Re: no Java in XP Windows -- MIDRANGE-L


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Taylor" <jtaylor@rpg2java.com>
To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: no Java in XP Windows


> I said:
>
> > > 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.
>
> You replied:
> >
> > I don't think there is any reason to have court restrictions in these
> areas.
>
>
> Well how do you enforce it without a court order?  MS has made it clear
that
> they aren't voluntarily going to do this.

Well, I really think the point is that if you reach the time when they are
two companies, then it isn't a matter of "MS" any more. Company A and
Company B both have a self interest in profit, right? If you are an
operating system vendor and one company offers you a product for $4 and
someone else offers it for $3, you surely must consider the price
difference, right?

Sure, you can say, "I'll go with the higher priced option because I like
them better." but you are aswerable to your stockholders. They might want
you to make the best deal possible.

> > Now, maybe Windows shouldn't have the TCP/IP stack built in. I agree
this
> is
> > a tough call. But let me ask you, do you suppose this is free? Do you
> > suppose the cost for developing and improving that stack is taken from
the
> > dividend checks of the stockholders?
>
> Of course it's not free. Whether it be MS, or IBM, we either pay software
> subscription, or upgrade charges for those new features. But that's beside
> the point. How MS, or any company, chooses to finance it's product
> development is between that company and it's shareholders, and has little
to
> do with the issue of what they should be allowed to sell.

It is not just between the company and its shareholders when the company
chooses to pass the expense on, through its monopoly, to users who do not
wish to buy those particular products.

This is the same as if my water utility decided to go into the lawn
maintenance business because they feel it is a related field. So they launch
a big drive to install sprinkler systems tied to all the water lines. To
fund it, they just jack up the price of water and services to their customer
base. Now, as a customer who already has a really nice lawn with a great
sprinkler system, I might only want to keep paying for the water I want, not
the development of this new business.

But other guys, who don't already have a perfectly good, solid, dependable
solution to this problem think it's a great idea! They don't have to do
anything and they'll get a sprinkler system.

So I bitch and moan I don't want to pay for it, but I don't have a choice.
If I want water, I have to not only pay for it, but put up with the fact
that the new sprinkler system is installed right on top of mine
automatically. I have to manually weed it out so I can use mine.

Pretty soon the vendor I bought from can't sell a system because all their
customers already have them installed automatically when they sign up for
water. So they fold and I can't maintain the quality of my system and I have
to settle for the half/ass system installed by the water company.

It is not a matter of deciding what they are allowed to sell. It is a matter
of deciding whether or not they should be able to force their customers to
pay for it. 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.

> Your position, somewhat oversimplified, is that a company should not be
> allowed to improve it's product if a competitive product already exists on
> the marketplace.

That is not my position at all.


> As a consumer, I don't see how forcing me to buy individual pieces of a
> solution (TCP/IP stack, disk compression, backup etc.), and trying to make
> them all work together is a benefit. In fact, it goes against some of the
> very principles that this community (AS/400) values so highly. Aren't we
> regularily preaching the virtues of a fully integrated system?

So then we agree! After all, What Microsoft has been doing for years is in
fact forcing you to buy individual pieces of a solution (TCP/IP stack, disk
compression, backup, etc.) all bundled with their operating system. You have
never had the choice of not buying the components you didn't want and
instead buying them from another vendor.

Yes, we do regularly preach the benefits of a fully integrated system. The
difference is, the iSeries isn't a monopoly. It would be, you know, if IBM
had not been forced to not bundle software with hardware as a result of
their consent decree. If IBM had not made changes as a result of their time
in court with the Justice Dept. (IBM won the last set but restructured to
take the heat off) they would certainly have controlled the business market
the same way Microsoft controls the desktop market. You would see only blue
machines in every IT shop. Would that be good for business? Would that be
good for consumers? (YES! shout the faithful! YES!) ;-)


> > Drawing the line for that is difficult. But, with the amount of illegal
> > manipulation of the market that has gone on over the last two decades,
it
> > does seem that some remedy is in order.
>
> Remedy, or retribution? I've yet to hear a plausible argument that
explains
> how breaking up the company would provide any kind of a remedy.

That is because, John, you seem to treat splitting the company up as
something that "hurts" Microsoft and fail to identify with the two new
entities as separate companies. Surely it won't be an overnight happening.
There is no doubt that it will take time to reach two separate operating
companies. But that should not hurt Microsoft in any way. After all, if MS
Applications is the best choice for bundling, then that is the way the OS
company should go. MS Applications would be free to continue its practice of
only supporting Windows and Apple.

How would this hurt them in any way?

Their problem would be if they were to not behave as two separate entities.
For instance, what if IBM bought a piece of MS OS and Lotus made a super
sweet offer and MS OS went with MS Applications, wouldn't IBM have an option
to sue?

> > One of the reasons the break up is a
> > preferable solution is that it will require far less government oversite
> > than if there is no breakup.
>
> Less than what? What are the alternatives?

If Microsoft is not broken up, then there will need to be government
oversite. They have been found to be a monopoly that illegally operates.
They can be regulated the way AT&T was when they were a monopoly. That would
mean a court would decide on their pricing, how much access they needed to
give to outside vendors, how much access needs to be given to their
competitors, what lines of business they can move into, etc.

How do you suppose that would affect Microsoft? AT&T was forced to sell long
distance time to Sprint at a cost lower than AT&T's cost to provide it. That
was so that Sprint could resell that time at a profit, allowing them to
compete with AT&T. While such things seemed crazy, Judge Greene, who
presided over the bells during their break up and monitored such things was
actually often complimented by all parties, Bell and competition, for his
even handed handling. An amazing man, he not only took care of this but also
carried a full workload of federal cases.

Now, someone who really wanted to hurt Bill Gates would vote for a "no break
up", government oversite solution. You know darn well he would not be able
to deal with a situation where he was not allowed to make his own day to day
decisions about the company. He'd leave, I imagine. Between that and the fed
probably ordering the profit margin be cut in half (to match the industry
average) I am sure the stock price of MS would fall dramatically.

> > Not so. First, sure, Bill G. owns 20%, but he would probably be
prohibited
> > from chairing the board at both companies.
>
> Probably? Was that part of Jackson's original ruling, or wasn't it? Aside
> from which, board member or not, 20% ownership of a company that size
> carries a lot of influence.

Yeah, but Jackson's ruling has to be revisited.

> > Second, if the company ever made
> > decisions based on the "overall empire" rather than any one company,
they
> > would be open to lawsuits from their stockholders. So, if a guy like me
> > owned a hundred or so shares of MS OS Co., and they seemed to be giving
> > preferential treatment to MS App. Co., then they would be cheating me as
a
> > stockholder. I can then sue the board and the officers.
>
> On what basis? I know you Yank's are a rather litigious bunch, but I think
> that even you'd need better grounds than "I think they should be doing
more
> business with Lotus!". Besides which, happy shareholders are the one's
that
> are making money, and nothing makes money like a monopoly.

Stockholder suits are quite common. I don't know its final disposition, but
there was a move a few years ago to quash all the small stockholder suits
because they were being abused. Stockholders can sue over anything, any time
they feel they are being cheated by the company they own stock in. What was
happening is that many people would buy some small chunk of a large company,
like IBM, and wait until the board made some decision, like to pull out of
South Africa, and they'd sue for some small amount like $5,000 or $10,000 or
so, so that it would be cheaper for the company to pay the suit than to
fight it. I used IBM as an example. As I recall, they voted against pulling
out of South Africa with the board of directors deciding that they didn't
want to play politics when they were in business to play profits.

If Lotus has offered a better deal than MS Applications Co., or if Lotus is
being held at bay by not being allowed any bundling options, then a
stockholder in MS OS who is not a stockholder in MS Applications has a
grievance. Their money is being embezzled to shore up MS Application's
profits.

> Yes, I may very well be off base, but it seems to me like the general U.S.
> consensus is that MS will receive a smoother ride with Bush in the
> Whitehouse. Certainly, both Charles James, and John Ashcroft, have gone on
> record with comments deemed unfavourable to continued pursuit of MS.

It is hard for me to think that it would be possible for them to get a
smoother ride. In all the time they have acted illegally, nothing has been
done to stop them. They did go through court, but they then simply ignored
the consent decree which wasn't strong enough to address the problem anyway.

> I don't know anything about the behaviour of the last administration. But
I
> think the dogged pursuit of this case by the former Justice Department
> officials speaks loudly. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that
things
> have certainly cooled off now that Bush is in the Oval Office.

Well, I haven't personally noticed any change in behavior.

> I still don't see how a breakup would do that. I agree that you folks need
> to do something about MS, but splitting the company into OS & Apps
divisions
> seems like little more than a token judicial victory. It allows the
lawyers
> & politicians to go home with their head's held high, but doesn't relieve
us
> from MS' stranglehold in the slightest.

Well, I guess what I mean to say is that I think it is the best of the
possible choices. It isn't the only choice. Splitting them up leads to a
competitive situation. Not in one day, or even in one year, but it's a
start. Otherwise, we will have in the future what we've had in the past.

> 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
+---