Linux-Advocacy Digest #643, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! ("Todd")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: Just converted (Courageous)
Re: Just converted ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:27:22 -0400
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a david raoul derbes wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >david raoul derbes wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
> >> Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
> >> >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
> >> >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
> >> >farmers.
> >>
> >> You are very much mistaken.
> >>
> >> At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the government
> >> for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the government,
> >> she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
> >>
> >> She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to repeat
> >> the process.
> >>
> >> And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax.
> >
> >I don't think that inheritance taxes are wicked per se. What I do
> >think is that the entry point ought to be very, very high (and,
> >to turn over a new legislative leaf, have the entry point be
> >in year-indexed dollars).
>
> In fact, the entrance point for inheritance tax *is* very high,
> 1.3 million. Unfortunately, we crossed it. But that is the law,
> and I intend to obey it.
Wrong. It's $600,000....which is low enough to destroy a lot of
small businesses.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:41:08 +0800
"DES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:TJHo5.2413$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am an average guy who also got fed up with MS and decided to give Linux
a
> try. Being an average guy I guessed I would need help so paid Red Hat for
> their 6.2 Delux version which came with telephone help for 30 days. Yes I
> did RTFM and you know what I found!!! A whole new bloody language!!! For
> those of you new to Linux; "Image" now means "copy", "Server" now means
> "driver" etc. At least Mrs Gates little boy tried to make things easy for
> us!
> Give me a break, keep yor eye on your objective instead of trying to spite
> MS. Make it easy for Joe Public.
> Dave
> PS I hope someone from XFree86 Org reads this, their installation
> instructions are no help to me. What ever happened to step#1,
step#2,.......
>
Des, you're probably going to get a lot of negative replies here... if you
have a problem with Linux, it is your problem alone -- that is the attitude
of Linux users.
Yes, you are right. Linux is hard to understand, hard to configure, hard to
use, hard to do almost everything unless you are a UNIX geek of some sorts
and like that kinda stuff.
Forget logically placed instructions that MS gave you. Forget the nice
installation wizards that MS gave you. Forget the ease of use. Forget
intuition. Linux is a whole new ball game.
My dad one time wanted to 'spite' me (as a joke) and he said that "I want to
try Linux" - I knew he was taking a jab at me because he knew I didn't care
for Linux.
So I said, dad, "Ok, I'll buy you Linux, and you can install it on your
system. That is the easiest way for me to convince you that you won't like
Linux". He was convinced.
Don't waste your time with Linux unless you like hacking around with
operating systems. For people that want to get *real* work done - they use
Windows.
If they want to get real work done using UNIX, they use Solaris or HP-UX.
Linux is for UNIX geeks to have fun.
-Todd
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:36:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Joe Ragosta wrote:
[...]
>> Yet I managed to get a scholarship and loans for Penn State, worked my
>> way through school, got into graduate school at Cornell, progressed
>> through several jobs of increasing responsibility and ended up as
>> President of a small company where I'm making quite a lot of money
>> (certainly far more than the level that Democrats consider wealthy,
>> although I think their cutoff is way too low).
>>
>> So what part of the things you cited is impossible?
>
>According to Liberals....it's not fair...because...YOU SUCCEEDED!
According to the liberals, he's a data point. You don't run government
based on anecdotal evidence.
--
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: Eric Bennett <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:40:48 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> [...]
> >So is it theft for rich people who pay tons of money into the fund and
> >get less back (in absolute dollars) than other people, because their
> >incomes disqualify them from getting full social security benefits?
> >
> >Is it also theft any time I pay taxes to the government, and I don't get
> >back all that money in the form of government services? [...]
>
> No. That's called 'government'. You don't "buy" government when you
> pay taxes; you pay for government. And it is, unfortunately, an
> expensive proposition. I am certainly going to advocate any reasoned
> and feasible reduction in the expenses of government. That isn't a
> matter of making reactionary demands, though; it is a matter of applying
> social conscience and rigorous ethics.
Then would you disagree with ZnU that it would be "theft" if someone who
paid into the social security fund never got any social security
payments when they retired?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:38:30 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Well you can do whatever you like with the data; you might want to
encrypt it
> > because it contains your customer's credit card details, but the format
of the
> > data file is still standard and that is what matters.
>
> [Maybe I shouldn't have posted so quickly] You probably wouldn't encrypt
> non-sensitive data, but everyone tries to hide their sensitive data one
way or
> another. I don't think the issue is whether or not someone else's obscure
or
> encypted data is readable by all.
I am not debating on the end user need for privacy and encryption.
I am refering the the files data being encrypted for the benefit of the
software's developer alone inorder to prevent that data being handled by any
program that were not written by that devloper to lock the user into their
products.
In such a case what good does it do if the is in a "standard format" or that
it can be parsed so long as not a single datum can be interpreted?
Let's reexamine the long suffering example again. You are using an office
productivity application. You are working on a document that consumes 5 Meg
stored in a non-XML file. You are given the option of saving it in either
XML or the program's native format. You choose the XML file format. When
you examine the file you have just saved you find the XML the following XML
"tokens" the the start of the file.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<!DOCTYPE RST "http://localhost/fubar.dtd>
<RST>
<R ID="0" >
<F0>
Followed by 6.5Meg of data of the follow kind
alahasdfnaxvc9qweafva8712345lkf0asdf
Followed by the closing tags:
</F0>
</R>
</RST>
What have you gained?
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:52:08 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >The only way the government can "improve education" is to get out of
> >the education business.
>
> The government isn't a business, and institutional education isn't a
> profitable business, by definition.
There are lots of private universities parents can send their children
to. They are organized as nonprofit organizations. Government-run
institutions are not *necessary* there. So, why should they be
necessary in other areas?
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
> >The government cannot improve the current government provided education,
> >only competition in a free market can "improve a product or service".
But the government can be part of the free market. My undergraduate
degree is from Penn State, which (1) is a public institution, (2) is
better than a lot of private schools, and (3) has served a *huge* number
of Americans, having the largest alumni association in the country. You
want to tell all these people that they're not allowed to go to this
excellent school any more? You want them to go to some inferior private
school instead?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 06:55:33 GMT
> I'd rather see them starve to death before they start doing damage.
You are a hazard to the liberatarian party. With adherents
like you, it's no wonder our support is so low.
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 06:59:50 GMT
> Linux has crashed for me when the applications aren't coded very well --
> just run Netscape under Linux for example.
Linux crashed or the X-server crashed?
> Windows, OTOH, allows many programs to access hardware directly or almost
> directly, such as DirectX. This adds an element of instability, because if
> the hardware driver isn't absolutely perfect, it can open the system up to
> vunerabilities.
When the X-server crashes on Linux, the kernel keeps on tickin'.
> Linux is nothing new or special. If you want a real OS in the UNIX arena,
> check out Solaris or HP-UX.
HPUX rocks. I had a Gecko for most of 5 years. It never crashed.
NOT ONCE.
C//
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:03:02 -0500
Todd wrote:
> Linux has crashed for me when the applications aren't coded very well --
> just run Netscape under Linux for example.
This is surprising. Netscape wins the prize for "most crashes" over anything
else I run, but it has *never* taken down Linux, nor even X.
> Many people consider Linux more
> reliable because they run undemanding console mode applications - not GUI
> apps. or anything remotely complex.
No, I regularly run complex GUIs that I am developing, and thus that are really
buggy. No problem for Linux.
> > So, i'm another satisfied user though I keep windows around to support
> > legacy games and family.
>
> Legacy games? What about the latest games such as MS Allegiance or Diablo
> 2?
Not everyone who uses a computer is a game addict who has to buy every hot new
title the day it comes out.
> Normal people (not OS geeks)
> are always going to use Windows because of the easy of setup, ease of use,
> wide application support and driver availability and being compatible with
> everyone else.
"Always" is a dangerous word.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:04:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>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.
No, I am saying that if you are charging exorbitant profits, it is
likely because you are 'successfully' restraining trade or monopolizing,
and those are both illegal.
[...]
>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.
I'm saying that if the market is run by monopolists, you can't compete,
you can only attempt to monopolize.
>Essentially, you're saying that BMW is closer to having a monopoly than
>General Motors.
I don't know why you think I'm saying that. I won't posture and tell
you I don't know why you think I'm saying all those other things you
insist I'm saying, when I'm not, because I do understand why you believe
I'm saying those things. I'm not, but that's the reason I'm still
responding. Even if you never understand why I'm saying what I am,
perhaps someone else will.
>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.
No, I'm saying that the current market for <whatever> isn't an artist
painting a picture and selling it.
>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%.
I don't second-guess businesses and how they allocate expenses.
Pharmaceutical companies base their business on patents, which includes
an inherent danger of profiteering, and must be closely monitored. As
it is. You buy generic drugs because excessive profiteering on
pharmaceuticals is 'unlawful'. Pharmaceutical companies would be more
than capable of preventing competition in their markets, given their
fiscal might, if they weren't prevented from doing so.
>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.
You misunderstand (or simply misrepresent) my argument. There is no
"proof of a monopoly" which I'm referring to. If a company is making
money by restricting access to their product, rather than by producing
as much of their product as they can, then they are, by definition,
profiteering. This by itself, AFAIK, is not illegal. But since
monopolization (willfully attempting to gain or maintain market
dominance) is illegal, a company that makes fantastic amounts of money
is most probably breaking the law, as monopoly power is the simplest
route to being able to control prices. Its supposed to be supply and
demand, not the desires of the producer, which controls prices.
>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.
I never presented such a position. I did, however, present the
observation, still unrefuted, that a company that is making "a lot of
money" according to your definition (not mine) is probably monopolizing.
I don't call making profit monopolizing, as much as you want to insist I
do.
[...]
>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.
I'm afraid I'll have to insist you provide a quote, and point out,
knowing what I've written, that you won't find one, where I said 'a
company that makes a lot of money must be a monopoly'. A company that
extracts exorbitant profits on purposefully restricted availability or
production of goods is profiteering, and in an otherwise open market
this is only done by monopolists.
[...]
>> 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.
And as long as you charge all customers the same price, and take no
actions to either restrain trade of others or monopolize the trade
yourself, you are earning an honest profit, and supporting a free
market.
>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.
No, I keep observing that if you monopolize (profit on market power
rather than competitive merit) you are profiteering, and monopolization
is illegal.
[...]
>> >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. [...]
Not in context, though if you (as you do) take this statement alone and
pretend to argue against it, you will sound reasonable even as you
attempt to avoid discussing the real issue. I grow weary of this
charade. Come up with some cogent arguments, or stop wasting my time
with your straw men. Your ability to misrepresent my position and
misunderstand my comments is not a meaningful support for a contrary
position.
[...]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:02:56 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Well you can do whatever you like with the data; you might want to
> encrypt it
> > > because it contains your customer's credit card details, but the format
> of the
> > > data file is still standard and that is what matters.
> >
> > [Maybe I shouldn't have posted so quickly] You probably wouldn't encrypt
> > non-sensitive data, but everyone tries to hide their sensitive data one
> way or
> > another. I don't think the issue is whether or not someone else's obscure
> or
> > encypted data is readable by all.
>
> I am not debating on the end user need for privacy and encryption.
>
> I am refering the the files data being encrypted for the benefit of the
> software's developer alone inorder to prevent that data being handled by any
> program that were not written by that devloper to lock the user into their
> products.
>
> In such a case what good does it do if the is in a "standard format" or that
> it can be parsed so long as not a single datum can be interpreted?
>
> Let's reexamine the long suffering example again. You are using an office
> productivity application. You are working on a document that consumes 5 Meg
> stored in a non-XML file. You are given the option of saving it in either
> XML or the program's native format. You choose the XML file format. When
> you examine the file you have just saved you find the XML the following XML
> "tokens" the the start of the file.
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
> <!DOCTYPE RST "http://localhost/fubar.dtd>
> <RST>
> <R ID="0" >
> <F0>
>
> Followed by 6.5Meg of data of the follow kind
>
> alahasdfnaxvc9qweafva8712345lkf0asdf
>
> Followed by the closing tags:
>
> </F0>
> </R>
> </RST>
>
> What have you gained?
Who's me? The casual web browser, the company vice president, the
programmer?
Answer: nothing unless you know what the hell it is.
If two companies wanted to share the data then they would agree on a
method of encryption. If someone wanted to share it with the whole world
then they would make it nice simple english (swahili whatever).
IanP
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:07:08 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> The point is that they should, and they aren't even paying anywhere near
> as much as their tax bracket base percentage indicates, while the middle
> and lower income people generally do.
Really? Count your standard deduction and personal exemption and that's
$7000 tax free. If you make $21,000 and have no dependents, a third of
your income is tax-free right off the bat. Now let's say you make
$80,000... where do you come up with $24,000 in itemized deductions?
Last year, I reported more income than $21000, but was still in the 15%
bracket, and I paid 10.6% of my "total income" (1040, line 22) as tax.
So I'm only paying 2/3 of what my bracket base percentage indicates.
You think most people in the top bracket do you think are paying much
less than 2/3 of their base percentage, or 26%, to the feds?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:09:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >[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.
>>
>> Only in the common vernacular, and that is why it is problematic. No, a
>> huge market share does not constitute a monopoly. What constitutes a
>> monopoly, in this regard, is: "the ability (1) to price substantially
>> above the competitive level and (2) to persist in doing so for a
>> significant period without erosion by new entry or expansion."
>
>
>But legally those two things are assumed to exist where high market
>share is present, so there's no formal distinction between your point
>and Chad's. The Supreme Court says that "ordinarily" market share alone
>can demonstrate the monopoly power you're talking about. Remember the
>text from Grinnell that I posted earlier:
>
>
>=====
>In United States v. du Pont & Co., we defined monopoly power as "the
>power to control prices or exclude competition." The existence of such
>power ordinarily may be inferred from the predominant share of the
>market. In American Tobacco Co. v. United States, we said that "over
>two-thirds of the entire domestic field of cigarettes, and . . . over
>80% of the field of comparable cigarettes" constituted "a substantial
>monopoly." In United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 90% of the
>market constituted monopoly power. In the present case, 87% of the
>accredited central station service business leaves no doubt that the
>congeries of these defendants have monopoly power - power which, as our
>discussion of the record indicates, they did not hesitate to wield - if
>that business is the relevant market.
>=====
And with that understanding, I entirely agree. Normally a large market
share *can* be considered monopolization, as there is no other way to
get large market share in a competitive market. But that sounds too
much like an extremist case, and is, in fact, what allows "having a
monopoly is not illegal" to be used to defend monopolization, which is
criminal behavior. It is, indeed "monopolization", not "having a
monopoly" which is the crime. Having a large market share, however, is
indication a crime has been committed, though it is not (and should not
be, if the market is truly to remain free) considered de facto evidence
of the crime in the absence of any other demonstrably anti-competitive
behavior.
--
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:09:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>-- snip --
>
>> The term "abusive monopoly" is an oxymoron;
>
>Hmm, I think you mean "the term 'abusive monopoly' is redundant."
>
>Kind of like "violent explosion."
Yes, of course. Thanks for the correction.
--
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
******************************
