Linux-Advocacy Digest #613, Volume #28 Thu, 24 Aug 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
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? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:39:34 GMT
In article <8o0t3d$olc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8nplbe$q3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Killing off middleware platforms _is_ targeting alternatives to
> Windows;
> > > > it reinforces the applications barrier to entry.
> > >
> > > This is going back before the middleware buzzword was invented.
> >
> > Doesn't matter what label you give it. Java was middleware from the
> > beginning, and Netscape had the intention of turing its browser into
> > middleware. Microsoft knew this, and didn't like it.
>
> Hardly surprising, don't you think ?
>
> In any case, it's still going back further. "Write once, run anywhere"
> is a
> nice pipe dream, but it's still not realistically possible with
> non-trivial
> stuff.
Actually, it pretty much was -- with Yellow Box. Unfortunately, the
cross-platform elements were dropped for political reasons.
>
> > > So IBM don't have the balls to do "the right thing" and that's
> Microsoft's
> > > fault ?
> > >
> > > If OS/2 really was a compelling alternative, then the correct
> > > response
> the
> > > Microsoft threatening not to give them Windows 95 would have been to
> laugh
> > > in their face.
> >
> > Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from turning
> > OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for IBM to
> > promote it.
>
> Why couldn't IBM just drop Windows 95 altogether and solely promote OS/2
> ?
>
> Answer: it wasn't good enough.
That's a possible answer.
Another possible answer (and the one accepted by a U.S. Court after
evaluating the evidence) was that IBM couldn't do so because of MS'
illegal activities
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:39:34 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;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [...]
> >> >OK. Let's make it very simple.
> >>
> >> If only that were possible. It is an abstraction; you cannot simplify
> >> an abstraction unless it is a simple abstraction. And "the market" is
> >> not a simple abstraction.
> >>
> >> >Answer the following questions in a few
> >> >words (none of your usual posting of 1000 lines of response so the
> >> >readers fall asleep).
> >>
> >> I'll try to stay terse. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and
> >> the reminder.
> >>
> >> >1. Should my company be able to charge whatever it wants for products
> >> >developed here?
> >>
> >> Define 'able to'. My preference is that only the market should
> >> control
> >> what you charge.
> >
> >You didn't answer my question. Should I be able to put any price tag on
> >my product that I want?
>
> Still a trick question. Quit posturing and admit that the market limits
> what price you can place on your products, and if it doesn't, then you
> are monopolizing.
That's true. If I charge too much, no one buys it. THAT is how a free
market economy works.
YOU keep saying that if I charge too much, the government should take
civil action against me.
THAT is not a free market.
>
> >> >2. Should there be action taken against companies who "profiteer"?
> >>
> >> Yes; they should be prevented from profiteering, minimally.
> >
> >IOW, you don't believe that I should be able to charge whatever I want.
>
> Of course not. Competition should limit what you can charge, and if it
> doesn't, then you're monopolizing.
That's bullshit.
You're saying that the only way to make more money is by being a
monopoly. That's among the stupidest statements I've ever heard.
Essentially, you're saying that BMW is closer to having a monopoly than
General Motors.
Or, let's say that I paint a picture (I'm a lousy artist). I spend $3.00
on materials, then I find someone who's willing to buy it for $10.00
(they need some paper for the bottom of their bird cage). Now, some
famous, well established current artist makes a painting using the same
materials and spends roughly as much time on it. You're saying that if
he charges more than $10.00, he must be a monopoly and is guilty of
profiteering and should face civil penalties. Even a rabid government
control freak should know better.
Or, you're saying that since a Pharmaceutical company has a gross margin
of 80%, they must be a monopoly, while your local dry cleaner (who has
an effective geographic monopoly) is not a monopoly since their gross
margin is only 20%.
Using profitability as proof of a monopoly is an incredibly foolish
position and further proves that you don't have any idea what you're
talking about.
Sure. It's possible for a monopoly to make more money than if they had
competition. Heck, it's probably even likely. But that doesn't justify
your ridiculous position that just because someone makes a lot of money
they must be a monopoly and should be punished.
>
> >That's exactly what I said and you're merely confirming the way I quoted
> >you.
>
> You're quibbling to try to get out from under the losing side of an
> argument. Monopolization is a crime; just because you don't understand
> what monopolization is doesn't mean you are free to ignore the law. If
> you want to engage in commerce, you better get a lawyer to explain it to
> you, if you're too dumb to figure it out yourself.
I know what monopolization is. YOU are the one who's apparently confused.
You keep saying that if a company makes a lot of money it must be a
monopoly. That's just stupid.
>
> >> >3. Just what is "profiteering", anyway? Specifically, what level of
> >> >profitiability do you consider acceptable (and how is it determined)
> >> >and
> >> >what dividing line does a company have to cross before it's
> >> >"profiteering"?
> >>
> >> It is not a specific price at which it becomes "profiteering", just as
> >> it is not a specific market share at which it becomes
> >> "monopolization".
> >> The dividing line is whether the company is investing in producing
> >> their
> >> products, or investing in restricting access to the market to raise
> >> the
> >> price they can demand.
> >
> >IOW, you don't believe in a free market at all. You believe that someone
> >should determine what a company is hoping to achieve and restrict their
> >ability to profit from their own products.
>
> Some "one"? No; some *thing*. The competition in the marketplace.
Right. So I should be able to charge as much as I want. If customers
don't want to buy it, they won't.
YOU keep setting up an artificial standard that if I charge too much
("profiteer" in your words), I'm guilty of being a monopoly and should
face a civil injunction.
>
> >Again, that's exactly what I said when I quoted you.
>
> No, you're full of shit, and anyone reading this knows it. You're "I
> can charge anything I want" charade is meaningless prattle, and has
> nothing to do with real life.
Sure it does. Since even our current government doesn't implement price
controls, I can charge as much as I want. If the customer doesn't like
it, they won't pay it.
YOU are proposing price controls. If I charge more than you think is
appropriate, you hit me with a civil penalty. Merely making too much
money is proof of guilt in your eyes.
>
> >> Forgive a brief expansion. If a company managed to have a ten day
> >> window on the market, so that during that ten days, they could charge
> >> anything they want, but after that, competition catching up will force
> >> them to lower their prices, is it ethical for them to take the great
> >> amount of outrageous profits they make in the first ten days to
> >> erecting
> >> barriers to prevent the competition from forcing their prices down?
> >> If
> >
> >IOW, you don't have a rational point so you come up with a meaningless,
> >impossible example to prove the point that you can't make.
>
> I'll assume that means that you were unable to follow my comments. Your
> reading comprehension, like your prices, are *your* problem. Go improve
> them if they're not giving you enough of a return.
No. Let me put it in very simple language for you.
There is no plausible situation where your example will occur. It's a
made up example which has no relationship to reality. As such, it's
meaningless.
If you can come up with an example that has some bearing on reality,
present it and I'll discuss it.
>
> >> the price does come down after that, but doesn't come down as low as
> >> some producers could manage with (providing the most efficient
> >> production, the purpose of competition from the market's perspective),
> >> is the continued profit the company makes to be considered "honest
> >> profit" derived from their ability to compete? Or is it
> >> 'profiteering',
> >> and restraint of trade or monopolization?
> >
> >Perhaps if you come up with a real example you might be able to prove
> >your point -- if you had one.
>
> Ummm... Microsoft? http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>
> A college economics textbook would probably fill in a lot of the gaps
> you seem to have, as well.
You're the one with the gaps (mostly between your ears, apparently).
Yes. Sometimes a monopoly will overcharge. That's obvious.
But you're making the logical leap and concluding that anyone who
charges a lot of money must be a monopoly. That's blatantly, stupidly,
absurd.
>
> >> >4. Is a company entitled to take advantage of both trade secret and
> >> >copyright laws?
> >>
> >> Not on the exact same capital, no, not in my opinion, not ethically
> >> and
> >> potentially not according to the courts, which have found that
> >> restrictions contrary to the nature of copyright (which give free use
> >> to
> >> the owner of a copy to use that copy in any way they wish which is not
> >> restricted by copyright) are not enforceable licensing terms.
> >
> >Where have the courts found that you can't use both trade secret and
> >copyright laws?
>
> Lasercomb America v. Reynolds.
>
> From http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html :
> 38} Lasercomb brought an action for copyright infringement, breach of
> contract, fraud, misappropriation of trade secret,
> unfair competition and false designation of origin.[65] The district
> court found for the plaintiff on all counts.[66] One of the
> defendant's contentions on appeal was that it was error for the district
> court to reject their copyright misuse defense.[67]
>
> {39} On appeal, the Fourth Circuit decided that the non-compete clause
> of the license agreement was anti-competitive and
> contrary to public policy.[68] The court upheld the defendant's
> copyright misuse defense and held that the plaintiff's copyright,
> as well as the license agreement, were unenforceable.[69]
None of which supports your position.
Nice try, though.
>
> >And why is it that you're saying that a company shouldn't be able to
> >defend their property with all the means available to them? You're
> >advocating that they should be limited and should only be able to defend
> >their property with half the laws available.
>
> OK, if that's the way you want to say it.
Nope. That's not the way I want to say it. That's the way you are saying
it.
>
> >> >5. Are trade secrets intellectual property?
> >>
> >> Yes. The nature of that intellectual property, however, is different,
> >> as it is for other forms of intellectual property, such as copyright,
> >> patent, and trademark. Their common element is that they have no
> >> physical substance; merely a fixed form of expression.
> >
> >So you admit that you were wrong when you said that trade secrets are
> >not intellectual property?
>
> I'll point out that I never said that trade secrets were not
> intellectual property.
Sure you did.
>
> >And just how are trade secrets conceptually different than the others?
> >Trade secrets also have no physical substance.
>
> They are not protected by statute, that's how. They are protected by
> contract. When contract (trade secret) conflicts with statute
> (copyright), guess which wins?
Wrong. You need to check your facts, again.
>
> >> >6. Has the U.S. Congress spoken out against profiteering? Where is
> >> >your
> >> >reference?
> >>
> >> Essentially, the popular wisdom that the danger of monopolization is
> >> that they can raise prices to exorbitant levels is the same thing.
> >> I'm
> >> not the one that claimed that the Congress had made specific reference
> >> to profiteering, though it certainly seems likely its been 'spoken'.
> >> It
> >> is certainly not directly transcribed in law. The laws say "you
> >> cannot
> >> monopolize" and "you cannot restrain trade", not "you cannot charge
> >> exorbitant profits because you are monopolizing or restraining trade."
> >
> >I'll take that as a recantation of your earlier position.
>
> Well, its not, but whatever floats your boat, at this point.
IOW, you don't have any more arguments, so you'll pretend otherwise.
>
> >> The fact that you haven't heard others refer to it as profiteering is
> >> not a measure of how valid the term is, merely how familiar it is.
> >
> >IOW, it's meaningless.
>
> In those specific words, its unfamiliar, but valid.
>
> >> >I've quoted you accurately on all of your answers in your previous
> >> >rambling posts, but just to make sure, go ahead and answer those.
> >>
> >> You may have quoted me accurately when you quoted me, but you entirely
> >> misrepresented my position every other time.
> >
> >And as you've shown above, all my posts represented your position
> >accurately.
>
> Yet another misrepresentation. You're on a roll, Joe.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:39:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:57:06 GMT, 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?
>
> Such a condition should certainly trigger further scrutiny.
Perhaps.
But T. Max is claiming that the mere fact that a company receives a high
value for their product makes them guilty of monopolizing. That's absurd.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >
> That condition could also be one manufactured by the
> producer in question.
True (partially).
But, again, T. Max is arguing that charging a lot of money is prima
facie evidence of guilt.
>
>
> [deletia]
> >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).
>
> Market pressures should force prices down. Competition and perfect
> replaceability should make arbitrary levels of profit unachievable.
> When such large margins are present, both conditions of a free market
> need to be investigated.
Perhaps. But it's clearly not prima facie evidence of guilt as T. Max
claims.
>
> It's quite possible that your example company takes advantage of the
> lack of replaceability in a particular market.
Nope. Merely greater perceived value. Competitive products could easily
be swapped in. Our customers choose not to do so.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:49:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Of *course* the absolute dollar amounts saved by the wealthy are
> > higher,
> > but that's only because they're paying a hell of a lot more in absolute
> > terms in the first place.
>
> But they can afford a hell of a lot more in absolute terms. The rich are
> doing quite well in this country. They don't need any tax breaks. I
> won't support a tax break that gives 60% of the money to the top 5% of
> the population. Especially not if the guy proposing it claims it
Of course, you neglect to mention that that 5% of the population is
paying 90% of the taxes.
> primarily benefits the working class.
It does. Millions of people currently paying taxes would no longer have
to pay taxes -- including those unfortunate enough to be married and pay
more taxes than they would if they had the same income as single people.
It's funny that Democratic "justice" seems to keep forgetting that one.
>
> > And how can you get a tax refund if you haven't overpaid? Sure, maybe
> > this hypothetical person gets a refund come April 15, but they still
> > paid tax via withholding throughout the year if they're getting a
> > refund
> > at the end. To me, that means they've been paying taxes. What does it
> > mean to you?
>
> It means something a bit loony is going on. But that's usually the case
> with the government <g>
>
> > > What he's ignoring is that Social Security will dry up under his tax
> > > plan. Of course, he wants that.
> >
> > That's not what's on his issues web page:
> >
> > "Governor Bush�s $460 billion tax cut over five years will contribute
> > to
> > raising the standard of living for all Americans. �His budget uses only
> > about a quarter of the surplus for tax cuts, reserves all Social
> > Security funds for Social Security only, and still leaves extra money
> > for debt reduction, defense, education, and other priorities."
>
> The problem is that with the growing aging population, social security
> funds won't be enough to keep Social Security going.
Sure it will. Not as generously, but it will be there.
The _worst_ estimates I've seen say that even if no changes are made,
you'd only have to cut benefits by 30% in 50 years. Given that people
who will retire in 50 years are teenagers today or just starting their
working career, they have plenty of time to take care of their own
retirement -- if you get past the concept that the government will take
care of them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 24 Aug 2000 12:53:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Of *course* the absolute dollar amounts saved by the wealthy are
>> > higher,
>> > but that's only because they're paying a hell of a lot more in absolute
>> > terms in the first place.
>>
>> But they can afford a hell of a lot more in absolute terms. The rich are
>> doing quite well in this country. They don't need any tax breaks. I
>> won't support a tax break that gives 60% of the money to the top 5% of
>> the population. Especially not if the guy proposing it claims it
>
>Of course, you neglect to mention that that 5% of the population is
>paying 90% of the taxes.
Doesn't that 5% also control more than 90% of the wealth?
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:57:23 GMT
In article <Az%o5.250$v3.3240@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(david raoul derbes) wrote:
> First off, are you really so certain that "the dollar amounts.. [paid]
> by the wealthy are a hell of a lot more"?
Yes.
>
> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
A very small number.
Statistically, the wealthy pay a far, far higher percentage of their
income in taxes than the poor. I can't believe anyone would even
question that fact.
> people can avail themselves of, which poor people have no chance of.
> For one, as you know, mortgages. There is a substantial tax benefit to
Oh, I see. So mortgages are a tax loophole that only the rich can get?
You might want to check into reality some day.
> having a large mortgage. Poor folk can't qualify for home ownership, so
> fat lot of good that does them. (OK, you don't have to be wealthy,
> thank God, to qualify for a mortgage; but you have to be to qualify
> for a *large* mortgage.) But a poor person can't find a down payment,
Let's see if I get this right.
Let's say you make a million dollars per year. You have a choice of a
mortgage for $1,000 per month or $10,000 per month.
Depending on where you are in the amortization schedule, a different
amount of that counts as interest. For convenience, let's say the first
mortgage costs you $10 K per year in interest and the latter is $100 K
per year in interest.
In the 28% incremental bracket, you pay $7,200 after tax for the former
and $72 K after tax for the latter. So, the larger mortgage costs you
more money.
Of course, you're also ignoring the AMT which phases out deductions like
the mortgage deduction so you really get _less_ tax break than if you
made less money.
As I said, you really ought to check your facts.
> and doesn't have the income to qualify for the loan. And that is only
> the most obvious example. There are scandalous examples of laws passed
Not to mention obviously wrong.
> by our Congress that have, no kidding, exactly *one* beneficiary, who
> turns out to be (a) wealthier than Yoko Ono and (b) a significant
> contributor and probably constituent of the guy sponsoring the
> legislation.
There are abuses--no doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that the
vast majority of "wealthy" individuals and families pay a huge tax
burden.
>
> I have no problem at all paying people a tax refund even if they paid
> no taxes, if they are working and trying to support a family. Would you
> rather they started robbing banks? Robbing *you*? Are you opposed to
> welfare in all its forms? Try doing without it... I don't mind paying
> *these* taxes: it's the money we use to support e.g. the helium stockpile
> (no kidding) that bothers me...
Excuse me, but what's the difference if they rob me directly or rob me
via the Government (other than the obvious difference that it costs me
more if the government is involved due to beaurocratic inefficiency)?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
