RE: RE my XP Windows got broke in a Hailstorm

Ok Chris, I'll leave it at that. It was fun for a while. :)


John Taylor


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
> [mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Chris Rehm
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:36 PM
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: RE my XP Windows got broke in a Hailstorm
>
>
> > 1990 - FTC begins investigation of MS, focusing on what they
> perceive as a
> > collusive effort by MS & IBM to split the OS market.
> > 1992 - Justice steps into the purchase of Ashton-Tate by Borland, and
> forces
> > Borland to license dBase technology to Foxpro as a condition of the
> > purchase. Huge mistake - MS buys Foxpro 1 month later. Strangely enough,
> > Justice doesn't interfere at all in that purchase. We all know how it
> turned
> > out.
> > 1993 - After *three years* of investigation, they reach a
> deadlock vote on
> > whether to proceed.
>
> Okay, so you know, the FTC and the DOJ are two separate entities. Now, I
> have no idea why the FTC failed to act, but I don't think it
> appropriate to
> blame their failure on the DOJ. The two agencies are not supposed to
> duplicate actions. In other words, the FTC's Bureau of Competition and the
> Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice consult before opening a
> case. If one of them is involved with an investigation/prosecution, the
> other isn't supposed to duplicate efforts.
>
> > 1993/94? - Antitrust division takes over the case which results in the
> > first -virtually meaningless-- Consent Decree.
>
> Now, this was the DOJ, yes they did accept a Consent Decree which I (and
> Judge Sporkin) feel was too weak. However, it was intended to stop the
> bundling of software packages to be forced on vendors. It was the ignoring
> of this decree that brought them back into court.
>
> > 1995 - Justice blocks MS purchase of Intuit.
>
> I believe this was DOJ opposes, MS backs off.
>
> > Same year - decides not to oppose the bundling of MSN with Win95.
> >
> > Same year - begins investigation that leads to current situation.
>
> So, basically, what you are saying is that the FTC failed, and the DOJ
> hasn't succeeded well enough. I'd agree. But you should have said that
> first, instead of just laying it all on the DOJ.
>
> Also, you might take a moment to think of the realities of the situation.
> They don't just get to bring it to court, they have to win it, over and
> over. Not an easy case like the OJ Simpson case where you have
> DNA evidence
> and he only has $8 million to defend himself, but in a case where your
> evidence is mostly the opinions of economists and the defendant
> has billions
> to spend.
>
> So, as in the example in the articles you referred to, while the first
> consent decree may have been like "a misdemeanor plea to OJ Simpson, " in
> retrospect the DA in the OJ case might have preferred the
> misdemeanor plea.
>
> Other companies, like IBM, have fought and won. To give you an
> idea how good
> a chance they have of winning you can look at Microsoft's own case. For
> instance, the DOJ filed against them for forcing vendors to bundle Windows
> on every machine, thus not allowing for anyone to buy a machine with any
> other OS. MS stated this was their way of preventing pirating, since their
> license of Windows does not allow it to be transfered from one machine to
> another when a customer buys a new machine if vendors sell
> machines without
> any OS then there is a chance of piracy occuring.
>
> Microsoft won this point. It couldn't be proved that Microsoft
> did this for
> the specific purpose of denying access to the market for other OSs like DR
> DOS or OS/2 or BlueWave. If you can't prove that they did it for
> the purpose
> of being anti-competitive, you can't win in court.
>
> See, a company can be anti-competitive by accident, but not on
> purpose. I'm
> not sure what recourse there is for the accidental anti-competitive
> behavior.
>
> The only reason that the DOJ won the case they did was because
> there were so
> many emails and other forms of documentation where Bill Gates and other
> execs pointed out that NetScape was a threat to their dominance and that
> they needed to do something about it and their solution was to bundle IE
> etc. etc.
>
> >
> > References:
> >
> > http://www.lgu.com/publications/antitrust/9.shtml
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-345514-0.html
> >
> >
> > I point these things out to show that while they have been
> persuing it for
> > that long, they've displayed a remarkable lack of understanding with
> respect
> > to the technology industry, and they haven't recognized that
> they need to
> > change the way they operate to be effective in today's economy.
> You can't
> > afford multi-year investigations in this industry.
>
> You act like they have a choice. This seems to be a common theme with you,
> as I notice you do the same with IBM (re. desktop marketplace).
>
> I have no love for the DOJ, nor especially the FTC, but I do understand
> their difficult position. Just because a multi-year investigation is going
> to end too late doesn't mean that the DOJ can do something about
> it. If you
> will recall, when they got an order for the documents from MS, MS not only
> appealed the orders fully and often, but they decided to deluge
> the DOJ with
> documention. So, when the DOJ is buried under years of Microsoft's emails
> and memos and they have to sift through to find evidence that the execs
> actively sought to use their monopoly power to force out competition and
> then they have to prove each email or memo is actual and genuine, I can
> understand why it isn't easy to resolve this stuff quickly.
>
> > > While we are on the topic, I am curious what Canada has done about the
> > > situation? I know that the European Union is pursuing Microsoft
> > > in a similar
> > > antitrust trial, but I tend to not pay too much attention to stuff
> outside
> > > our borders. Is Canada pursuing it?
> >
> > Good question. I wish I had an answer for you.
> >
> > We're set up quite differently than the U.S. The government agency that
> > enforces our federal Competition Act is called the Competition
> Bureau. The
> > Competition Act specifically prevents the bureau from publicly
> commenting
> on
> > any complaints they receive, or investigations they're persuing.
>
> That is the same with the FTC's Bureau of Competition.
>
> > While it is widely speculated that MS was/is being investigated, I think
> we
> > need to recognize that the Canadian government is largely
> powerless to do
> > anything. We have no jurisdiction to enforce a structural remedy, so all
> > that we could do would be to restrict their trade practices. And with a
> > population of less than 30 million people across the entire country, we
> are
> > hardly a market to be reckoned with. If MS stopped selling in Canada
> > altogether, it wouldn't even be noticable on their income statement.
>
> I'm not so sure that is true. But, maybe Canada really is powerless to
> affect MS. I would think they could file a suit requiring MS to
> meet certain
> criteria if they want to do business there. For instance, requiring that
> Canadian OEMs be receive the OS without any bundled products or some such.
>
> > > If blame is important, I would suggest that this situation is
> directly a
> > > result of the greed and ego of Bill Gates. All of the reports I
> > > have seen or
> > > read indicate that this behavior comes directly from him. Much of the
> > > evidence used in the court cases has been emails from him or
> > > those following
> > > his orders.
> >
> > Yes, but who's been letting him get away with it all these years?
>
> I usually don't confess this, but I am very liberal about some
> things. I am
> a strong advocate of prisoner's rights. I firmly believe that punishment
> should be solely for the purpose of making society safe and never for the
> purpose of revenge. But even I think it is quite a reach to blame
> someone's
> crimes on the DA who's been trying to convict him.
>
> > > Well, if you read the findings of fact I think you'll see that the
> > > Application suite doesn't count as a monopoly. Customers do have a
> choice
> > > about their desktop suite. While MS used the leverage of their OS
> monopoly
> > > to put their office suite into place, that doesn't necessarily
> > > mean that the
> > > suite "controls" any part of the market. In a break up, I think the
> market
> > > conditions will give Lotus, Corel, and whoever else opportunity
> > > to compete.
> >
> >
> > Are you seriously going to tell me that you don't think Office is a
> > monopoly? I realize that the findings of fact don't technically
> recognize
> it
> > as such - that was my point. But if you rely on the limited findings of
> fact
> > for an understanding of the situation, then you're missing a
> whole lot of
> > the big picture.
>
> Well, actually I'm thinking you are missing the big picture.
> Antitrust laws
> aren't for the purpose of protecting the vendors who want to break into a
> market. They are for the purpose of protecting consumers. So, if
> a consumer
> has a valid choice, then there isn't a monopoly problem.
>
> > > I've noticed you mentioning the problem with Bush and this
> > > administration. I
> > > have read a lot of such comments not just from you. But I haven't seen
> any
> > > evidence at all in the real world to support this sort of conjecture.
> >
> > > I'd appreciate any reference you have that might show me some
> > > reason why you
> > > have this ongoing feeling that because Bush is president the Justice
> > > Department is pursuing this differently than they have.
> >
> > This is way too easy:
> >
> > http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,21321,00.html
> > http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/7564.html
> > http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/pr022701MS.shtml
> > http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2686922,00.html
> >
> >
> > Just read the news, and you can't miss it.
>
> I read this, but what I'm missing is actually seeing something happen that
> says, "Okay, this is where the last administration would have done X, but
> this one did Y." What I'm saying is that it is a little early to
> be whining
> about the DOJ backing off or giving up or whatever when NOTHING
> has changed.
> The case went to appeals, and was sent back to the lower court.
>
> Now, if the lower courts asks the DOJ for a new remedy and the DOJ comes
> back with something different, then that would be different. But
> I think it
> really is off base to make such claims. For instance, it is the previous
> "aggressive" DOJ that settled for the consent decree you were complaining
> about earlier. I don't think we could ever have expected anything else.
>
> Surely, I wish there would be a split up, but I have never felt that it
> would become a reality. I believe it is the right solution, but
> that doesn't
> mean it will happen. I think that people who count on political winds to
> change that are often very mistaken. Case in point is that it was two
> conservative choices, Sporkin and Jackson, that felt Microsoft needed a
> strong remedy.
>

+---
| 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
+---