|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I think this whole persecution of MS by the government is a load of crap.
The primary issue was whether or not MS could include a browser (IE)
integrated into Win95. All the rest of the "dirt" that was dug up can only
be related to this question. Should MS be allowed to build and configure
their OS to meet perceived market requirements? Or should they be required
to provide support for a competitor?
The market was well on its way to dealing with MS's market share and
sometimes questionable business practices via the increasing pervasiveness
of the internet. With the net, all that's needed is a browser to access a
net enabled application. And that browser can be running on a PC a Mac, a
Linux machine, a Palm Pilot, Net Terminal or any other net appliance. As
the bandwidth pipe size increases and continues to come down in cost, we
will eventually access all of our applications ad-hoc, downloading and
running them as we need. Most people will have little use or need for a
major OS at home like Windows, Unix, Mac/OS or anything else. Then we won't
have to worry about GPF type errors, application code updates, viruses, etc.
I think most sane people would agree that the government, as it presently
stands, has exhibited a less than sterling record in terms of vision and
innovation. Hell, our tax code gets more unfathomable year by year while
Congress accomplishes less with each session. Why would anyone want the
government to control the makeup or marketing of software? There aren't any
public safety issues here, like in the automobile, for example. Speaking of
cars, my car has a big multi-function radio/cassette player/CD embedded in
the console. I can't change it without rebuilding the whole dashboard. Why
doesn't Alpine or other independents start a lawsuit against car
manufacturers in an attempt to force them to add a standard size radio slot
for an Alpine radio? Isn't Alpine business being hurt by those car
companies that don't provide it an opportunity to offer its product to
consumers? Isn't my choice being restricted? What is Janet Reno going to
do about this <LOL>?
Despite the rhetoric of the far left, a government cannot make every person
and business equal. Similarly, everyone's opportunity cannot be made equal
nor can a completely flat playing field be provided for everyone. We are
not all equal and life is not fair.
But aren't we all creatures of nature? And hasn't nature proven to be
notoriously unfair (species come and go, die out, big animals eat smaller
animals, etc.)? If an animal or plant population gets too big (figuratively
speaking), then nature somehow trims them back through various means
(famine, disease, weather, disasters,...). But mankind and governments
always seem to think that they can artificially supplant natural rule and do
a better job. Let natural law rule through the market place. MS would have
gotten its due through the marketplace.
Here is a link that you might want to check out about the MS case:
http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaigns/Microsoft/Antitrust_FAQ/default.htm
With regards to government and equality, I would highly recommend reading
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s 1961 short story titled Harrison Bergeron. I found a
link to the story on the net at:
http://www.crosslink.net/~jbloom/harrison.html
JW
Copyright © 1999
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Earl Adamy
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 5:54 PM
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
I don't think it is at all funny, but it is long overdue. As an active
developer and among the pioneer (Win286) Windows adopters and developers at
a time when current wisdom held that DesqView would rule the multi-window
desktop, I have observed, applauded and criticized Microsoft at close range.
Microsoft exhibited the best of free market business in wresting the desktop
from QuarterDeck. Since doing so, they have provided developers and
consumers with the benefits of a uniform UI. However they have been
relentless in their campaign to insure that no business or developer with
which they either competed, or thought they might compete, had the free
market opportunity to do the same. The power of the UI vested Microsoft with
unbridled power ... they have done everything the government claimed and a
great deal more.
Microsoft, does charge what they want to charge - the prices of everything
else in the PC world have come down many fold while the price of Windows has
increased, albeit nominally. Microsoft, is a monopolist but no monopolist
with half a brain charges so much that they drive customers away.
The last thing I want is the Clinton luddites controlling the destiny of the
software business, but it is the job of the government to insure a truly
free market economy and the had failed miserably to provide an environment
in which Microsoft competitors could survive. I will note one more
government free market failing which will come home to roost in future years
.... mergers are in large measure being driven by lack of business pricing
power and the desire to curtail global production to more profitable levels.
Guess what is going to happen when the number of global competitors has been
significantly winnowed and global corporations deem themselves beyond the
anti-trust reach of any one government.
Earl
----- Original Message -----
From: Howard Hopkins <hehohop@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <joe6964@xxxxxxxx>; <GREHERT@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <Proffittak@xxxxxxx>; <chmeyer@xxxxxxxx>; <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
> Joe,
>
> You think it's funny that the government is stepping in and forcing it's
> will into the free market?????? I think it's scary!!
>
> Windows may not be the best OS around, but MSFT has certainly kept it
> affordable. A true monopoly could charge whatever they want because of
> inelastic demand.
>
> Question: Where would we be as a networked society, if in 1980 AAPL has
> opened up there OS? Would AAPL be the one under persecution/prosecution?
> What if MSFT hadn't controlled the OS market and there were 5 or more OS
in
> the beginning each with equal market share of pc's OS? A simple unified
OS
> brought about the proliferation of the PC onto almost everyone's desktop.
>
> I beleive without MSFT's dominance we would be years behind where we are
> now. Bill Gates "ruthless greed" should be applauded not punished but if
it
> is to be punished it should be by the free markets, not Janet Reno's
> hinchman.
>
> Just my thoughts,
> Howard
>
>
> >From: Joe Frabosilio <joe6964@xxxxxxxx>
> >To: GREHERT@xxxxxxx
> >CC: Proffittak@xxxxxxx, chmeyer@xxxxxxxx, realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
> >Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 07:43:47 -0600
> >
> >Sorry Jerry,
> >
> >I got a little missed guided there. Spread a little panic, no I just
think
> >it
> >funny that MSFT finally got hit in the face. Got to do some more
research.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Joe Frabosilio
> >
> >GREHERT@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > Now aren't we missing the prices of the 7 baby bells that resulted
from
> >the
> > > break up.
> > >
> > > Are you trying to spread a little panic?
> > >
> > > Jerry Rehert
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
|