitive" means "results in
>monopoly"; "competitive" must mean "results in
>no monopoly".
Anti-competitive means "not competitive". It turns out, that it does,
as you have discovered, result in monopoly, but that doesn't have
anything to do with the definition of the word. That is just how
economics works.
>Thus, it is trivial that MS will lose their monopoly
>if they persue competitive strategies- it is the
>definition of "competitive". It is trivial also
>that any strategy MS may have used to
>acheive their monopoly, since any such
>strategy is by definition "anti-competitive"
>
>How did I do?
Pretty good, except for the part about understanding why it works that
way.
>If I got it right, then I think it is now your
>turn to explain why "anti-competitive"
>strategies are bad, or "competitive" ones good.
Competitive strategies are good because when multiple producers have to
compete on an open market, the most efficient producers will sell more
goods. Those who build things efficiently (without excessive waste,
with minimal cost, without inconveniencing the consumer) make more
profit than those who don't, and those who don't eventually run out of
capital and may 'go out of business', or simply learn to be 'more
efficient', or change the nature of the efficiencies by finding a new
market (a new prospective consumer base) for their product.
Anti-competitive strategies are bad because they do not result in this.
Thus, there is inefficiency, waste. Inevitably, this uses up resources
faster than necessary, the resources run out, and society dissolves into
barbarism.
Really. I know it sounds overly political, but what can I say? I'm a
big fan of capitalist free markets!
>> There really is, as you surmised, absolutely no overlap between what is
>> competitive and what is anti-competitive. There is, however, a great
>> deal of confusion on the matter.
>
>Or maybe I didn't do so well. My proposed redefitions
>do permit overlap; an action might produce a monopoly
>in one market and no monopoly in another. Is this
>coherent with your understanding of these things?
Hell, it might produce a monopoly in one *circumstance*, even within the
market, when it would not produce one otherwise. This is why the class
of action (monopolization) was outlawed, not the specific actions
themselves which might lead to monopoly. It is also why *attempted*
monopolization was likewise outlawed. If there is a reasonable
certainty the action *could* result in monopoly, the business is aware
of this danger, and knowingly takes the action anyway, it doesn't matter
if the action 'did not produce a monopoly'.
>[snip]
>> >No. MFC is a framework and to use it you must
>> >have the source. Licensing is required. Win32 is
>> >the API under it, but it is not MFC.
>>
>> So MFC is covered by a license similar to GPL, forcing anyone developing
>> an app relying on MFC components to be covered by a Microsoft license?
>
>No, it isn't. MFC is under a typical MS EULA.
What is it? And why do you think an EULA is 'required' to use *source
code*? It all sounds like quite a scam, to me; making developers agree
to special end-user licenses.
[...]
>APIs are typically really low-level and often painful;
>a framework papers over this, providing convient
>access.
So when an Application Programming Interface is not complete or correct
enough to actually be used to program applications, you need to pay
Microsoft for an EULA just to program an application?
>Frameworks are language specific; they permit the
>programer to take full advantage of the language's
>features, and they take care of mapping this to
>the things the API understands- which are usually
>quite limited.
So basically it is a term used to 'paper over' the fact that Microsoft's
support for various languages is Windows-specific and lock in those who
want to use those languages to Microsoft's API? About what I figured.
>> basically, I think you are just making up random abstractions to pretend
>> that MS's monopolization somehow "makes sense" in terms of conventional
>> software production.
>
>I don't think this stuff about frameworks can
>be used to argue that.
Shows what you know. You don't think MS monopolizes, either, though, so
I guess that explains why, huh?
>[snip]
>> >> Did these other
>> >> developers license Microsoft code to support this API?
>> >
>> >No. They write their own frameworks. Because
>> >quite simply, MFC isn't very good.
>>
>> It isn't anything at all, from your description. It isn't the source
>> code, but is some mythical 'framework'. But nobody uses it and it isn't
>> any good?
>
>Lots of people use it. It was available very early, and
>a lot of code still uses it. Also it's well integrated into
>MS's IDE, which is certainly a plus- for beginners, a big
>plus.
No, I meant outside the monopoly; non-MS, non-Windows, whatever.
>It's still lagging behind its competitors substantially,
>however.
What competitors?
>> Please, don't bother explaining. It is trivial nonsense, and has
>> nothing to do with the issues.
>
>That's what I like about it. :D
Snooze alert; you're boring me.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
