RE: No Microsoft Breakup

Chris- Yes, I got your last message.  I realized after I sent my reply that
it went directly to you, sorry.  Apparently that's a characteristic of the
web version of Outlook I use at home.  It's probably for the best.

Can you understand what I find strange about these statements?

"I didn't make up the definition of OS. In fact, it would be
relevant at all except that it does make a difference if a court is making a
decision based on that definition. The court found that there really was a
definition and it wasn't what the vendor said it was. Be as mad at me as you
want, I didn't do it."

My glib message about finding a new term to replace "operating system" was a
reply to the discussion YOU and Leif were having, where YOU explained what
YOU (and your dad) thought an operating system was, not anything said in the
courts.

The past nine or ten messages on this thread had been yours and Leif's
opinions.  It's confusing when you come back with something about the
definition used by the court.  I think "Huh? what court definition?  I
didn't respond to anything about the court -- Chris hasn't even brought up
anything about the court using anyone's definition of an OS.  How could he
think I'm responding to something that wasn't even said?"  Try to think from
my point of view.  For me, this came way out of left field.

When you misinterpret my amused sarcasm as anger I can't decide if you're
trying to meet me halfway, being patronizing, genuinely confused, or if
you're continuing in a humorous vein.  Maybe we should agree to note such
passages with the universal symbol for well-meant humor :)

I followed you down this "what is an operating system?" road, but now I
think that it's beside the point.  Even if Microsoft really brought the code
for IE down to the machine layer and bound it to the Windows OS (under
anyone's definition) I'm guessing that you and the courts would find it to
be a questionable, unfair practice, and I'd find it to be a promising
technical and competitive move for the operating environment and the
company.

Where I was coming from on this whole thread was that we see other examples
of integrated products, or parts of operating systems, or bundled middlewear
or whatever.  If bundling/integrating the browser is a monopolistic practice
then I would have thought that bundling UDB with OS/400 is a monopolistic
practice.  You've said (I hope I'm paraphrasing correctly) that bundling the
browser with Windows is monopolistic because there are no other system
alternatives.  To me, that's saying that there's already a monopoly, so
bundling the browser extends or exploits the monopoly.  I wonder if we agree
that bundling/integrating by itself is not cause for an anti-trust suit.

How's this:

If Linux or Mac/OS or OS/2 had thrived as viable, competitive alternatives
to Windows, would it still be wrong for Microsoft to impose their standard,
integrated/bundled browser on their platform?

Or this:

Given the current situation of Microsoft dominance, what will happen when/if
Microsoft SQL is integrated into the Windows platforms?  If it severely
impacts Oracle's market presence, is there cause for an anti-trust suit?

Or this:

Hypothetically,  what if IBM decides to embed source/object cross-reference
into SEU and PDM and provide it for "free" as a part of that set of licensed
products?  As a result, competitive products from Hawkeye, ASC, etc. become
moot.  Is there cause for an anti-trust suit?  Does it matter if IBM did
this to logically extend the licensed product, or if they did it because
they wanted ASC and Hawkeye out of their way in the middleware market?

What do you think?

-Jim

James P. Damato
Manager - Technical Administration
Dollar General Corporation
<mailto:jdamato@dollargeneral.com>





-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Rehm
To: midrange-nontech@midrange.com
Sent: 9/7/01 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: No Microsoft Breakup

On Friday 07 September 2001 06:53 pm, Jim Damato wrote:
> OK Chris.
>
> You've restricted the term "operating system" to a small subset of the
> functionality of even Unix and DOS.  Society has obviously been
grossly
> abusing the term for years.  What term do you suggest we use to
> collectively refer to "things" such as VMS, Unix, DOS, Linux, MPE, or
> Windows now that we understand that none of them are operating
systems?
>
> I wonder if Prince is still using that funny symbol of his.
>
> -Jim

Jim,
        I didn't make up the definition of OS. In fact, it would be
relevant at all
except that it does make a difference if a court is making a decision
based
on that definition. The court found that there really was a definition
and it
wasn't what the vendor said it was.
        Be as mad at me as you want, I didn't do it.
--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.
_______________________________________________
This is the Non-Technical Discussion about the AS400 / iSeries
(Midrange-NonTech) mailing list
To post a message email: Midrange-NonTech@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-nontech
or email: Midrange-NonTech-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-nontech.