Linux-Advocacy Digest #747, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Mar 01 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:50 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Mar 2001
>> >"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In 1992 MS-DOS plus Win3.0 costs �135. Allowing for inflation, WinME costs
>> >> about the same as Dos+Win3.0, and adds some additional functuality.
>> >
>> >"some" additional functionality? Windows 3.0 came on less than 6 floppies
>> >(compressed). WIndows ME is about 150MB's (also compressed).
>>
>> If you intent is to discuss functionality, why do you describe volume?
>
>Well, clearly there is a correlation.
Even more clearly, such correlation has nothing to do with the issue,
and Microsoft's monopoly crapware cannot be presumed to follow such a
correlation, as they are uniquely free to ignore any reason, rational,
or market standards when defining their software.
>The more the software does, the
>larger it gets.
>Though, of course, just because it's larger doesn't mean
>it's necessarily doing more, though in this case it is.
Guffaw.
>> The problem with your argument is as it always has been, Erik; it is an
>> argument from ignorance. Because it is literally impossible to
>> determine what competitive levels are, since there isn't any
>> competition, you insist that MS's prices cannot be considered to be
>> above them. But, logically, they *must* be greater than competitive
>> levels, since it is entirely obvious that, if you could purchase Windows
>> from either MS or someone else, MS couldn't charge as much and maintain
>> 95% of the market.
>
>Your argument is conclusionary and circumstantial.
All arguments are, moron. You can't refute it, and yours are arguments
from ignorance, so why are you wasting my freaking time?
>Stating that since they
>have no competition, they must be above competitve levels simply assumes
>guilt without validating it to be fact. In a court of law, if you have no
>proof and are only stating what is likely, it's not a case.
You have it backwards, of course. It is not just a fact, but an
*irrefutable yet not unfalsifiable fact*, that if they have no
competition, their prices are above competitive levels.
I know it seems self-referential to you, Erik, but that's because you
have such a small brain. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and a
grade-school understanding of economics could tell that you're full of
shit.
>> In fact, if MS hadn't intentionally monopolized the
>> pre-load market, stymied all innovation, and raised the applications
>> barrier to entry as much as possible, if you could purchase *any OS for
>> a PC* and use it effectively without incurring additional cost due to
>> your not "going along" with the monopoly (which Erik and other sock
>> puppets would characterize, disingenuously, as "the network effect"),
>> Microsoft couldn't charge as much as they do for Windows.
>
>And I've already demonstrated that if MS had plenty of competition, they
>would have to either charge MORE for their product, or spend less on R&D,
>much like their competition would have to price their product more than MS's
>current product.
"Demonstrated"? You said so, maybe, but it was just as much a steaming
pile of bullshit the first time. Nevertheless, I'll help you out a bit
by pointing out the repetitive error which has again fouled your
understanding of the issue: nobody gives a fuck whether Microsoft has to
raise or lower their prices, unless they're a monopoly. And once
they're a monopoly, their prices are not a gauge of 'competitive
levels', and therefore cannot be considered or contrasted in terms of
being raised or lowered.
Microsoft seems more and more like the mafia, in so many ways. Their
ability to justify their actions is one of the more troublesome,
particularly when dishonest people like sock puppet Erik are free to
abuse free speech and the Internet, doing nothing but twisting words and
playing shell games and whining arguments from ignorance.
>What we have here is a variation on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>The very act of proving your hypothesis invalidates it.
No, what we have here is a standard Erik Funkenbusch Argument from
Ignorance. Your attempt to "demonstrate" your hypothesis refutes it.
>> >Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price? How does it
>> >explain that Netware hasn't dropped in price?
>>
>> You have again reached the rather abrupt limits of your understanding.
>> How do you explain prices of alternatives to a monopoly? Your
>> kindergarten level understanding of "supply and demand" simply cannot
>> deal with it.
>>
>> Will Netware dropping its price result in Novell selling more units?
>> Will Microsoft dropping its price result in Windows selling more units?
>>
>> The answer is "no", in both cases. Now invert the question:
>
>Perhaps, but for different reasons.
Perhaps, but you wouldn't know.
>Windows can't sell more units because
>it's market is already saturated.
I guess that's a nice ignorant way to say "they have an illegal pre-load
lock-in monopoly". New PCs sell with new licenses for Windows, so
obviously the market isn't saturated. Merely monopolized.
>Novell won't sell more units because
>demand for the product is simply not there.
You gimp. If there were competition, then the demand would rise when
the cost went down. But there's not, you're right: there's a monopoly.
So I guess its the same reason, despite your ludicrous squirming. The
answer is no, and the reason is Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
>> Will Novell raising its price (to greater than comparable to Windows,
>> the monopoly) result in less Netware being sold?
>> Will Microsoft raising its price result in Windows selling less?
>>
>> The answer to the first is "yes", since it would remove one more reason
>> not to avoid the monopoly (that isn't the same as 'competing', Erik,
>> though I have literally no hope you will ever understand the
>> distinction),
>
>I don't know. The people that use Novell and continue to do so have a
>reason to do it, if Novell raised their prices their clients would likely
>still buy from them (at least within reason).
You're too much of a moron. Try again later when I have more patience.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:52 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001
22:01:24 -0600;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Yes, that is the argument. Here is the original post which includes the
>> >comment:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_oq=&as_e
>p
>>
>>q=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=+&as_umsgid=3A995A7B.6260866D
>@
>> >home.com&lr=
>> >
>> >"PCs are becoming obsolete, you say? Wrong.
>> >They're still selling in huge numbers, because
>> >they're enormously useful devices whose
>> >utility keeps expanding. The *ONLY* component
>> >in the average PC that hasn't come down
>> >sharply in price is -- you guessed it --
>> >the operating system. Microsoft continues
>> >to spin off monopoly profits, with no end
>> >in sight."
>> >
>> >(Emphasis Mine, of course)
>> >
>> >Now, are you *STILL* going to deny that this was the argument, and that
>it's
>> >not based on a faulty premise?
>>
>> Of course I am. Just because its in caps doesn't mean that it is the
>> central premise of an argument. Its pretty lame that this is the best
>> you can do.
>
>What exactly is the central premise then, if the words of the article cannot
>be taken for what they say?
Who said it had a central premise? It sounded like a bunch of moaning
about Microsoft's illegal practices, to me. That is the central
premise. The argument which you wished to try to refute was that
Microsft's software does not follow supply-and-demand principles,
decreasing in cost with a large supply as demand lowers over time.
Admittedly, this is a tough thing to prove, since software itself does
not follow supply and demand, being infinitely replicatable. Still,
other software products do follow the classic model of becoming cheaper
as the market is further 'penetrated' over time; one would assume
because the producers are businessmen, not profiteers and criminals.
>> >> Now stop being a pedantic ass. You're moving rapidly from 'boring' to
>> >> 'repulsive'.
>> >
>> >Is this going to be another one of those "pretend it doesn't exist"
>> >arguments?
>>
>> You tell me; you seem to have a corner on the market in that regards.
>
>Not at all. Here you are claiming that the very words written to support
>the claim of monopoly are not in fact the premise upon which the claim is
>founded.
No, you are claiming that those are the "very words written to support
the claim". Me, I thought of them as an illustration, because only a
moron would not recognize that MS doesn't enjoy monopoly pricing.
[...]
>> Except now you don't get DOS, right; you just get Windows. Isn't that
>> an increase of 100%?
>
>Uhh.. you do get DOS in Win9x based products, and in NT based products you
>get the 32 bit equivelant of DOS.
I'm sorry; you're either lying or you're lying. (By 'you', I mean
Microsoft, of course, since you're obviously just spouting their
bullshit.) Win9x was a complete operating system; the user had no need
to purchase DOS, we were told. So why was the cost of the Windows
operating system (regardless of when or how you want to play games
concerning its definition) twice the cost of the previous operating
system?
Give us a spreadsheet breakdown of every expense MS has had in the last
twenty years, and then we'd have a reason to even for a second pretend
you are not spouting complete bullshit.
The cost of Microsoft's operating system has doubled a number of times;
the amount of increase in price cannot even be determined, though it is
necessarily going to be much greater than what it was originally. You
can't double something without increasing it.
>> >http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/comp1985.htm
>> >
>> >> Pray save us the inevitable whining about "how much more you get"; it
>> >> really has nothing to do with the matter.
>> >
>> >You were saying?
>>
>> That you're a fraud who's apologizing for a monopolist, and rather than
>> having a solid argument, you misrepresent things in order to avoid
>> admitting that Microsoft entirely and unilaterally (and predatorally and
>> illegally) controls the price of their software, and maintains them
>> above competitive levels *REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT AMOUNT IS*: monopoly
>> pricing.
>
>Given the appelate courts reaction to Jacksons lack of definition of the
>market, how do you think they'd act to the claim that Windows is priced
>above competitive levels without defining what the competitive level is.
>Are they supposed to be mind readers?
No, they're supposed to understand software from a legal perspective,
and they don't, because the legal perspective of software is both
ambiguous and undetermined. It is not possible to define a software
market in the same way as historically. This is the importance, of
course, of the Parish and Kodak precedents; the definition of a product,
and thus its market, is determined from the consumer's, not the
producers, perspective.
No telling if it will take the Supreme Court to sort this out, at this
point, which is disappointing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:53 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I'm a little confused here. When exactly was Microsoft "almost giving
>away "
>> >the office products?
>>
>> When they were forcing OEMs to bundle it by threatening their Windows
>> licenses, dumping it by using monopoly revenues to subsidize it, and
>> further ensuring that consumers never saw the price tag for it, no
>> matter what it was. So if you got a new PC, you got Office; that's
>> "almost giving away", if you innocently presume it isn't monopolization.
>
>You state this as fact. Yet, I've seen no evidence to support this. It
>hasn't been asserted in any court of law.
You haven't said anything, however, which indicates it is not a fact.
Another EF AFI, obviously.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:54 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 02:49:42
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:01:03 GMT, Ed Allen wrote:
>>In article <_ddo6.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >I'm a little confused here. When exactly was Microsoft "almost giving away "
>>>> >the office products?
>>>>
>>>> When they were forcing OEMs to bundle it by threatening their Windows
>>>> licenses, dumping it by using monopoly revenues to subsidize it, and
>>>> further ensuring that consumers never saw the price tag for it, no
>>>> matter what it was. So if you got a new PC, you got Office; that's
>>>> "almost giving away", if you innocently presume it isn't monopolization.
>>>
>>>You state this as fact. Yet, I've seen no evidence to support this. It
>>>hasn't been asserted in any court of law.
>>>
>> "It's not illegal if you don't get caught."
>>
>> Sounds like sock-puppet wisdom to me.
>
>How about "guilty until proven innocent" ? You can't proclaim someone
>guilty based purely on heresay and conjecture.
They've already been proven guilty. Just how long do you expect your
pretense to hide your desire to declare Microsoft "innocent". (Guffaw!
'Not guilty', maybe in some alternate reality. But 'innocent'? LOL!)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:55 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001
21:43:39 -0600;
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <_ddo6.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >I'm a little confused here. When exactly was Microsoft "almost giving
>> >away "
>> >> >the office products?
>> >>
>> >> When they were forcing OEMs to bundle it by threatening their Windows
>> >> licenses, dumping it by using monopoly revenues to subsidize it, and
>> >> further ensuring that consumers never saw the price tag for it, no
>> >> matter what it was. So if you got a new PC, you got Office; that's
>> >> "almost giving away", if you innocently presume it isn't
>monopolization.
>> >
>> >You state this as fact. Yet, I've seen no evidence to support this. It
>> >hasn't been asserted in any court of law.
>> >
>> "It's not illegal if you don't get caught."
>>
>> Sounds like sock-puppet wisdom to me.
>
>I said nothing about anything being legal or not. I said, that this hasn't
>been asserted in any court and there appears to be no evidence to support
>this claim. Without any kind of evidence, acting like it's fact is simply
>false.
What on earth makes you declare (without any evidence whatsoever) that
there is no evidence to support this claim? Perhaps you are the only
person in the industry unaware of Microsoft's bundling practices;
perhaps you're just a liar. Either way, you're pretty pathetic to
suggest that an argument from ignorance controverts reality.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:57 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 01:51:57
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:09 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Mar 2001 16:13:59
>> [...]
>>>OTOH, I might also point out that the zealots haven't put forth
>>>any accurate numbers.
>>
>>Why should they, if they're zealots?
>
>Of course. It should be obvious. However, stating the obvious is sometimes
>necessary.
>
>> The fact is, they're not zealots,
>>and you use the term because you haven't a better point, despite their
>>inability to tell you what something would cost in some alternate
>>reality where monopolization hadn't occurred.
>
>I would think that is a pretty good point. It demonstrates that their
>claims are purely conjecture and have no substance.
That's bullshit, plain and simple. It demonstrates that they're right,
of course, unless you plan to disagree with everything learned about
economics since Adam Smith.
>>>If they want to prove something about the
>>>pricing, the onus is on them to make some sort of case.
>>
>>Indeed, and we have, and it is indisputable. MS is a monopoly,
>>therefore their prices are monopoly prices.
>
>Well I think we have a proof by contradiction if we're prepared to
>accept the "axiom" you implicitly stated. Because their prices are
>in the same ballpark as prices for other operating systems.
Neither contradiction, axiom, nor proof. There is no "ballpark", nor
are their "other operating systems" which maintain an illegal lock on
pre-loads. Other operating systems *can* charge in the same range as
Microsoft, of course, and they'd be silly not to. Sorry if real life
confuses you, but you have to engage in a little reason, or you're going
to keep getting hung up by your inability to grasp abstractions like
'monopoly pricing'.
>> Had they competitive
>>pressure to lower them, they could, and since they don't, they have no
>>competitive pressure,
>
>Nonsense. The fact that they don't lower their prices does not mean that
>there is no competitive pressure on their price. Obviously, an
>equilibrium will be reached when they move their price down to a certain
>point.
Such equilibrium CAN ONLY be based on the physical production and its
efficiencies. Software has none; it is infinitely replicable. The
'equilibrium' is reached when software is free. Thus the fact that MS
hasn't lowered their prices despite a monopoly-level market share is, of
course, because they have a monopoly. QED
>> and so they are a monopoly, and their prices are
>>monopoly prices. QED. No amount of flopping around in the bottom of
>>the boat will change this.
>
>Why doesn't the same argument apply to, say the Redhat Linux box set,
>Quake III, or whatever ? Why don't Redhat lower their prices ?
Because Microsoft monopolizes RedHat's market. What good would it do
them to lower (or raise) prices? As for game publishers, I would think
why that argument doesn't apply is obvious. Unfortunately, its not, at
least to those who wish to maintain purposeful ignorance about the true
nature and value of software.
>>Or perhaps you should learn more about why you can't grasp the argument
>>sufficiently to agree with it.
>
>There are people orders of magnitude
>more intelligent than you who understand this argument orders of
>magnitude better than you do, but still disagree.
I hate to disillusion you, but there are no people orders of magnitude
more intelligent than I. Nor does the fact that somebody else doesn't
understand the argument as well as I do, and thus disagrees, refute my
understanding.
>There is a big difference between "don't understand" and "don't agree",
>and it's awfully pompous of you to act as though anyone who disagrees
>with you does so out of ignorance.
Not pompous: reasonable. It is the only reasonable position to
maintain, that if someone else understood your position sufficiently,
they would agree with it. To maintain any position where this is not
the case is not reasonable.
>> Now, tell me, what *precisely* is
>>the problem with considering, given the difficulty you've noted, whether
>>the pricing is *fair*, and then, if it can be seen that it is not fair,
>>proclaiming it then, validly and correctly, to be unfair? Despite the
>>difficulty, indeed, the impossibility, of knowing whether a price is
>>unfair, are you saying it is impossible to know if it is fair?
>
>I think it's difficult to be certain either way. I acknowledge that my
>arguments that their prices are "fair" are imperfect. However, the
>arguments that the prices are "unfair" seem purely conjectural.
There is nothing inherently invalid about conjecture. One merely needs
to seek confirmation for the conjecture. Internal documents explaining
Microsoft's awareness and use of their monopoly power and monopoly
pricing is generally enough for most reasonable people.
>>>That's not really good enough -- to make a case against the pricing
>>>you need more than pure conjecture. In particular, you need to show
>>>that the price "would be" less in a competitive market. And I've yet
>>>to see a decent argument for this.
>>
>>You are incorrect, unless you're a Republican seeking to undermine
>>anti-trust law. No, you don't need to (because you can't, and we all
>>know it) show what "would be", ever.
>
>The problem is that you are applying a "guilty until proven innocent"
>standard. I would argue that to show that prices are too high, you
>need to show that they are higher than what they should be.
That is so trivial I didn't even bother. Software costs almost nothing
to reproduce, regardless of how much it might cost to develop.
Therefore, since the price has not decreased after the first couple
million units paid for the initial development, they are *too high*,
objectively and factually.
You could wade hip-deep in MS's accounting data, if you're of the
pedantic sort who can't understand a logic truth, but must prove it
experimentally. Still, there is no doubt whatsover of what you'll find.
So rather than my applying "guilty until proven innocent", you are
employing an argument from ignorance, or even "innocent even after
proven guilty".
>I would conclude further that arguments against Microsoft that are based
>on "overpricing" are weak, and a poor line to pursue for someone who
>wants to make arguments against Microsoft.
You'd go to any lengths, I guess, to hold MS harmless. Are you merely
another sock puppet, Donovan?
[...]
>>Then again, you don't *need* to, then, since you already know that if a
>>monopolist is controlling the pricing independently of competitive
>>pressures, then the price isn't fair. Again, no quantitative breakdown
>>is necessary.
>
>You haven't established this at all. It's purely conjecture (mixed with a
>little dogma)
No, it is unrefuted economic principle. Calling it 'dogma' doesn't
change the fact that there's no conjecture involved.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:58 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Mar 2001 20:05:17
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 18:27:20 +0000, Peter Hayes wrote:
>>On 3 Mar 2001 13:34:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>>"Excessive" never entered anything I wrote. Just that with 93% control of
>>the market they can "price as freely as they choose".
>
>"Excessive" entered into things the other posters wrote. The thread
>discusses complaints that "computers have become cheaper" but "Microsoft's
>operating systems haven't".
>
>I'm not saying that MS does not have a monopoly. I'm claiming that the
>complaints about their alleged "high prices" do not seem well founded.
[...]
Perhaps, then, you should explain how it is possible for a monopoly to
have well founded prices, when there is no competitive pressure for
prices to follow production or efficiency?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
