Re: no Java in XP Windows

> I don't remember reading it. With all due respect Chris, I can't keep
track
> of where you're going to bounce next. When I suggest that a court remedy

Okay, I'll try to be more consistant.

> involves court imposed restrictions on the business practices, you say no.
> ie:
>
> From John:
>
> "Ok, now you're talking about a lot more than simply breaking the company
> up. You're talking about some specific court imposed restrictions on how
> they
> do business; namely:
>
> 1) Bundling for marketing purposes.
> 2) Opening up the API."
>
> Chris' reply:
>
> "I don't think there is any reason to have court restrictions in these
> areas."

Okay, I see I haven't been very clear. I will try to be.

If a split up produces a company that sells only the Microsoft Operating
Systems and that is the business that company is in and that is the mandate,
I don't see that there would be need for government to further regulate that
because by default that says "this company is selling OSs and not delivering
software bundles." Now, I guess I pitctured that as being handled the same
way all monopolies are here and that I was trying to say that I didn't see
the need for the government to adopt any new standards because there are
already standards that affect a monopoly. Those standards will be applied to
MS whether or not they are split.

If this company is still the one that goes out and gets the software to
bundle on it and sells that to the hardware manufacturer, then there really
hasn't been much changed after all. A little, but probably not enough. Is
that what you meant? Is this what you were pointing out when you were saying
it wouldn't be enough?

> Yet, when I then try to focus the conversation upon the implications of a
> mere breakup, you switch gears again; ie:
>
> "When a company is a monopoly, they automatically force customers
> to adapt to them. That is the definition of monopoly. If their customers
had
> a real choice, they wouldn't be a monopoly.
>
> So, since they by default force customers along, there must be additional
> behavior considerations to keep them from forcing their customers to put
out
> of business their favorite vendors."
>
> Sweet Jesus man, you're like a politician.

Sorry.

> > You, on the other hand have a
> > concept in mind that you cannot see around.
> > I tell you what, so that I can
> > get an idea of how breaking up the company won't work (since my example
of
> > the Bells doesn't work) please give me an example of where two companies
> > which are in different industries are using their monopoly control to
keep
> > each other in monopoly position.
>
> I'm not familiar enough with U.S. Antitrust case law to definitively
comment
> on this one way or the other. If I were interested enough to research
> it --which I'm not-- I'd begin by trying to find an example of a breakup
> order that didn't include trade restrictions. This is where you would find
> the most potential for such abuse.

Well, I was interested in _any_ possible case where your theory applied.
After all, for two companies to be in a position to keep each other in
monopoly power it wouldn't require that they were at one time a single
company. I know there have been cases where price fixing by companies
existed in a market, but I cannot think of any case where two companies
worked together to keep them both monopolies in their fields.

> You're right. That is the problem. I'm not visualizing anything. I'm
asking
> you to describe what you feel is an appropriate solution. However, you
have
> these presumptions in your own mind which you haven't shared with us in
> sufficient detail.

Okay, I understand.

> This is one of those key presumptions that I'm talking about. When you
talk
> about the breakup, you never make any mention of ownership. Yet this is a
> crucial factor. Does Billy G. get to retain majority ownership in both
> companies, or not?
>
> Because if he can legally remain in control of those companies, then it
> should be obvious enough that a breakup without severe trade restrictions
> wouldn't work.

I don't think it is possible to force him to divest of either company.
However, he could not remain in control of both. I am sure he would hand
pick those to be in charge of the company he isn't running, and he would run
the other.

> > In this fantasy visualization let us go to extremes and say that all the
> > major stockholders who were executives in either company were forced to
> > trade in their stock from the company they did not work for for stock in
> the
> > company they do work for so that they didn't lose dollar equity.
>
>
> Forget the fantasy visualizations! Is this a part of the breakup order or
> not? If not, should it be?

No. I don't think so. It would be nice, but I don't think it is workable.

> > But John, I have already been forced to buy IE, right? When I paid for
my
> > OS, I was forced to pay for the browser delivered with it. I had no
choice
> > at all. So now you would like me to go and buy another solution as well.
>
> Well no, Chris, you didn't pay for it as part of the OS - you still don't.
> IE was released as a separate product and made available as a free
download
> for anyone. It still is. Of course it was MS that created it, so you're
> paying for it indirectly if you buy any of MS' products, but you can't
> directly tie that back to the OS.
>
> And that's just one of the problems in this complicated situation. MS
> doesn't have to bundle anything into the OS in order to get it into the
> marketplace. They just have to make it available as a free download.

Well, John, I know that MS paid for the development of that product. I know
that they collected the money to develop it through their OS monopoly. So,
yes, I can trace the cost of IE directly back.

> So you're saying that the only reason you use IE is because there isn't a
> competitive product that you consider to be a superior alternative. If
there
> was, you'd buy it.

Yes. If NS 6.1 didn't crash all day and mangle my email, I'd be using it
even at a cost.

The disappointing part of this is that NS has historically been far ahead of
IE in features and stability. But they don't have the advantage of bundling
with the OS and being funded by a monopoly, so I feel they have fallen
behind. Not too far, though. Maybe if they get a good settlement from suing
MS things could change around. Maybe the JD might even get them a good
remedy.

> > So you feel I am dishonest because I am using the things I have been
> forced
> > to buy?
>
> Hey, it's bad enough to put words in one's mouth, but it's totally
> unacceptable when that includes fabricating accusations. I didn't call you
> dishonest, nor did I imply it.

I was responding to your statement of "Honestly Chris, are you using..." To
me it seemed to imply that I had been putting up the image of using all
non-MS products. I am sorry if I misinterpretted.

> And I'm saying that you do. You can buy Opera anytime you like, if you
> consider it better. You can even get Netscape for free, if you consider it
> better. I'm not pointing this out in an effort to say that MS has been
> wrongly judged --they are a feakin monopoly-- I'm doing it to point out
the
> fallacy of this argument, so that we can hopefully put it to rest.

No, John, I don't have a choice. I am forced to buy IE. Just as you are
forced to buy IE. Now, looking at it from a point of view where the products
are on equivalent footing (because really NS 4.77 isn't so far back) I can
surely understand that it is easy to say, "The reason to use IE is that it
is better!"

But for the last several years while IE was just another bug ridden lump in
the MS toilet, I was forced to buy it then. So were you. Netscape was out
there innovating and competing, but they didn't have a market for their
product because all of their customers were forced to buy a competing
product.

It was a shame that Microsoft was allowed to quash innovation. To me, it is
even more a shame that now that MS has caught up with the company they were
allowed to strangle illegally there are some who point at their product and
say, "See, Microsoft makes the best quality software!" I guess Joe Public
hasn't the vision to imagine what the market would have been like if both MS
and NS had been competing for the market based on their ability to innovate.

> John Taylor

Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---