Todd Walton said:
> On 5/11/05, Neil Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Then I would maintain that you haven't been paying attention.
>
> Yes... that seems to be the prevailing opinion.
>
>> 1. Stealing other companies intelectual property, to incorporate
>> into
>> their products because "We're so big we can"
>
> Firstly, whether Microsoft steals because they're big or not has no
> relevance to the issue at hand.
>
>> a. Stac Electronics
>
> Stac Electronics v. Microsoft. Stac Electronics won and Microsoft was
> ordered to pay over $100 million to Stac.
>
>> b. Sun Java
>
> Microsoft settled, ceased the infringing activity, and paid Sun $20
> million.
>
>> Purposely breaking competitors software then blaming the competitor,
>> or lying about it.
>>
>> a. DRDOS
>
> Originally, Microsoft stole CP/M code. They were discovered, taken to
> court, and Digital Research won, receiving money, and the right to
> clone DOS. Digital Research created DR DOS from MS DOS.
>
> Later, Microsoft made Windows to only run on MS DOS, on purpose, by
> detecting if it was being run on other DOSs and aborting. That's
> their prerogative. They lied to customers about it. That's not their
> prerogative, it's wrong and should have been punished. In this case,
> however, instead of fraud, they were sued for "unfair business
> practices" by Caldera, then owner of the remains of DR DOS. Caldera
> agreed to settle out of court for a secret amount of money.
>
> In each of these cases, Microsoft's wrong-doing was identified and
> punished. In none of these cases was it necessary to punish them
> merely for the fact that the wrong-doing led to greater market share.
> Anti-trust regulation is wrong.
Microsoft essentially ran every one of those business out of business,
before the lawsuits were settled. True, they eventually won in court,
however because Microsoft is so large, and because they can afford the
lawyers to stall the eventual result, there was little or no effect on
Microsoft. Anti-trust law is about the pattern of practices, not a
singele action. Microsoft, because of their market power, and their
money can smash any small business that tries to compete against them,
or who they target, to take the business away. That's why there are
Anti-trust laws, and that's why they are needed. If you think that
Microsoft was punished in any of the above cases, you are naive.
>> The government has a legitimate role in making the
>> marketplace an even field of competition, not in picking
>> winners and losers.
>
> Markets are not an even playing field by their very nature, and in
> fact it's the unevenness that makes markets desirable. To paraphrase
> one of your arguments, perhaps you weren't paying attention in
> Economics class? Government should *not* be evening out the field of
> competition, and thus destroying the economy. Government should be
> ensuring that every individual human being is able to use his or her
> own property as he or she sees fit, regardless of whether or not that
> person's property is being used productively or not. They actively
> did that in the Stac case, they did that by implication in the Sun
> case, and they did that for Digital Research. When they punish a
> company based on its success, as in the Caldera case, they are *not*
> doing that.
Government is the only weapon against the massive acquisition of money
and power, by corporations. If it weren't for government
contervailance against the power of corporations, you and I would both
be working for Standard Oil Company or some similar old corporation.
Don't read me the Cato institute propoganda line, I know it well and
it's hogwash. I know the history of large trusts in this country and I
want the government to break them up. BTW it was a Republican, Teddy
Roosevelt, who started the trust busting.
>> When corporations act in anti-competitive ways to
>> eliminate their competition, it is the role of government
>> to curtail that action.
>
> How can one compete in an "anti-competitive" way? The above statement
> contradicts your next statement.
Give me a break. There is a long history of companies like Microsoft.
Go read some history. We know what happens when large corporations
rule in the marketplace without constraint. The citizens suffer and
the oligarchs start to control the government, and Democracy suffers.
>> When the marketplace elevates one companies product
>> over anothers because the purchasers have made a
>> legitimate choice based upon cost, benefit and suitability,
>> the government has no role.
>
> And you get to decide "legitimate" or the purchaser does?
This isn't about me. Microsoft was on the ropes, in the courts, then a
"Company friendly" president took office, and they were saved. They
were losing, they're losing in Europe. They have monopoly power, and
they need to be constrained.
>> > To repeat: Why is government limited to busting up monopolies in
>> the
>> > interests of the economy's health? Why don't they have the power
>> to
>> > bust up *any* business?
>>
>> Falacious argument. Red herring.
>
> It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Whatever you inferred from
> it is not something I put there.
Still changing the subject, I will not be drawn in.
--
Neil Schneider pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B 8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed
by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing
about them. -- George Orwell
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
