Linux-Advocacy Digest #590, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (Jay Maynard)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 14:14:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >> >
> >> >No, when someone puts out a death threat against me, I do the
> >> >opposite
> >> >of
> >> >"chill out" I find them and turn them in to the authorities.
> >>
> >> LOL! Still working really hard to miss the point, aren't you,
> >> 'JS/PL'.
> >>
> >
> >JS/PL has every right to react however he wants to a death threat.
> >
> >Now, my personal feeling is that it was very, very obvious that the
> >"threat" wasn't real. But your in no position criticizing him for his
> >action.
>
> Bullshit. The only reason he tried so hard to get someone to make a
> "threat" was so that he could posture in just the dramatic way he's
> doing. His intent, knowing or not, is to inhibit free speech; not by
> preventing death threats, but by treating a rhetorical statement as if
> it were a death threat. In this way, he suppresses the open expression
> of ideas and opinions on Usenet, and this is his purpose. He doesn't
> *like* Usenet, I figure, and secretly wants to discourage people from
> using it. So he tries to entrap Aaron into threatening Bill Gates life
> (which, in fact, Aaron had already essentially done, but 'JS/PL' wanted
> it more clearly stated.)
I didn't see him asking someone to make a death threat.
The laws and facts are very, very simple. Even you should be able to
understand them.
It's illegal to make death threats. Whether someone made a death threat
would presumably be decided by a jury which means (in theory) "would an
average person consider this to be a death threat?".
HOWEVER, under U.S. law, if a person feels threatened, he has a legal
right to make a charge against the person who made the threat. He might
or might not be found to be guilty, but the "victim" has every legal
right to make a charge if he feels threatened. Of course, you'd then
have a legal right to claim that no one in their right mind would have
considered it a credible threat and his response damaged you (you'd
lose, btw).
Unless you want to rewrite those laws, as well.
>
> Recognizing that 'JS/PL' isn't a real person, I "spoke into the mike"
> for him, and am well within the bounds of reason for ridiculing his
> overly-dramatic concern.
Actually, JS/PL presumably _is_ a real person. The fact that you don't
know his real name is completely irrelevant.
>
> >I received a real death threat from usenet once (he located my address
> >and said he was coming there to kill me. Believe me, it's not a fun
> >situation (there are too many loonies around).
>
> Which is why I pointed out that the fact that this 'JS/PL' person
> thought it important to point out he had found out my first name is
> "Timothy" was worth some concern. I know how to handle such threats,
> and 'JS/PL' can be sure in the knowledge that I will not warn him over
> Usenet when I've made it an official criminal or civil matter.
Which is your right.
Why is it that you feel you should have a legal right to do something
but he shouldn't have a right to do the same thing?
>
> >Fortunately, I notified his ISP who notified the account holder -- who
> >happened to be his wife. I suspect that her punishment was worse than
> >anything I could have come up with.
> >
> >Anyway, there's no reason for Usenet arguments to enter into the real
> >world. If JS/PL feels that the line has been crossed, it's his right to
> >react the way he did.
>
> I'll let the police deal with the ISPs if I ever feel I'm actually being
> threatened. He is not within his rights to harass me under the pretense
> that I made a death threat on his pseudonym.
He didn't harrass you.
You made a death threat. It's there for anyone to see. His forwarding
that [public] message to your ISP isn't harrassment by any rational
definition.
As I said, I think they're going to just laugh because I didn't think it
was a very plausible threat. But what I think isn't relevant unless I'm
asked to sit on a jury. He felt threatened and had every right to send
your message to your ISP.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:15:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>
>>Who's "we"?
>
>Everyone who thought that you were technically competent enough to know
>that, I suppose. I hadn't taken a survey, but I was being charitable in
>including Nathaniel. He may not have thought you were technically
>competent at all, for all I know.
>
Since my name keeps getting brought up in regard to this,
let me just say this:
My basic premise is that we can attract Windows users
without copying every feature of Windows (including the
bad ones), while the current 'popular' view seems to be to
try copying every feature. The idea of converting /etc
into a registry like entry (and removing the ability for
individual users to change personal dot files), the idea
of fully integrating X (or any graphical display) into the
kernel, the idea of integrating NFS into the kernel (and I
have not been impressed with the stability of this), the
idea of integrating http servers into the kernel,
basically fully integrating things in ways that negatively
impact either the overall performance, or the overall
stability of the system.
Somewhere along the line of our original conversation,
that part got lost, and all that remains is, "I don't want
a Windows clone." As that is the general topic I wanted
to discuss, the initial comeback was, "Shut up and do
something about it moron." and we sort of went off from
there. My perspective is, there are a lot of people
asking for the 'Windows cloning' to continue, and I should
have just as much right to request that cloning doesn't
continue as they have to state their opinion. What
appeared to happen was that I was told I didn't have the
right to voice my opinion, or that my opinion was a stupid
and therefore invalid one and I should just shut up.
I wanted to leave this topic alone, but it seems that it
keeps coming back, and my name keeps getting thrown out
there in it. I do know that Roberto is quite technically
knowledgeable (which probably led to his belief that my
concerns are stupid), but I don't agree that we should
just sit with our mouths shut and 'see what happens'.
If I see someone ask for something that I think isn't the
'proper direction' to take the system, I'm going to say
something. Obviously you (Roberto) thought that my
concerns were silly. That's why I decided to step out of
the conversation, but if everyone else is going to insist
on arguing this topic for me, I just as well get back into
it. But personally, I'd just as soon see this
conversation end. It is another pointless 'round and
round we go' argument that will end up with two or more
people too pissed off to take eachother seriously, over
something that isn't worth it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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 14:25:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:43:07 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >That all changed a few years ago. Now, you can sell electrical power
> >> >anywhere you want, and in many places, you can even force the power
> >> >companies to let you use their lines for that purpose.
> >>
> >> Maybe in your area, but not in all by any means. Most states are
> >> still thinking it over.
>
> >They're trying to figure out how to implement it. The question
> >isn't about preserving local power companies' monopolies. It's
> >about how to let other companies compete without completely dicking
> >over the folks who already have established businesses.
>
> >There are a lot of regulatory issues, like how to let
> >government-subsidized rural electric co-ops get into local urban markets
> >without having to give up their (very large) U.S. government subsidies.
>
>
> RE Co-ops do not get subsidies. They get loan guarantees.
They also get direct loans, pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of
1936. The current "bank" for those loans is over a hundred billion
odllars, by the way.
The loan guarantees they get *are* subsidies.
> I don't think there was one that failed to repay the loans -- at
> least not until the late 80s, and then they were small community
> owned co-ops with interests in canceled nuclear power plants.
> The right likes to spread lies and mis-information about the REA
> because it managed to do what free enterprise said couldn't be done
> without losing money.
...bu getting extremely low-interest loans from the government.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:37:50 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39a37b48$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> >They're all valid. Whether or not you want to agree is irrelevant.
>
> As the insider that you are; When the trial is over are you going to like
one
> Microsoft better then other?
I'm not going "like" either of them. I simply just wouldn't care. Should
Microsoft OS division continue to make the OS best for my needs, then I will
purchase it (if OS X lives up to the hype, that is unlikely). Similarly,
should Microsoft Apps division continue to make the best Office Suite, then
I'll buy that too.
Why anyone thinks a breakup will have more than a miniscule effect on the
market is beyond me, however.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: 23 Aug 2000 14:38:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:06:33 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I suppose IBM could be cited. It's moving to Linux as its standard
>operating system, but it's not there yet.
If you think IBM will dump OS/390 and VM and VSE, I'd like to know what
drugs you're on and where I can get some.
There are far too many large companies who depend on them, and far too many
things that they do well and Linux will never do as well, for Linux to
replace them.
Predictions of the death of mainframe OSes are like predictions of the death
of COBOL: people have been making them for decades, and they're as wrong now
as when they were first made.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:53:51 +1000
"david raoul derbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3SQo5.185$v3.2466@uchinews...
> In article <8nvmni$v5f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >How was it Microsoft's fault OS/2 required at _least_ twice the hardware
> >resources of Windows to run ?
>
> False.
>
> It is true that OS/2 2.1 required more resources than Windows 3.1; but
> at the same time that OS/2 2.1 was coming out, so was Windows NT. The
> requirements of NT were easily twice those of OS/2 2.1 (8 MB vs 4 MB
> of RAM, for one thing. This was a serious constraint seven years ago.)
> So to say that OS/2 required at least twice the hardware of Windows
> is true *if* you are referring to "old Windows"
I was referring to Windows 3.1. I thought that would have been clear. NT
and OS/2 weren't really competing against each other at that time. NT
wasn't really meant to pick up from the DOS based Windows line until after
the 16/32 bit hybrid Windows 4.0 - ie Windows 95.
> (actually, I don't
> think it was "twice"; more, probably, but maybe 50% more).
It was easily twice. I used to run Windows 3.1 on one machine in 2MB (4
would have been nicer, but 2 was usable). 4 was the minimum for OS/2, and 8
to make it comfortable.
As you noted above, 8MB was a lot of memory back then (in comparison, NT
really needed 12 to be comfortable, but in NT's defense it had a lot more
reason to be sucking more resources).
> But even
> Microsoft was positioning NT as the successor to Win3.1, and OS/2
> was far more economical than NT.
Certainly true, but NT wasn't supposed to be the successor until the '95ish
timeframe, and once Win95 got delayed that deadline got pushed further and
further back.
> Windows 95, as its name implies, was about 2 years after OS/2 2.1
> was established, and nearly simultaneous (if memory serves) with
> OS/2 3.0 ("Warp").
Warp was several months before '95. IBM rushed it out to beat Win95, and it
showed. Was still better than 95 in most ways, however.
> As a matter of fact, *today* OS/2 is more economical than Win 98 and
> a little bit more economical than Win 95.
'98 maybe (but then it's interface doesn't have IE), but not '95.
Personally I'd put it on par, maybe slightly lower than '98 (based on Warp
4.0, and I can't imagine it getting any leaner since).
> The hardware requirements did not doom OS/2.
They didn't doom it, but IMHO they had a lot to do with its demise outside
of business.
> The main thing was the
> lack of applications. And *that* is something I believe MS had a
> great deal to do with. For example, as is well known among OS/2
> advocates, WordPerfect was *19 days* from code complete on WordPerfect/2,
> and killed the project! Why? At that point, they had sunk at least
> ninety-five percent of the money they'd need to launch, and yet they
> aborted the launch, never to recoup a penny.
Well known ? Well known but no proof, presumably ?
> Conspiracy theorists have speculated that MS threatened to withhold
> early copies of Windows updates and API docs unless WP "knifed the
> baby." (The phrase is actually Microsoft's, but used in connection
> with Apple's QuickTime.) I have to admit that I'm one of them.
> I have no proof for this claim. I'd love to hear from a WordPerfect
> executive why they made this peculiar decision.
As would I.
> IBM attempted to pull an end-run around the apps deficit by making
> OS/2 capable of running Win3.1 apps ("a better Windows than Windows".)
> But MS dealt with that by repeatedly changing the architecture of
> Windows 32s, and leaning on ISV's to adapt to these changes. IBM
> couldn't keep up with the moving goalposts, and finally gave up.
IBM had a Win16 licence, not a Win32s licence. They made the mistake of
relying on an emulation layer for their application base, which is an
extremely bad idea.
> Microsoft did everything in its power to deny OS/2 applications, by
> (I believe) pressuring software developers who also developed for
> Windows,
Microsoft were giving away their SDK. IBM were asking mucho $$$ for it. I
guess you could call that "pressuring".
> by changing Windows for the sole purpose of preventing OS/2
> from running Windows programs,
The "sole reason" ? Sounds like more conspiracy theorising to me.
> and by steadfastly refusing to develop
> anything for OS/2 itself.
As is their perogative.
> Just about the only OS/2 apps were from
> new software companies that had no prior relationship with Microsoft,
> and did not therefore provide any handle for MS to grasp them by.
> Surely this was no accident.
>
> Applications are the "air supply" of operating systems; cut that off
> (another Microsoft phrase, used in connection with Netscape) and
> the OS dies.
>
> It worked like a charm.
>
> Of course, IBM could have done a great deal more to support OS/2.
*cough*. A great deal is somewhat of an understatament.
> They are also to blame for the death of a superior product, or if
> not the death, the slow decay of a desktop much better than anything
> else out there for the Intel platform.
Technically superior than Windows 95, undoubtedly. Functionally superior is
a matter of client needs.
Technically superior than NT, no way. A better interface until NT4, though.
> It was only after IBM gave up on OS/2 for the masses that I jumped
> to mostly Macs. I still use my Intel box, and I'm looking forward to
> an easier Linux, but I interact with Windows as little as possible.
*shrug*. Your choice, but you're obviously doing it for political reasons,
which to me seems a bit silly.
I used OS/2 full time from 2.0 up until 4.0. I switched to NT as my "main"
OS in about February 96 because it was faster, stabler and had better
hardware and software support. I quite liked the OS/2 interface, but after
using it for a while I preferred the NT4/Win95 one. After that, OS/2 simply
had nothing to offer me.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:46:40 -0300
Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
[snip]
Allow me to do a little collage :-)
> If I see someone ask for something that I think isn't the
> 'proper direction' to take the system, I'm going to say
> something. Obviously you (Roberto) thought that my
> concerns were silly.
I only got into the argument when it had already reached
the "windows clone" phase, which indeed seemed silly
to me, so I didn't see these, which I will be happy to
address individually, because they are NOT silly:
> My basic premise is that we can attract Windows users
> without copying every feature of Windows (including the
> bad ones), while the current 'popular' view seems to be to
> try copying every feature.
Popular among who? Basically among those who make no
difference, because they are not writing the code.
Look at who is actually doing the GUIs, and you will
find noone saying "we must clone the bad pieces of
windows".
You will find Corel saying we should clone windows, maybe.
Well, Corel's effort hampers the effort of the rest in
what way?
> The idea of converting /etc
> into a registry like entry (and removing the ability for
> individual users to change personal dot files),
I must say i have never seen anyone advocate that, at least
nobody who knows what he's talking about, so I'd rate it
as "extremely unlikely to happen".
> the idea of fully integrating X (or any graphical display)
> into the kernel,
There is merit to the idea of a limited integration of
an architecture to access the video into the kernel,
like the current framebuffer stuff. All of X makes
no sense, though, and I have seen noone in XFree
say it should go into the kernel.
> the idea of integrating NFS into the kernel (and I
> have not been impressed with the stability of this),
Was NFS userspace and is going kernelspace, or viceversa?
Because what linux used to have really sucked.
> the idea of integrating http servers into the kernel,
> basically fully integrating things in ways that negatively
> impact either the overall performance, or the overall
> stability of the system.
a) TUX is completely optional
b) TUX is a heck of a lot faster than anything else so
far, so it hardly impacts performance negatively!
As far as TUX impacts overall stability, I have no idea.
However, I know that if you don't want to use TUX, you use
Apache, or Roxen, or whatever, and you have now more
choice than before, including the choice to have
something much faster than before. I can't see anything
bad about that.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 14:46:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >Actually, the law allows you to achieve a monopoly by a wide range of
> >> >means.
> >>
> >> No, it is not the means to achieving a monopoly, but the result of
> >> achieving a monopoly, which is illegal. Or trying to achieve one,
> >> even.
> >> Or hanging on to one if you should find yourself in that position
> >> through happenstance.
> >
> >Do you think this will become true if you assert it often enough.
> >
> >
> >Please feel free to provide a reference. You're just plain wrong.
>
> 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.")
Even your own reference proves you wrong.
An offense requires that you have BOTH a monopoly power and maintenance
of that power by illegal means.
The citation you gave acknowledges that it's possible to obtain and
maintain a monopoly by legal means (superior product, etc). That
completely destroys your position.
A monopoly is not illegal by definition.
Obtaining a monopoly is not necessarily illegal.
Maintaining a monopoly is not necessarily illegal.
Even your own citation proves it.
>
> I know I've posted this before, though I didn't include the original
> reference. The entire quote is from the Conclusions of Law in the
> Microsoft case.
And it's amazing that you've posted it at least twice without reading it.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:47:01 GMT
In article <39a1c6bd$4$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >In article <399f4ae2$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>
> >> >Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >>Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> >>
> >> >><snip>
> >> >>
> >> >>>If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel
> >> >>>along
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use
> >> >>>your
> >> >>>meaningless word).
> >> >>
> >> >>The US Congress has used the word too. But I suppose you think the
> >> >>people's
> >> >>representatives are meaningless too. Eh?
> >>
> >> >Where was that. I doubt it was in the current context, but I'd be
> >> >interested
> >> >in hearing about it anyway.
> >>
> >> No it isn't in the current context, never the less the issue comes up
> >> from
> >> time to time, and has since 1776. Usually the talking heads on the
> >> network
> >> news don't mention the issue, or they don't use the word profiteering
> >> --
> >> but
> >> its there in the story. In the recent times (last 10 years) it comes
> >> up
> >> most
> >> often on health care, and the pharmaceutical industry, but we saw it
> >> on
> >> the
> >> price of gasoline earlier this year too.
> >>
>
> >Let's see if I have this straight.
>
> >You claimed that Congress used the phrase profiteering. When asked to
> >provide evidence, you say that you don't have any evidence, but you
> >think that they might have said something like that 200 years ago. Then
> >you say they _don't_ use the word, after all, but that's what they
> >really meant. AND, the ones who didn't use the word, but meant it
> >weren't the Congress, anyway.
>
> >Does that about sum it up?
>
> Listen up asshole, read what I said again -- carefully this time and then
> ask your question.
I just did
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:30:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> [...]
> >...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.
>
> Get in the way of what? Competition? What small bottler can get in the
> way of competition?
>
> Oh, "market share", you mean. Like if some bunch of people like
> StoreBrand (tm), Coke can undersell it to get people to buy their
> product.
If by that weird phrase you mean Coca-Cola dumping product on a local
market to undercut the price of a local cola or soft drink, yes.
> That's going to be a tough one to sell to a judge as
> anti-competitive.
Nope. Coke has been dinged for this one on a regular basis for about
forty years. They got in trouble for this sort of thing so much that
they have an entire department on how to *not* indulge in
anticommpetitive behavior.
> This isn't:
> >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.)
>
> I would hope the FTC never approves any such attempts to monopolize. I
> think businesses growing by acquisition is inherently intolerable,
> frankly.
Then you'd *hate* Coca-Cola. And Pepsi, too, for that matter.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
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 14:33:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On the odd chance you're willing to learn, I'll give you a clue. Having
> a superior product doesn't build a monopoly. Just a huge market share
> (or should I say "profits", since market share is meaningless.)
Which, by itself, constitutes a monopoly.
> And then, only temporarily.
...until they either screw up their products to the point where peopel
stop buying it, or they do something stupid that makes the government
step in.
The position you seem to be pushing here is that "all monopolies will go
away if we wait long enough." Which is true. But you're forgetting the
flip side of that coin, which is that "abusive monopolies damage other
people and society at large," which is why we have antitrust laws.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 14:59:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >Nope. I've read the Sherman Act. There's nothing in there that supports
> >your position.
>
> You mean 'it is illegal to monopolize' doesn't support the position that
> having a monopoly is illegal?
That would depend on how they define "monopolize".
>
> >Feel free to provide the exact quotation where it makes having a
> >monopoly illegal.
>
> "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"
And the case law has already been presented. It says very, very clearly
that having a monopoly is insufficient to prove guilt. Heck, even the
information you provided says that having a monopoly isn't illegal. It's
only illegal under certain circumstances. Having a monopoly due to a
better product, better manufacturing processes, or even a historical
accident is perfectly legal.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
