Linux-Advocacy Digest #579, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (phil hunt)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:09:00 +0100
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:27:26 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Sleepycat produce code that implements DBM-style databases. They
>>release this code under the GPL. If companies want to put this code
>>in proprietary products, they sell licenses to allow them to do this.
>>So, in this way, the GPL is important to Sleepycat's business model.
>
>I'm not sure how that could work. Doesn't the GPL prevent these
>'licensees' from using the code in commercial/proprietary products?
Yes.
> Or
>are the licensees not selling software? Or is the 'code' not the same
>as the GPL products?
My understanding is that Sleepycat owns the code. This means they can
release it under the GPL, and also release it under other licences
if they so choose.
>Time-delayed open source has additional PR value, of course, and might
>very well provide a revenue stream for software developers. I tend to
>think, though, that like the relationship between modern media and
>advertising, software will eventually be paid for by people who have
>something to *sell* other than software.
This is already happening, with hardware suppliers funding OSS. For
example IBM, Sun, SGI, HP.
>In the end, we might see a much more rational applications marketplace
>within just the next decade or two (as Linus himself recently predicted
>;-}). We won't be dealing with "wordprocessors" anymore, but
>application software from printer manufacturers and web server hosting
>companies and OEMs. The "printer" wordprocessing app and the "web page"
>wordprocessing app and the "text processor" processing app will all use
>a common format (XML? maybe, if we can keep it from falling pray to dumb
>ideas) and happily co-exist.
Quite possibly.
> The
>"file format" confabulation is just a side-effect of inferior
>application design which was considered acceptable in the disfunctional
>software markets of the last twenty years.
I don't see how you can do away with file formats. XML-based formats
are still file formats. But i think what you are saying here is that if
you can standardise them sufficiently, rthey are not an issue.
> In the *highly* competitive
>landscape of the future, the market won't tolerate such flim-flammery, I
>should hope.
I hope too, but I'm not optimistic. The market currently tolerates
Microsoft's non-standards and upgrade treadmills. It tolerates the overcomplex
mess of HTML trying to be a markup langauge and a page layout language.
It tolerates the annoying differences in ascii file formats between
DOS, Unix and Mac. It tolerated the 640K limit and kludgy workarounds.
It tolerates loads of different Unices with subtle differences and
incompatibilities between them (that's going as linux and GCC subsume the
others).
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ]*****
** The RIAA want to ban Napster -- so boycott the music industry! **
** Don't buy CDs during August; see http://boycott-riaa.com/ **
** Spread the word: Put this message in your sig. **
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:16:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>And in many areas, they have a monopoly. There are large areas of the
>US where Coke is the only major soft drink you can get.
"Major". That one word is what prevents Coke from *being* a monopoly,
which is a federal offense. "Local" monopolies are either monopolies or
they are not. 'Monopoly' is *not* a measure of market share. It is, I
think, most comprehensively translated as "not willing to compete", to
be perfectly honest. Sure, the root is in the word 'one', and the board
game ends when someone owns *all* the property. But recall that the
term in that board game "monopoly" was used, not to refer to the winner,
but to anyone who owned all three of one color property. Why? Because
if they "had a monopoly", the could jack the price up.
Monopoly *power* is the ability to control prices or competition.
"Monopolizing" is the act of doing so, and that, as well as attempting
to do so, is illegal. "A monopoly" would be a company that does such a
thing, not merely a company that *could* do such a thing. It would be
technically accurate to say "it is legal to have monopoly power, but not
illegal to use it". But that's not what's said, and even if it were, it
would be inverse of reality. In reality, any company that has monopoly
power uses it (they can't be convicted if they didn't mean to do it, but
that no more makes having a monopoly legal than it makes killing a
person legal). And it is 'illegal' in that they will be taken to court
for it, and it is 'illegal' in that most of the time they might well be
convicted. In short, the only way to get or keep monopoly power long
enough is to monopolize, and that's a crime.
It is illegal to have a monopoly. That doesn't guarantee you'll get
caught, because substantial market power isn't all there is to being a
monopoly. But if you can jack up prices, you're a monopoly, *even if
you don't jack up prices*, and it is a crime *even if you don't jack up
prices or tie or discriminate or conspire or FUD or anything*. Its just
pretty unlikely you're going to get caught unless you do those things.
And its pretty unlikely you could avoid doing those things unless you
tried *really* hard to *compete on your merits*.
And that, ultimately, is what anti-trust law is made to enforce.
Competing on your merits is legal. Anything else is illegal.
[...]
>> >...and you still haven't come up with one single example where a company
>> >with an existing monopoly got nailed by the Feds for just having a
>> >monopoly.
>>
>> They all do.
>
>Once again. Individual companies, please. And not Microsoft: they got
>into trouble for doing a lot of stuff other than just "having" a
>monopoly, and that was shown in the verdict.
They *all* got "into trouble" for doing "a lot of stuff other than just
'having' a monopoly. That's what having a monopoly means; you can get
away with doing that stuff and the market doesn't prevent it. Until you
start doing that stuff, there is very little likelihood you're going to
get sued under anti-trust just for having a large market share and
*potentially* being able to use predatory strategies. They got
convicted of "having" a monopoly. And they are all shown that way in
the decision, if you are reading them and paying attention. The gov't
just isn't very big at prior restraint, and unless they can prove you
*could* take predatory actions, they can't convict you. Therefore,
until you *do* take predatory actions, they generally won't indict you.
But "having a monopoly won't get you prosecuted" doesn't have quite the
same ring, does it? Which is why I harp on the subject; it is the fact
that too many business people think avoiding competition on the merits
is tolerable, and its not. Monopolization is *always* a crime, and you
don't even need to have a huge market share overall for you to cross the
line from competing to anti-competing (monopolizing). Or restraining
trade.
>> Microsoft did; just *having* the pre-load monopoly earned
>> them a conviction under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Attempting to
>> monopolize the browser market, as well, got them another. Finally, a
>> Section 1 violation was determined for the tying.
>>
>> From the Conclusions of Law:
>> See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The
>> offense of monopoly power under � 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements:
>> (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
>> willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
>> growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
>> acumen, or historic accident.")
>>
>> I'm not sure if "Grinnell Corp" meets your criteria (though I still
>> don't understand the criteria), but it seems clear (from this quote and
>> the accompanying discussion) that the possession of monopoly power
>> (substantial market share + capability of using it predatorially)
>
>You keep trying this, and it still doesn't work. You keep leaving out
>the (2) from the Sherman Act.
The (2) from above is not *in* the Sherman Act. You are, as many do,
assuming that "possession of monopoly power" is synonymous with
"monopolizing". "Monopolizing" by its very nature means you are *using*
monopoly power. Which seems to be why they make *attempted*
monopolization a crime, as well (they didn't do that for 'restraint of
trade'). My point is that your idea that there might be some company
somewhere that has *monopoly power* (not just large market share) but
isn't using it is a fantasy. And most of the reason for that (and the
ongoing justification for it) is this myth that "monopolies aren't
illegal". Outside the context of exclusive rights, including patent and
public utilities, simply *having* 100% market share is an outright per
se conviction, based on the business reality that the only way to
prevent competition in a free market system is *to prevent competition*,
and you're not allowed to do that.
>> is illegal if it was willfully acquired or maintained. Nothing about
>> having to actually *use* it; merely willful acquisition or maintenance.
>
>Re-read (2) in your quote from the Sherman Act. It's right there.
That wasn't the Sherman Act; that was the Conclusions of Law in the
Microsoft case, quoting the Grinnel Corp decision. The Sherman Act
says, simply:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine
or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of
the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,
shall be deemed guilty of a felony"
The courts recognized in precedent that some indication other than large
market share is necessary, thus the Grinnel Corp language which has
transmuted into the offending popular wisdom, just as you are doing.
Since that is part of precedent, and thus includes the "willful
acquisition or maintenance" (which still sounds an awfully lot like
"have a monopoly" to me) language. This means it is possible to have
monopoly power but not be a monopoly. Being a monopoly, however,
(monopolizing) is a crime, all by itself. For that matter, so is
attempting to be a monopoly.
>Until you understand that the Sherman Act has TWO parts, instead of the
>one you keep quoting and mushing in with two, you'll never get it.
You have gotten confused, sorry. The first part of the Sherman Act is
"thou shalt not restrain trade". The "thou shalt not monopolize" is the
entirety of the second part (other than the criminal penalties, which
are all but meaningless as anti-trust is typically a civil complaint).
There are more, by the way, but they aren't typical anti-trust
arguments.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:17:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:51:26 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Said Chad Irby;
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[deletia]
>>>
>>> They don't have a monopoly position. They just have a substantial
>>> market share. But without the ability to use it predatorially, they
>>> aren't a monopoly.
>>
>>A company doesn't have to have an overall monopoly to have a monopoly in
>>certain areas or markets. Coca-Cola certainly has monopoly ower in many
>>areas, and enough market power overall to use it predatorially, as you
>>put it. And they still get in trouble for it from time to time.
>
> I'm not sure I buy that. While they certainly have a large
> marketshare, they also have a perfectly replaceable product.
Precisely. Because they have the "substantial market share" but not the
"predatory power" which is required to hold "monopoly power", they are
not necessarily a monopoly, in general. I'm sure they monopolize to
some extent, and they should be called to task for each occurrence. But
they are not "a monopoly". Just a company with a really huge market
share.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:17:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>For example, look at Wal-Mart. They don't have a monopoly over the
>total large department store market, but when they drop one of their
>megastores into small towns, they exercise monopoly power in those
>markets, and have been hit with antitrust investigations for predatory
>pricing.
Predatory pricing is not illegal. ;-)
>You have to remember that "market" isn't "everything a company does."
>It's just a shorthand term for a competitive sales environment, and can
>stand for anything from selling tree trimming services in one small city
>to selling microxhips for most of the computers on the market.
>
>Even in a non-majority situation, a company can get nailed for being an
>anticompetitive monopoly. This happened to one of the large
>toilet-tissue makers a while back, when they got tapped for only having
>35% or so of a market, but were the single largest competitor (and were
>lowballing prices in specific areas to knock some of the smaller makers
>out of business).
*Any* action by a for-profit company takes *other* than competing on the
merits is monopolization. When it comes down to it, its certainly
obvious that the problem is we want any company called "a monopoly" to
be monopolizing, and any company which monopolizes to be called "a
monopoly", and the 'popular wisdom' just can't handle the complexity of
abstractions needed to correlate that to casual use of the term
'monopoly'.
That's why I'm on this little tirade. I'm market-testing the idea of
insisting that the casual use of the term has *got* to change. Its
justifying, if not actively encouraging, anti-competitive thinking, if
not anti-competitive behavior, in all business, everywhere.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:23:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
[...]
>> >Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) :
>> >
>> >===============
>> >The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1)
>> >the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
>> >willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
>> >growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
>> >acumen, or historic accident.
>> >===============
>> >
>> >If the first element--possession of monopoly power--is present but the
>> >second element is missing, then there is no violation.
>>
>> Did you bother trying to understand what that second element is?
>> Possession of monopoly power by anything other than happenstance, that's
>> what that is.
>
>"Business acumen" is happenstance?
Effectively, yes. Because it is distinct from, in the language of the
court, "production efficiency". Consider a company which just landed a
*huge* deal which gives them a 'decisive marketing advantage' (other
than competing on merits). Are they to be immediately convicted merely
because they now have "monopoly power"? No, that would be oppressive
and counter to the purpose of the free market which the anti-trust laws
protect. However, bear in mind, if they should do anything to
*maintain* that decisive advantage, well, that's a crime. They're going
to have to let all that power and revenue opportunity slip away from
them. Because competition rewards *efficiency*, not *acumen*, or the
free market simply won't work the way it is supposed to, and it becomes
one big con game.
Kind of like we are dangerously close to right now.
>> If, one some remote chance, you acquire and maintain
>> your monopoly power by *competitive* means, then obviously, it isn't
>> monopoly power to begin with; it is just large market share and the
>> unfortunate circumstance which enables you to use it predatorially.
>
>That predatory power *is* monopoly power to begin with. The Supreme
>Court regonizes, in the above passage, that you can have "possession of
>monopoly power" (element 1) without also having the items listed as
>element 2. According to the Supreme Court, you can have "possession of
>monopoly power" without being in violation of section 2 of the Sherman
>Act. The passage is quite clear about that.
It is popular wisdom, not the Supreme Court, which equates having
monopoly power with being a monopoly. Another re-write of the old saw:
"It isn't illegal to have the power to be the monopoly, its only illegal
to gain it or acquire it willfully." Again, it just doesn't quite flow
the way we'd like. I still prefer "having a monopoly is illegal". It
keeps them on their toes, at worse.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:23:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >
> >> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >A company doesn't have to have an overall monopoly to have a monopoly
> >> >in
> >> >certain areas or markets. Coca-Cola certainly has monopoly ower in
> >> >many
> >> >areas, and enough market power overall to use it predatorially, as
> >> >you
> >> >put it. And they still get in trouble for it from time to time.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I buy that. While they certainly have a large
> >> marketshare, they also have a perfectly replaceable product.
> >
> >Well, you don't *have* to buy it.
> >
> >For example, look at Wal-Mart. They don't have a monopoly over the
> >total large department store market, but when they drop one of their
> >megastores into small towns, they exercise monopoly power in those
>
> Where is the "small town" for Coca-cola.
>
> Walmart in this example is exploiting conditions that don't
> exist for supermarkets in general. Even an IGA in a one
> supermarket town will have a variety of soda products.
...but they'll have a variety of soda products from many different small
bottlers, and due to Coca-Cola's huge cash reserves, they can come in
and lowball prices, doing severe damage to any small bottler who gets in
the way.
They also have a tendency to come in and buy distributorships that
handle competing brands, which then leads to the competing brands having
all of those problems with getting their products out to the stores
(Coca-Cola is currently under an order to keep them from acquiring
smaller bottlers unless they have FTC approval first.)
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:27:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
Tell that to all the WORKERS who got laid off while the company was
still making profits and the executives were making millions in stock
options.
>OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying workers.
Bullshit. Are you talking about partners or proprietors, or investors?
There's a difference, you know. Investors get paid *first*, because the
whole show closes without them. You are correct that OWNERS who are
proprietors or partners get paid last. But they'll still lay the
employees off before taking much of a cut in income themselves.
>Therefore, the trickle-down is with the WORKERS at the top, and
>the excess trickles-down to the owners.
>
>Micro-economics: learn it!
Bullshit: stuff it! Your understanding of economics is based on myth
and rhetoric and bullshit. Sorry, but I gotta be honest.
Note: I am not affiliated with any political party.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:34:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> I recall an interesting comment by Arthur C. Clarke concerning the
>> prospects of a flat tax. Through one of his characters, Clarke said
>> that a flat tax is a recipe for revolution. It may be tolerated for a
>> short time, but eventually it leads to the masses rebelling against the
>> inherent oppression of the luxurious few.
>>
>> I'll bet you're a real big fan of the flat tax, aren't you, Aaron?
>
>No...
>A flat tax is like this:
>One guy earning $10,000 / year goes into the grocery store, and
>pays $1.70/pound for hamburger.
>Another guy comes in, and he earns $1050,00/year, so they charge
>him $17.00/pound.
>
>FUCK THAT!
>
>the only MORALE tax is a head tax.
A) You are not "buying" anything when you pay taxes.
B) A head tax is a non-tax within the context of these discussions.
I honestly didn't figure you were that stupid, Aaron. You wouldn't even
get the short waiting period before they'd kill all the rich people with
your system.
The only *ethical* income tax structure is when the wealthy pay a larger
percentage of their income (for the privilege of enjoying the
civilization which gave them wealth) than the poor people (who may,
additionally, require assistance to support the civilization which the
rich people benefit from). The only two question are:
1) How much greater a proportion should the wealthy pay?
2) How can we avoid making the assistance to the poor assistance to
poverty?
In a nutshell (far too rudimentary for Aaron's ultra-conservative
rhetoric), that's your whole "government spending" issue right there.
Oh, and "Social Security is not a retirement plan."
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
