I think there is a definition issue here

Post #7,338 by ben_tilly 8/31/01 1:03:53 PM Reply	I think there is a definition issue here Anti-trust is a correction of the market. It is not a correction arising from the basic mechanisms of a capitalist marketplace. So if we interpret the phrase market correction as a correction belonging to the market, I see 2 plausible definitions. The one that I see fitting your usage is that the correction belongs to the market in that it is correcting said market. The one that Addison's usage fits is that it belongs to the market in that its proximate cause is due to the buy/sell decisions that people are constantly making. I am no economist, but I would guess that Addison's definition is closer to the common usage in economics. With that said, I now return you to your scheduled flamewar... Cheers, Ben
Post #7,343 by addison 8/31/01 1:26:31 PM Reply	Exactly. Thanks. It is not a correction arising from the basic mechanisms of a capitalist marketplace. Exactly. Left to its own devices, the markets will correct BY THEMSELVES for monopoly - in some manner of time. That's not to say that antitrust/anti-monopoly legistlation doesn't have an effect - but its not one that's a "market force". Addison
Post #7,351 by imric 8/31/01 3:01:33 PM Reply	Fine! smile That's not to say that antitrust/anti-monopoly legistlation doesn't have an effect - but its not one that's a "market force". Ok. Fine... Then please define what a 'market force' is - and what it is not. I have never claimed to be an economist. ...Silly me. Since laws are determined by the consumers and producers in the market (in democratically influenced societies, anyway), I had the misconception that the market influences laws, which then in turn, influence the market. So, to me, I thought that since antitrust legislation was a 'correcting' influence on said market (legislation produced, as it were, by marketplace conditions), it was therefore a 'market force'. I am puzzled as to how effects produced by the marketplace, influenced by the marketplace, and that in turn influence the marketplace, are not market forces. Please elucidate. Left to its own devices, the markets will correct BY THEMSELVES for monopoly - in some manner of time. That seems to be a matter of (religious?) faith to me... Can you PROVE this? Mathematically, that is. 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 #7,355 by drewk 8/31/01 3:30:55 PM Reply	Market theory assumes idealized conditions. It's like physics in that way. "Assume a rod of length one meter with zero thickness and mass of one gram." Well, it can't exist, but we can do the math on it anyway. In the same way, and idealized marketplace is one where the only forces are supply and demand. They meet at some point to determine price, the only output. Second order effects include the change in supply due to people buying and selling. Production and consumption can be added in, as can depreciation and advertising effectiveness. But these are all only the drivers of supply and demand. In reality, players try to influence one or more of these inputs. Copyright and patent legislation can create artificial scarcity. Price caps and minimums can put floors and ceilings on prices. Contractual obligations can affect price, but can also disguise or manipulate the apparent supply and/or demand -- see Microsoft's "trade secret" contracts with OEMs. "Dumping" can artificially inflate supply as a long-term strategy to drive out smaller players. Anti-trust legislation is intended -- in the view of "pure" marketplace economics -- to restore the "proper" functioning of a market that has been excessively manipulated by a player that can wield too many of the previously mentioned tactics. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #7,363 by addison 8/31/01 4:21:11 PM Reply	Oh, shut the (#@$ up. I spent an hour and a half writing my opus, and you summed it up that fast? #@$&@@@#(&@(&@)$&@#&$^@&^($%%%$@#$)(@&$_&@&$)#@&)&$ And ($&^$@^$@$_$&@$^&@$ your little dog, too! AUGH Addison
Post #7,376 by imric 8/31/01 6:59:00 PM Reply	chuckle 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 #7,361 by addison 8/31/01 4:15:20 PM Reply	Re: Fine! Ok. Fine... Then please define what a 'market force' is - and what it is not. I have never claimed to be an economist. "Market force" is the push towards equilibrium. First, in classical econ, if you presume starting with a "free market" - many buyers, many sellers, and perfect knowledge, you get a supply/demand curve. sigh. Just look at this with a fixed font: \|\\S /D \| \\ / \| x \| / \\ \|/ \\ ---------- ^Cost > Units X is the equilibrium point - where the most buyers and sellers agree. As we all know, that's not realistic. Some items, for instance, aren't elastic - if you've got to have a drug to stay alive, and its made by one company, then that throws the above out of whack. If you were in a "free market" - then anybody could produce that drug, and soon the cost would be slightly above what it takes them to make it (back to equilibrium). (pardon me for not trying to do a more complex graph showing an out of eq condition). The market always drives towards equilibrium. Yeah, that's slightly religious, but you can see it with just about anything. How many people who just got laid off ran out an bought luxury cars? Around here, at least, the car dealers are offering much better deals than they had been, because they're selling lots less new/slightly used cars. Things like imperfect information are corrected, over time. (as more people come to find out the information, buy less), etc. etc. Now, a monopoly is a market imbalance. Because of the monopoly, the S curve moves up, as they can charge more, the Demand stays about the same. (I need a whiteboard). But basically you're now charging more than the market bears. Which means, profit. Which means, somebody else is gonna say "We're not just doing this for money... we're doing it for a SHITLOAD of money!" and jump in. Thus for a monopoly to succeed (to digress slightly), there can't be easy subsitution (elasticity), and there can't be perfect knowledge. So you can show monopoly on these sorts of charts. But - if they charge too much, eventually SOMEBODY will find a way to open that up, and make their own money. Which is why you have trademarks and patents and "government enforced" monopolies... But back to the "simple" market. You and I make widgets. Interchangeable for all intents and purposes. We charge 5 clams apiece, and sell 4 goombahs a day of them (each, total of eight). If you raise your price to 7 clams - and I don't raise mine - what happens? I'll sell 8 goombahs. Assuming I don't have 8 of them, I'll sell the 6 I do have, and you'll sell 1. The last will drop off, because the seller will say "that's too much" (the demand drops to 7 at your price.). Can you afford to do that? Depends on a lot, on your costs, on my costs. Maybe I'll raise my price to 6 clams, maybe I can increase my production then, and sell all 7 goombahs of 'em, and you don't sell any. Oops. you're in trouble. So you'll have to drop your price to 6... and then you'll sell 3 goombahs. That's market force. Say for instance, you can't charge less than that. You've got to charge that much to cover your expenses. Either you'll sell less - or I'll raise my price and make more money, selling less (because you'll again get 1/2 the sales). If I'm making too much, then we'll get a 3rd seller in soon, and he'll sell for 5 clams again, and be happy with those results, and we'll all have to drop prices. Its the competition between buyers (and sellers) that drives the equibrium. And as you know, there isn't perfect knowledge. But as things are cheaper, you'll sell more. More expensive, less. That's market force. So you get the "realities" in. Especially in constrained areas. Say, for instance (Hi, Ben), New York City housing. Now, there's a problem with the "simple" model here - that its not easy to ramp up more housing. So the demand goes up, and the supply goes down. So the prices go higher and higher. So, since its so expensive, and democracy is great, the government steps in and puts a ceiling on what you can charge. So your apartment is "worth" 500 clams, now. But the government says you can't charge but 250. So you're "losing" 250 clams. Is this market force? No. Its an external influence on the market. Supply and demand aren't coming to an equilibrium. (Otherwise, it would be worthwhile for more apartments to be built/buildings converted/renovated, etc, until it wasn't profitable). With the ceiling in place, there's a limit to what you can charge/profit, so its not worthwhile for other people to enter the market. (And the actual laws, as I undertand them, are pretty byzantine). Back again to the monopoly. Since you can't subsitute, since you have to buy from the monopoly, the monopoly gets to charge what it wants, and artificially change the S/D curve. Now - notice that for the most part, the sales will decrease under a monopoly. wait, you can't notice. Argh. I need a whiteboard. [link\|http://www.westvalley.edu/wvc/ss/econ/micro.html\|Graphs] In that graph, with Microsoft, rather than selling X at $70, they sell Y at $190 (and theoretically make a lot more). Drat. can't find better graphs on a quick search. Anyways. So antitrust (remember Antitrust, its a song about antitrust) doesn't show up here anywhere. I see what you're getting at now, but its still not a market force. What antitrust attempts to do is be another external influence, that ALLOWS the market force (price versus demand) to take over. Take Standard Oil (please). Antitrust didn't lower prices, it created seperate companies - so that THEY would compete (and in theory, lower the price to the equilibrium). So its wasn't a market force, itself, but (in theory) would allow market forces to re-control that market. This makes it an external influence, but not a market force, no matter whether it was because of the market, or Nancy Reagan's astrologer. (Which notice, would be just as valid a reason as a monopoly getting people to call their congresscritter....) That seems to be a matter of (religious?) faith to me... Can you PROVE this? Mathematically, that is. It is, to a degree. And there's a lot of economist blood spilled over that point. I take the viewpoint that eventually, it will be made irrelevant, based on past history. Had AT&T kept their stranglehold on telephones, instead of satellites attacking cable, they'd have gone after the more lucrative phone market, (for a possible example). IBM's monopoly on mainframes was hampered by the ready supply of "minicomputers" by Digital and others. So its my belief that in the long term, the market will correct for a monopoly, but that's not a reason not to have antitrust. Addison
Post #7,375 by Ashton 8/31/01 6:58:46 PM Reply	Thanks for an illuminating thread, all. I summarize ~ as heard here and mulled: We may not 'blame' the economists for their simple models, though twit same, whenever the dialogue becomes too religious. These have demonstrated utility -- about the buy/sell process only. Clear enough now re 'market forces' and the need to separate that idea from meta-(market forces). Then maybe we can define~ a mercantile culture is one in which buying/selling is a major daily occupation and, one might say - becomes also a preoccupation (the buy/sell process). Then it seems: whether inevitably? or just usually - the "means of barter" (money) Itself becomes a Larger aim than, the more tawdry details of the exchange mechanism. It follows: maximizing personal advantage becomes the (for some.. only?) major goal - certainly Not 'equitable distribution for least overhead possible'. Psych enters too: "what the traffic will bear" - always sets price more than does cost - except as limits are reached. Further, at least in our case: the items exchanged.. long since have gone beyond any idea of "those things needed to support life" and on into the land of er 'manufactured Wants' (an industry we call marketing, one based largely upon exaggeration and other forms of lying-for-$) So within this context, however imperfectly described: It appears that The Market is ever agnostic; is irrelevant to - specifically - any smallest idea of say, "quality of life produced" via mere, laissez-faire er marketing forces No? If this is close enough for government work (?) it would seem that, vastly most important to any idea of "the quality of life" is precisely: Some (wise! but at least responsive?.. effective then) means of meta-market oversight. And necessarily, for reasons of the limits of language and within our employment of phrases like, quality of life - the exploration and implementation of this 'function': Can never have the pseudo- 'mathematical precision' of the mere "ideas of a free market left to equilibrium via the named simple forces". I believe that these may be some of the clashing concepts lying behind ~ why.. much in Econ 101 leaves many a bit too cold and others a bit over-heated in zeal (to apply math to: human events). (Hell, it may even 'explain' why some of the polarized labels get attached, as for ex. to er Repos (not to be confused with the 'Republican'-half of the single party with 2 Right-wings) Darwinian Capitalism? Perhaps Repos are ones (of whatever other 'politics') who really do imagine that math can cover it all. Libruls tag might be for those who imagine that the math is irrelevant; social consequences are all. So much for the extremes but, seems clear enough that the math AND the social consequences ever must modify any idea of Capitalism else: it, being amoral in every sense - can indeed morph into (whatever brand of) Totalitarianism, hegemony of the few; anti- any concepts of 'democracy'. As.. lately, perhaps? Billy n'Bally our D.E.W. line.. focussing attention on the weaknesses of integration, to date. My 3 zlotys.. Ashton Smith G\ufffddel
Post #7,382 by imric 8/31/01 7:53:09 PM Reply	Aieee! Well, I've tried to reply point-by-point asking for some clarifications, etc., but something is killing Mozilla. Three times now. During the course of those replies, I answered my most of own questions, though. Thanks for the excellent reply! 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 #7,477 by boxley 9/1/01 9:56:04 PM Reply	In support of your position Where are the railway monopolies, self corrected by new technology. Any monopoly must indeed fail under its own weight as the market that hits the monopolistic wall will find a way to go around, unfortunately this usually leads to violence and social upheaval. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,377 by CRConrad 8/31/01 7:11:55 PM Reply	Where do you get this stuff from??? Addison writes: Left to its own devices, the markets will correct BY THEMSELVES for monopoly - in some manner of time. Which economics textbook did you get this from? Whichever one it was, throw -- don't give! -- it away, because that's just not true. (Now do you see what I mean, about your "blind faith in the Holy Market"...?) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #7,387 by addison 8/31/01 9:25:02 PM Reply	Many years of econ classes. (Now do you see what I mean, about your "blind faith in the Holy Market"...?) I know what you mean. I told you that you were mistaken for combining a blind faith in Holy Corporations and Markets, and attributing it to me. Markets, yes. Corporations, no. And for the nth time - it is my opinion, that IN TIME, that will occur. I'm not sure what books you'd prefer. That does NOT MEAN you should WAIT FOR IT.(IMO) In other words, you keep presuming (apparently) that my faith here, means that you shouldn't take other steps. I'm telling you - in my opinion, based on how things work - that a monopoly will apart because of market pressures. Eventually. Yes, its a theory/belief. I see a lot of support for that. (What do you predicate your denial on?). And I KEEP disclaiming this - that antitrust/anti-monopoly legislation is needed, nay, crucial IN THE SHORT TERM, so you don't have to WAIT for the market to take its effect. (And there is a school of thought, with some good support, that antitrust law like that helps monopolies, but I shan't get into that, the tangents it would introduce... :)) Addison
Post #7,511 by CRConrad 9/2/01 6:46:18 PM Reply	How many? And of what -- Econ 101, over and over again...? Addison writes: [Quoting me:] (Now do you see what I mean, about your "blind faith in the Holy Market"...?) I know what you mean. I told you that you were mistaken for combining a blind faith in Holy Corporations and Markets, and attributing it to me. Markets, yes. Corporations, no. Can't say I've seen you explain this distinction you (now claim to) make very much, if at all... But OK, never mind that. I'll concentrate on your main misapprehension below, in stead: And for the nth time - it is my opinion, that IN TIME, that will occur. I'm not sure what books you'd prefer. Oh, say, Econ 102...? (Or 201, or whatever comes the semester after 101 in your numbering system.) That does NOT MEAN you should WAIT FOR IT. (IMO) In other words, you keep presuming (apparently) that my faith here, means that you shouldn't take other steps. No I don't -- that's just you presuming (explicitly) that I do. I'm telling you - in my opinion, based on how things work - that a monopoly will apart because of market pressures. Eventually. Yes, its a theory/belief. I see a lot of support for that. (What do you predicate your denial on?). On guys like Adam Smith[] and Pareto and Ricardo and... Oh, I can't remember them all. In short, on what came AFTER Econ 101. And I KEEP disclaiming this - that antitrust/anti-monopoly legislation is needed, nay, crucial IN THE SHORT TERM, so you don't have to WAIT for the market to take its effect.* I know, I know... And I wish you'd STOP, dammit, because I've NEVER SAID you said it wasn't needed. (At least, that is, I wish that you'd stop going on about this to ME.) What I am actually saying is, it's even MORE necessary than you're acknowledging, because the market actually DOESN'T correct ALL such "errors", in either the short OR the long run. That's what the concepts of "market imperfections" and, more specifically to this case, "natural monopolies", are all about. (And there is* a school of thought, with some good support, that antitrust law like that helps monopolies, but I shan't get into that, the tangents it would introduce... :))* OK, so let's not. []: Side note to Ashton: Yes, the sainted father of economic science, Adam Smith hissveryownself, said the Invisible hand does NOT always work perfectly, and can in fact sometimes lead to (side-side note to Addison: PERMANENT) "market imperfections" such as monopolies. So STOP DISSING THE GUY, willya? Sure, Ayn-Randian Ultra-Libertarian whackos of the "there ARE no 'monopolies', except govertnment-created ones!" stripe (the kind Harris definitely, and Addison to only a slightly lesser degree, either are or are at least coming off as here) often take his name in vain, as a would-be proponent of total Laissez-Faire... But that's not his* fault, and by apparently accepting their characterisation of him, you're only perpetuating what they're doing to his name; which is, as far as I'm concerned, besmirching it. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #7,524 by addison 9/2/01 10:59:10 PM Reply	3. Can't say I've seen you explain this distinction you (now claim to) make very much, if at all... But OK, never mind that. Then you're just being insulting, for I replied to you the other day with exactly that distinction on YOUR misconception. It just came UP the other day, when you made it up, and I corrected it. And now you're saying that somehow its my fault for your failure to bother to read it? No, don't never mind that. No I don't -- that's just you presuming (explicitly) that I do. Its the impression that I received. My apologies if thats incorrect. I know, I know... And I wish you'd STOP, dammit, because I've NEVER SAID you said it wasn't needed. That's what I interpreted " throw -- don't give! -- it away, because that's just not true." to mean. What I am actually saying is, it's even MORE necessary than you're acknowledging, because the market actually DOESN'T correct ALL such "errors", in either the short OR the long run. I still believe that it will. You can of course disagree with me, and apparently you will. But I'll point to things like IBM/Sun/Oracle/etc/etc/etc's support of Linux as evidence - the market will work around a monopoly (or attempt to). Even without the DoJ's attempt to reign in Microsoft's monopoly, the rest of the market is reacting (to push it back into equilbrium). Addison
Post #7,532 by Ashton 9/2/01 11:45:04 PM Reply	Apologies to Mr. Smith, for having blamed him for the er Fix-Packs added by successors, in his name. I didn't know he Hisself had gone so far as to mention permanent aberrations.. This would make him even more prescient; was he the last Great one as well as the first? I'm a bit surprised that you suffered through so much of this dismality [ugh! what a horrible non-word] - though I couldn't know whether the exercises can indeed sharpen one's powers of observation (?) But can guess why Ayn-baby's doggerel (and her fan club of - those who call selves strict constructionists here, meaning often reactionaries) - might piss you off. That is, I haven't encountered an Ayn fan who wasn't a reprobate social Darwinist in all other noticeable areas as well. I guess what I notice often in such screeds too, is a form of the faux precision encountered in budding science students, before they have grasped concepts of, 'Redundant constraints' - as that applies to geometrical models of machines (3- vs 4- legged stool and such) and 'false precision' - incomprehension of the quite different meanings of, '5' and of '5.0000' (The umm 'significant' difference). If I can bear it, shall attempt a brief reread of Wealth of Nations, in atonement. It has been some time.. A.
Post #7,533 by bepatient 9/2/01 11:50:10 PM Reply	Natural monopoly From Auburn University website A monopoly that does not arise from government intervention in the marketplace to protect a favored firm from competition but rather from special characteristics of the production process in the industry under the current state of technology. Theoretically, natural monopoly arises when there are very large "economies of scale" relative to the existing demand for the industry's product, so that the larger the quantity of the good a single factory produces, the cheaper the average costs per unit get -- right up to production at a level more than sufficient to supply the entire demand in the relevant market area. This might occur when production of the good requires extremely large initial capital investments to even enter the market in a modest way but then producing additional output requires only very modest additional outlays beyond the fixed initial investment. Under such circumstances, the firm that initially starts out with the largest share of the market is in a position to price its output at a level below its (higher cost) competitors' costs of production and still make a profit while driving them out of the business -- and the larger its market share gets, the lower its unit costs become, until a monopoly position is finally obtained. (It is often argued that local telephone service, natural gas supply, and electrical power distribution fall into this category because of the heavy initial investments in networks of telephone lines, electrical lines and gas lines that are involved.) From the point of view of the rest of society, this single firm monopoly is potentially a blessing, since the one firm can in fact produce the amounts of the good they will demand at a lower total cost in resources than multiple competing firms could. However, once the firm has attained a monopoly position, there is the likelihood that it will use its unusual dominance of this market to maximize profits by restricting output below the level which a competitive market would lead to and raising prices above competitive levels. This would lower overall social welfare below the maximum theoretically achievable because price would be set above marginal costs of production. It is therefore argued by some economists that such natural monopolies represent instances of "market failure" and that this justifies government stepping in to regulate prices and output levels in such an industry so that price will more closely approximate marginal costs of production. (However, since the "natural monopolist" by definition faces a situation where his marginal costs will be lower than his average per unit costs, forcing him to accept a price equal to his marginal cost will result in his always making a loss rather than a profit from his business. Consequently, the government regulators would either have to pay the monopolist a subsidy to allow him a "fair return" on his investment or else fix the price of the product above its marginal costs of production anyway to accomplish the same end at greater social cost -- which is the usual approach taken.) Critics of government regulatory practices point out that: Instances of true "natural monopoly" situations seem upon close and systematic investigation to be extremely rare. The vast majority of actual real world monopolies are not "necessitated" by economies of scale but instead have been politically conferred by government at the instigation of formerly dominant firms grown fearful of emerging competition. Where natural monopoly situations do exist, they tend to be of comparatively short duration, since advances in technology quite regularly seem to create opportunities for new competitors to undercut established giants of the industry. Even where natural monopoly situations exist for prolonged periods, high elasticity of demand due to the availability of substitute goods very often means that "monopolistic" levels of price and output turn out to differ very little from the theoretical competitive optimum. Even where natural monopolies exist for prolonged periods and potentially would cause sizeable divergences from socially optimum levels of price and output, there is very little reason in theory or in historical experience to expect that real world regulatory agencies will in fact bring output and prices any closer to the theoretical optimum, because regulatory policies in practice are almost always much more responsive to arbitrary political pressures (especially from the regulated industry itself) than to any burning desire to have price equal marginal cost. Moreover, financing the regulatory agency's large and highly paid staff (as well as the payroll for the regulated firms' expanded legal department and lobbying organization) is itself a sizable social cost imposed by the regulatory process that often outweighs any social benefits achieved. Just to clarify the argument somewhat. It also carries my thoughts on the matter....that even in the case of "natural" monopolies...the market will eventually (via technology and/or substitution) correct itself. Its just that society (and I happen to agree with this also) doesn't feel inclined to wait (in some cases up to 100 years) for the market to do it. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,547 by boxley 9/3/01 1:08:08 AM Reply	yeah right Auburn :-) Although if I had the money back I spent in bets on their football team:) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,548 by boxley 9/3/01 1:08:09 AM Reply	yeah right Auburn :-) Although if I had the money back I spent in bets on their football team:) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,562 by bepatient 9/3/01 9:53:50 AM Reply	Just had to give the credit.... ..it was actually a pretty well put together index. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,645 by mhuber 9/4/01 1:34:20 PM Reply	Not just time but method It isn't just that monopolies take too long to be destroyed by market forces, but the way they may be destroyed that is objectionable. For example, I see a possible scenario in which Microsoft succeeds in their current plans, not only being allowed to monopolize but using the UCITA and DMCA to great effect. And within a few years, the software industry is reduced to Microsoft on the one hand and gratis open source (with the United States as a pathetic backwater where you can't even hold a conference, much less run a major project) on the other. And eventualy the Microsoft hand becomes irrelevant. That would, to use the technical term, suck. Gratis is great, as part of a thriving technical marketplace, but there is a real need for commercial software. And while I'm not chauvenistic, I would prefer that the country where I live remain a place where significant technology happens. White guys in suits know best - Pat McCurdy
Post #7,653 by bepatient 9/4/01 3:53:36 PM Reply	Yep...sometimes what is substituted... ...is not what you would have chosen given other options. I actually like antitrust law for that reason...as long as the punishment is suitable to the offense and well thought out. So far...it appears that neither will be applied in the case of Microsoft. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,655 by Silverlock 9/4/01 4:05:31 PM Reply	How so? A suitable and well thought out punishment? Why do you think this will not be the case? What, in your opinion, would be a suitable punishment/remedy? I am inclined to favor the "burn them at the stake" remedy. Life is a Cabernet.
Post #7,660 by bepatient 9/4/01 4:26:50 PM Reply	Issues... A breakup creates 2 monopolies instead of one. Given Microsoft's history, that means that the monopoly abuse will just be twice as prevalent. A good remedy would involve a full disclosure of windows source...making it public domain....(not NT/2000...just win9x code base) any further development of that code base could be conducted by anyone...including MS. Combined with some type of licensing restriction that limits the MS ability to establish quotas on the OEMs...allowing (and quite possibly forcing) the OEM channel to offer an alternative OS upon purchase of the computer. I'm just not a big supporter of the current "penalty" of breakup. I don't think it solves the underlying problems. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,669 by Ashton 9/4/01 5:23:42 PM Reply	Good! the nitty-gritty.. finally. I agree with Mike's prognosis - were laissez-faire to be again the default non-chosen non-remedy. Agree also with your take on the likely effects of mere 'split in 2,3 or 4' clones of the same malignancy. Believe the cancer metaphor an apt one: M$ is demonstrably a cancer on any idea of 'innovation' and therefore, especially magnified by the hideous repercussions of DMCA, UCITA (and maybe even NAFTA?) - a not merely potential.. but near-certain root-cause of inevitable decline in the er 'relevance' of any US work in the entire IT field. Does such a situation, if ~ true, not define something like a dire emergency ?? And if that is not suficient reason for - an unusual application of the spirit of 'antitrust law' directly towards STOPPING this behemoth cold: then what ever, could qualify? (Natch I hope that DOJ et al Get This, but esecially also the congress-critters - yes, even the Repos amidst the so-called Demos and Repubs! Because if they do not get this, do not see the looming scenario, via mere inspection of Passport, Hailstorm, .net and XP: IMhO, we're Dead. Soon enough.) My 3 Euro-Dollars. (And those will form the economy of the New Non-US worldwide er "IT"). Hey! you monolingues out there: best to start learning yer C in French, Japanese, German and esp Russian.!. SmallTalk becomes er KleinesGespr\ufffdch 'Jump indirect to self' becomes.. well, get busy.. Personally I prefer a nuclear answer; reform of such diseased minds is as improbable as Jesse Helms marrying a black man.. with Swahili rites, at a rave, while toking on an aromatic leaf... Ashton who doesn't hold out much hope, given our Repo record to date
Post #7,671 by Andrew Grygus 9/4/01 5:37:30 PM Reply	I figured Billy needs a personal punishment. I figured Janet Reno could dress up in scanty leathers, fishnet hose and pointy heels with plenty of chains and rivets. Strap Billy to a post and let Janet at him with a cat o'nine. Then I thought, "Hell, the little pervert would probably enjoy it so much he'd try to get punished again and again". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,676 by bepatient 9/4/01 7:59:40 PM Reply	Well... ...we could sub Reno for Balmer.... shudder...after seeing the monkey boy routine...he might like it too much too. Ew...yuck You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,684 by static 9/4/01 9:23:24 PM Reply	Then why didn't you describe one? :-) A personal punishment for BG would be to disbar him from running a business. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #7,693 by Ashton 9/4/01 10:48:04 PM Reply	Nope. Then he'd go into politics directly, 'stead of buying'
Post #7,690 by addison 9/4/01 10:16:30 PM Reply	Re: Issues... A breakup creates 2 monopolies instead of one. Given Microsoft's history, that means that the monopoly abuse will just be twice as prevalent. I don't think that's totally right, but close. The problem is that 2 microsoft's don't have any incentive to behave. 5 would. (Well, I think so). If you break them into: * OS (possibly into client/server) * Internet * Applications * Media * Hardware For example, now there's much more REASON for API's to be documented.. because now there's no benefit to hiding them. (With 2, you've still got groups that benefit from having the hidden API's). A good remedy would involve a full disclosure of windows source...making it public domain....(not NT/2000...just win9x code base) any further development of that code base could be conducted by anyone...including MS. I'm going to have to disagree 100% here. That's a bad remedy. It doesn't "gain" you anything. Sure, now anybody can write to the old Win32 standard, and had this happend 3 years ago, maybe. But now its past that point where it would be (very) useful. So they open the old code they've abandoned, as they're moving onto the NT codebase for all client machines. Combined with some type of licensing restriction that limits the MS ability to establish quotas on the OEMs...allowing (and quite possibly forcing) the OEM channel to offer an alternative OS upon purchase of the computer. I don't like this, either. My alternative would be that OEM contracts are no longer secret, and that there are a certain number of "tiers" established for discounts. So Compaq.. err. HP, knows what Dell paid for its 10k licenses. Take away the possibility of playing each other off of each other, and take away the possibility of getting the licences "yanked" (Which actually, having 5, say, companies reduces dramatically. Since all the software would be licensed individually, a OEM yanking say, Media Player wouldn't change the OS issue...). Tie that to prices that are fixed for some amount of time, and publized (so if they drop the price to run Be out of business, oh wait, well, you get the picture) - all the OEMs can buy THEN. And their product announcements are under restrictions like IBM was - can't talk about it until its ready to ship in 90 days ( of course, Microsoft shipping alpha code ANYWAY makes this less effective, but still would cut down some of the crap (like AD)... And I think Microsoft's abuses would be brought far more into line. Addison
Post #7,399 by bepatient 8/31/01 10:18:01 PM Reply	Oh it will... ...but the time to wait could be very long. Correctiion will occur...and in most cases it will occur by replacement. Fer instance...had there been no regulation of electricity production this would've happened quicker...a cost effective way to power your own home would have been developed (its here now..seen the new propane generators?) Had natural gas prices not been regulated...bullet tanks would have been more prevalent. Telephone service at the local level in Europe is responding to monopoly by a mass shift to digital phones. So...the real issue becomes...how long should society allow the severe misallocation of resources caused by companies operating as a monopoly....and how far should society allow them to leverage that advantage. Clearly...the 2 major economies on the planet (US and EU) have agreed that as long as a monopoly is fairly gained and not abused....they will be tolerated....however...if that advantage is used to destroy other markets...it will be dealt with. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,420 by Ashton 9/1/01 12:37:37 AM Reply	Well... we are still waiting on that last supposition No? I (ahem) see the next and near-term performance of our er justice system as, very much Unknown. I am supposing that, judges being human and all, and Not disconnected from the media (including the preponderance of InfotainmentWorld over umm zIWETHEY Illuminati ?) - then adding in some cockamamie impression that say, as Microsloth goes, so goes the Economy.. -- it is ALL very much still a crapshoot, whether any sane remedies occur AND, whether occurs anything approaching fair PUNISHMENT, for the principal architects of the M$ Scam of the century. As of today. And what are the odds that any compensation shall ever accrue to the - surely more than several - Ed Currys ? What's good for General Motors is good for the country.. This may be before your time, depending upon what passed for Econ as you were tortured by those (poor baby) successive texts.. It was indeed uttered by one Charlie Wilson, in Ike's cabinet. I'd say that we most often hew towards the Repo mindset, and that hewing always and everywhere - benefits One Class only; it is exceptional when that is less true. There is no longer any significant organized opposition to this hegemony (however we argue: how it got this way), and It Shows. Ashton Blessed are those who expect nothing, for never shall they be disappointed..
Post #7,429 by wharris2 9/1/01 3:23:32 AM Reply	AT&T eventually the monopoly got corrected. Or, slightly more corrected. AT&T was a century-long government sponsored monopoly that was eventually broken. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!

Welcome to IWETHEY!