A point missed during all the venting

Post #40,153 by andread 5/28/02 8:06:13 AM Reply	A point missed during all the venting As I've said before, I'd love to be a shill for MS if it paid enough so send your emails to billg@microsoft.com or write to the good folks at 1 Microsoft Way but meanwhile... Is embedding the browser (or the media player or ...) really the issue? Would there have been a trial if Netscape Navigator could have been bundled by the OEMs? I don't think so (remember when it was all about 'air supply') The customer probably doesn't care how Windows is made, just what they get with it. MS is letting the OEMs do what the anti-MS crowd demanded in the beginning but that is no longer good enough Some folks here are honest enough to proclaim their goal as grinding MS into dust and scattering it to the winds but these are not going to be the legal issues that can prevail in court A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]
Post #40,155 by static 5/28/02 9:02:26 AM Reply	Points of view. The whole "get Microsoft for embedding a browser" issue is the thin end of the wedge. On the surface, the problem is that Microsoft enacted a kind of product dumping in an attempt to ruin the market for the incumbent. It just happened to be a web browser. I don't think there would have been a trial like there was if the OEMs had pre-installed Netscape. But there are deeper issues. One of my favourite pieces of Microsoft legend is that Bill Gates is famously purported to have said "A PC on every desk running all Microsoft software!", meaning of course that he wanted to be the sole supplier of all computer software. Such a goal is not illegal, or at least AFAIK it isn't in what passes for Western Democracies. This is why during the first year of the trial there were people holding Microsoft up as The Great American Company, apparantly unable to comprehend the problem. What I've observed during the last few years is that Microsoft still seems to have a version of that old goal in it's core mission statement, even if it isn't written down as such. And along the way, they appear to have developed a highly contemptuous view about what the US lawbooks say about the means they are going about achieving it. The issue about the browser integration, the desktop monopoly, etc, is a high-profile and importantly current instance of how Microsoft pick and choose how they interpret corporate law. The battleground was chosen as monopoly leveraging; myself, I would have preferred a battleground of product dumping, but I didn't get a say in that. But I think I can understand the decision. A victory on the grounds of monopoly leveraging means that Microsoft now have a legal position of having a monopoly. Theoretically, I believe, if they try the same trick with something else that they tried with the browser, it should be much easier to say "No, you're a monopoly, you can't do that." But the wheels of justice grind slowly and in strange combinations. Microsoft are probably hoping people will get hung up about the browser issue and conveniently forget about the questionable business practices that they followed to get them there. Wade. "Ah. One of the hard questions."
Post #40,192 by Andrew Grygus 5/28/02 2:21:28 PM Reply	Product dumping . . . . law does not apply to U.S. companies, only to foreign companies that charge similar customers more for the product at home than in the U.S.. It is difficult for a U.S. company to charge more in the U.S. than they charge in the U.S., however, monopoly charges can be brought if they charge different prices to similar customers based on their "cooperation" rather than volume. IANAL. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #40,245 by static 5/28/02 10:42:19 PM Reply	Ah. But of course. Yes, it makes more sense now. In fact, I seem to remember a discussion somewhere that almost touched on this and how much political furore there would be if they tried to enact domestic anti-dumping laws. Hmm. Pity, that. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #40,156 by imric 5/28/02 9:42:45 AM Reply	The problem is that Microsoft has proved, over and over, that they will use thier monopoly position to crush competition. The only innovation allowed in the long term is Microsoft's. They are a convicted abusive monopoly that is wholly uninterested in complying with the law's intent (to preserve the competition that makes the US econmomy strong), and are completely in denial that they are an abusive monopoly - conviction or no. Hell - the 'settlement' says right in the beginning that the spirit of the law does not apply - only the strict wording of the 'settlement'. It was DESIGNED to allow MS to continue it's abusive behavior in what's left of the market. Nobody trusts MS to stop behaving as an abusive monopoly voluntarily anymore (except the DoJ under the current administration, that is)- so naturally, they must be forced, by the law. The more extreme solutions arise because of the perception (accurate,IMO) that MS cannot be allowed ANY 'wiggle room'. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #40,175 by CRConrad 5/28/02 12:02:36 PM Reply	You're still missing the MAIN point, in all your $hilling: Andy Reads, but doesn't understand: As I've said before, I'd love to be a shill for MS if it paid enough so send your emails to billg@microsoft.com or write to the good folks at 1 Microsoft Way So, you're doing it for free? Well, then, if you're not a paid shill, then you must be... Oh, I said that already. but meanwhile... Is embedding the browser (or the media player or ...) really the issue? Would there have been a trial if Netscape Navigator could have been bundled by the OEMs? No, that is not the issue -- abusive market practices are. Would there have been a trial if Ford and Rockefeller got together and bundled Standard Oil petrol ("gasoline") with every Model T? You damn well better hope there would! I don't think so (remember when it was all about 'air supply') Uh, "when it was"? It still is, it has always been, it will always be about precisely that: Microsoft wants to cut off EVERYBODY else's "air supply" -- and that is why they are convicted of abusive market practices. The "Browser Wars" was just one in a long line of examples; Microsoft is a notorious recidivist. The customer probably doesn't care how Windows is made, just what they get with it. The customer probably didn't care much how his T-Ford was made either, just what they got with it. That still doesn't mean that it would have been OK for Henry to tie it to Rockefeller petroleum products (or vice versa), or expand into special Ford-only interstate highways, or any other such Gatesian practice. MS is letting the OEMs do what the anti-MS crowd demanded in the beginning but that is no longer good enough No, they're pretending to do what "the anti-MS crowd" demanded in the beginning of this specific example; and even that, only in the bass-ackwards fashion of creating some kludged-up "extra-un-installer API" for applications that have the temerity to want to (fake-)replace their "integrated" (=bundled) applications -- in stead of just changing those applications themselves, to use the already-present uninstaller API! And you have the nerve to try and imply that that should be "good enough"?!? Fuck, how much more proof would anybody need, that you're a dyed-in-the-wool yellow-dog running lick-spittle M$ lackey?!? Some folks here are honest enough to proclaim their goal as grinding MS into dust and scattering it to the winds but these are not going to be the legal issues that can prevail in court Unfortunately, no, since the US judicial climate apparently is such that it regards corporations' -- these legal fictions that have usurped "human rights" unto themselves -- "lives" as much more inviolate than those of mere real humans. If it were a man, not a corporation, that had committed so many murders (albeit corporate murders, in the case of M$), and got caught -- wouldn't he be on Death Row by now? Of course he would! So why shouldn't Microsoft be??? Some folks here are morally corrupt enough not to have grinding MS into dust and scattering it to the winds as their goal... Which every right-thinking person obviously should. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #40,193 by Ashton 5/28/02 2:31:24 PM Reply	Precisamente O Oracular One: Via He who is merciful to the cruel will be indifferent to the innocent (That which I take to be Revealed Truth by inspection) Not wishing to grind Microsoft into the dust, to 'kill' as in disCorporate them is either terminally-insouciant ethical toddlerdom or common whorus vulgaris. The present putative 'middle ground' is a mere reflection of the ascendance of Corporate 3%ers who have purchased the mechanism for US government: mainly the Congresscritter cogs but lately -- also the USSC cogs (and what a bargain they got! Scalia AND Thomas; what a peach of a 'pear'). Dancing about this stark fact of a group who are rapacious and demonstrably incorrigible.. is something about which only an Econ-theologist could dissemble enough to think: the dance is a ballet. It's a death throe - for lots which has to do with a civil environment in which to live. We've been raping the environment so long here that, as we expand that policy into All things - we begin to believe it was 'mutual consent', so it must be 'love'. Others can see the situation from across any ocean, much more simply. Only in Corp-Am does there seem to be some question about the degreee of depravity and about which wrist to lightly slap. Muricans are such hypocrites about their Corporate-'democracy', especially the ones who purchase it, administer it, finally get that corner office - and apologize for it-all. Sanctimoniously! to boot. Ashton Where's Prince Valiant's Singing Sword when one wants to hear some music?
Post #40,209 by Brandioch 5/28/02 3:42:15 PM Reply	Would there have been a trial if MS hadn't done anything wro anything wrong? Is that what you are asking? And you have to ask this?

Welcome to IWETHEY!