Linux-Advocacy Digest #601, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
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: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:02:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:37:44 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Nigel Feltham wrote:
>>
>> >Why would you even want a LoseModem? It's a cpu-hog.
>> >
>>
>> It may be a crap waste of cpu resources but most PC's bought for home use
>> currently include a modem and most of these are winmodems. It looks better
>
>I think that support for Losemodems should be highly...what's that
>word... denigrated(?) in the documentation as being minimal support
>provided for demonstration purposes only until you go out and get
>a real modem....they're quite cheap if you buy them second-hand.
Either that, or deprecated, as in strongly discouraged.
(I for one wouldn't mind; what's the point of saving a few
cents on a chip by loading down the microprocessor? UARTs
can't be *that* expensive...)
>
>> for someone who has just bought a machine and gets hold of a copy of linux
>> if all of their current hardware is supported and gives them no excuse for
>> blaming the operating system when they upgrade and find they can no longer
>> use their modem. Support for these modems can have other advantages - linux
>> drivers can do more than the windows ones and may be able to use these
>> modems as a telephone exchange for example, routing calls to any PC on the
>> network with a soundcard (try doing this under windoze). This seems to be
>> already in the process of being coded (www.linmodems.org).
>
>I can see that, but .. .in some way, we shouldn't call that modem
>support, as it isn't being used for that purpose... maybe telephonic
>sound device support.
If I wanted to do something like that, I'd want dual chips -- one for
the voice side, one for the modem side. Or, one can make or buy
some sort of box (is there one available?) that can hook into
both the sound card and the modem so that a control sequence can
switch the sound card's output into the phone system, and out of it,
so it can record and play back like an electronic answering machine.
I'm pretty sure this is possible -- fax/phone switchers have been around
for awhile, although they solve a different problem.
>
>
>
>>
>> Another thing that I often wonder is why does linux (also 'Arachne' DOS
>> browser, apple mac and most if not all non-babybill based machines) need to
>> have things like the DNS settings manually entered. Perhaps the teams behind
>> the linux ppp code could find a way to reverse-engineer the windblows ppp
>> code and work out how they do this automatically (and share the info with
>> apple and arachne labs).
I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. It's done exactly once.
(Unless the ISP likes to mutate itself every few months, mind you. :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
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?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:08:22 GMT
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> The primary goal of advertising is supposed to be to increase your
>> >> sales, by providing information to potential customers about your
>> >> product and its competitive advantages. As it performs that
>> >> function,
>> >> its perfectly legitimate, if somewhat obnoxious.
>>
>> > But every time your sales increase, so does your market share.
>>
>> Wrong, because the market itself also grows.
> With a zero-time limit, it only grows because of the additional sale you
> made.
Wrong. The defenition of a market is the "Total of all individuals or
organizations that represent potential buyers."
http://www.quirks.com/resources/glossary.htm#LetterM
Just because you made a sale does not mean the market grew. It means
one of the potentials became a buyer.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
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 23:07:10 +0200
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Tr�ger) wrote:
>
> > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [...]
> > > > >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).
> > > >
> > > > Its not meaningless, and civil injunction against profiteering is a
> > > > necessary part of a free market system. Whether or not you can say a
> > >
> > > Bullshit.
> > >
> > > You just said that in a free market system, the market decides when a
> > > company is charging too much. Now you're saying civil injunctions are
> > > needed.
> >
> > Point is, when there is a monopoly, the market can not do anything
> > against it when a company is charging too much - the market is not free
> > anymore.
>
> So there should be a free market until someone says that a company is
> charging too much, then you throw out the free market?
No, there IS a free market, until a company has monopoly power, and thus
can (but doesn't have to) charge too much without the customers being
able to do much against it. Then the free market is gone - and all
without government intervention.
> > > In a free market system, there's no such thing as profiteering. The
> > > concept doesn't even exist. If the customer is willing to pay the
> > > vendor's price, a transaction occurs and the price was not excessive.
> > > If
> > > the price is excessive, the customer doesn't pay and no transaction
> > > occurs.
> >
> > So when there IS profiteering, it's an indication that there is no free
> > market, but a monopoly.
>
> Wrong. It means that consumers value a product highly.
>
> My company makes a product with an extremely high profit margin, yet
> we're one of the smaller companies making this product.
Well according to you, you either profiteer or you are not in a free
market. Make up your mind.
> OTOH, you could have a monopoly with an extremely low profit margin.
Joe, it's time for a vacation.
> Profit margin is not an indication of whether a monopoly exists.
"In a free market system, there's no such thing as profiteering. The
concept doesn't even exist. If the customer is willing to pay the
vendor's price, a transaction occurs and the price was not excessive.
If the price is excessive, the customer doesn't pay and no transaction
occurs. A civil injunction, by definition, is the complete opposite of a
free market system."
> > It is neither, it's an external means of reinstating a free market.
>
> That would be true ---- IF (and only if) the civil injunction could only
> be applied when there was evidence that someone broke the laws.
>
> That's not what T. Max is advocating (and, it appears, you seem to be
> supporting him). He is advocating a civil injunction any time someone
> makes more profit than he deems acceptable.
Where did he say that?
> THAT is not a free market system. By any rational stretch of the
> imagination.
No, that would ba a T.Max-factored market ;-)
But again: any time someone makes more profit than "he" deems acceptable
and can infact get away with it, because the customers don't have an
alternative, it's a good indication that the free market is infact gone.
Either there is a monopoly or a cartel.
> > > > company which only protects property with copyright in order to
> > > > extract
> > > > exorbitant profits on treating it like a trade secret is
> > > > 'profiteering',
> > > > I will admit that is debatable. Are you unable, or simply unwilling,
> > > > to
> > > > debate it?
> > >
> > > I've already debated it -- over and over.
> > >
> > > You have this bizarre idea that you're defending a free market economy
> > > when you dream up all these things that should be used to _interfere_
> > > with buyers and vendors reaching an agreement on price.
> >
> > So you don't oppose monopolies (Microsoft's included)?
>
> I'm not opposed to monopolies. I'm opposed to lawbreaking monopolies.
>
> AND, the issue isn't about monopolies, anyway. T. Max (and, again, you
> by association) is saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to earn
> too much money. That has nothing to do with monopolies (other than his
> rather bizarre assumption that if a company makes lots of money it must
> be a monopoly).
No, he says "a company which only protects property with copyright _in
order to extract exorbitant profits_ on treating it like a trade secret
is 'profiteering'". The operative word being "exorbitant".
What you think he said was what JS/PL (you know, the moronic Wintroll)
said he said. T. Max said: "No, they (profits) should be regulated *by*
ethics, and minimized by competition." Key phrase here: minimized by
*competition*. Competition as in free market. Ethics as in: not making
huge amounts of money from other peoples misfortunes / basic needs.
Again: if both factors are not there (competition and ethics), THERE IS
NO FREE MARKET, there is in fact profiteering.
Lars T.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:26:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>> A harmful monopoly in a *free market* is impossible.
>
>Not true.
>
>All that free market theory claims is that a monopoly wouldn't last
>indefinitely--not that it can't occur.
Thus preventing it from being harmful. It would last only as
"indefinitely" as it failed to be harmful. Once it became harmful,
competition would destroy it.
Harmful monopolies (which is to say, real monopolies) don't get
destroyed by a free market. They can't, because of the predatory power
which being a monopoly in the real world (but not the imaginary world of
idealistic free market theory) provides the ability to manipulate the
market (the most grievous of sins in free enterprise) so that the
competitive forces cannot overcome the anti-competitive tactics and
strategies of the monopolist. Which is why the gov't outlawed
monopolizing more than a century ago.
--
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:26:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
[...]
>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.
All it proves is that I don't use the word 'monopoly' as a synonym for
"any company that has monopoly power". Maintenance of monopoly power
is, itself, illegal, so the phrase "maintenance of that power by illegal
means" is obviously meaningless. Any means of maintaining monopoly
power (*not to be confused with* making good products, exhibiting
business acumen, or accidents of history) is by definition illegal to
begin with.
>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.
You obviously aren't aware of my position, which is that a monopoly !=
any company with monopoly power. Only those that gained or kept that
monopoly power willfully are monopolies.
>A monopoly is not illegal by definition.
That depends on your definition, I'm afraid. Yours might be more
common, but mine is more accurate, consistent, and practical.
>Obtaining a monopoly is not necessarily 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[.]"
>Maintaining a monopoly is not necessarily 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[.]"
>Even your own citation proves it.
You've misinterpreted both the citations and my statements and are
apparently unaware of my position to begin with. Perhaps you'd like to
start over?
>> 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.
You are an incredibly crass and stupid person, Joe. I never claimed
these things were easy to understand. But I'm not going to go so far as
to say you couldn't understand them even if you tried. I'd prefer if
you tried, though, instead of giving me knee-jerk bullshit when you
aren't even aware of the issues being discussed.
--
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:26:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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".
Precisely. Now, there is the 'free market theory' meaning, which is
"any company with monopoly power". And then there is the legal
definition. This last is based on two things:
1) Monopolization is illegal. (Section 2 of the Sherman Act).
2) 'Monopolization' is not defined within the Sherman Act, but is
provided meaning, essentially, by the sum total of all court precedent
convicting people under the Sherman Act.
This leads us to only one inexorable conclusion: if 'a monopoly' is
defined as 'a company that monopolizes', then willfully acquiring or
maintaining one is a crime.
Of course, if you define 'a monopoly' as 'a company with monopoly power,
but who has not acquired *or maintained* it willfully', then "a monopoly
is not illegal". The problem is that this doesn't match up with the
real world. In the real world, where free enterprise is (imperfectly)
practiced, if you somehow acquire monopoly power, and do not willfully
maintain it, competition will strip it from you.
Which is, of course, the point of the Sherman Act. Any company that
maintains monopoly power long enough to be recognized as 'a monopoly',
is guilty of violating the Sherman Act, because the only way to maintain
such power is 'willfully' if there is, in fact, a free market.
>> >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.
It says very very specifically that *having monopoly power*, not "having
a monopoly" is insufficient to prove guilt. To be guilty, they must
*prove* that you gained or maintain it *only* by superior products,
business acumen, or accident of history. The burden of proof in this
regard, BTW, is on the accused.
"See United States v. AT&T Co., 524 F. Supp. 1336, 1347-48 (D.D.C. 1981)
("a persuasive showing . . . that defendants have monopoly power . . .
through various barriers to entry, . . . in combination with the
evidence of market shares, suffice[s] at least to meet the government's
initial burden, and the burden is then appropriately placed upon
defendants to rebut the existence and significance of barriers to
entry.)"
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>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.
You cannot have a monopoly due to better product, 'better manufacturing
processes' (which isn't, by the way, 'business acumen'), or historical
accident, and that is what the quote states; this is a fundamental
principle of free markets, and you're going to have to provide some
substantiation (quite a bit, in fact) if you want anyone to take it
seriously. Admittedly, the quote distinguishes acquiring or maintaining
monopoly power from these things, indicating they are not the same thing
at all, in such a way that it may be too subtle for your preconceived
understanding to notice or interpret correctly, but it is there. Focus
on the words "as distinguished from", and then try starting over again
without the preconceptions.
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:26:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> >>
>> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> >> [...]
>> >> >> >You see, you still don't understand. the "T" is not a representation
>> >> >> >of the effects, it's a representation of the bit itself.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The affects are an abstraction;
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh, no. The effects are very concrete. They cause some electrons
>> >> >to go to one state instead of another.
>> >>
>> >> I think you meant "discrete", not "concrete".
>> >
>> >I think I meant concrete, as in "not abstract".
>>
>> OK, so I tried. You're wrong.
>
>Nice argument that one. So, you say the effects of the sticky bit
>are not concrete?
No, I say (and said, and will continue to say) that the sticky bit is
not concrete, though its visual display is less abstract than the bit
itself.
[...more misguided quibbling deleted...]
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:26:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> (For some reason, I keep losing track of where to look up
>>the statute, so I can't check at the moment.)
>
>A good source is the version supplied by the Library of Congress'
>Copyright Office --
>
> http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
For some reason, this site is *outrageously* slow to get resolved on my
system. I'd tried it before, and gave up after a couple minutes (well,
probably more like 80 seconds). This time I stuck it out, and I've now
bookmarked it. Thanks.
[...]
>>And so it is not 'copying in the copyright sense' in that copyright
>>prohibits copying, does it not? (Sorry for harping.)
>
>Not completely, no. Section 106, which states the exclusive rights
>of a copyright owner, starts out "Subject to sections 107 through 120"
>and those sections include quite a variety of instances where copying
>is not prohibited.
>
>And for what it is worth, the copyright law also prohibits things that
>do not involve making a copy, such as performing a copyrighted work in
>public. And there are exceptions to those exclusive rights, too.
>
>So "copyright prohibits copying" both overstates and understates the law.
But you already know that the 'public performance' type of stuff is what
drives my "intellectual property as amorphous metaphysical substance"
arguments. I don't *like* laws that are exceptions on exceptions on
exceptions. And I quite frankly don't believe it is the proper way to
approach the law.
You either have the right to "copy intellectual property", or you don't.
Interpreting the rules concerning when you do or do not, in an overlay
of laws with exceptions and loopholes, rather than principles and
precedent, is counter-productive. It is an activity for those who
*cannot* or *will not* grasp the underlying abstractions. Often
necessary for lawyers and judges, as they are empowered to derive those
abstractions from that precedent. But not appropriate or required for
anyone else, and frankly I think it is oppressive. You *don't* need a
lawyer to figure out whether something is infringement, any more than
you need a lawyer to figure out whether something is an anti-trust
violation. You only need to be honest, and to grasp the abstraction of
"intellectual property" or "monopolization".
Copyright is the right to control what you produce. Not the right to
tell your customers how they are allowed to use it or what they are
allowed to do with it once it becomes their property.
Monopolization is trying, by any means, to directly increase your market
share.
Maybe they're hair-brained ideas, maybe they're distilled wisdom, maybe
they're a little bit of both. But they are accurate, consistent, and
practical. I'm not a lawyer, so you know you can believe me.
--
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
******************************
