On the plus side, Clinton's legacy is now completely screwed. He'll go down in history for what he is: a lying, perjuring fool with no idea of how a free country is run (namely, not at all), rather than the image he tries to project.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
Fortunately, none of my stock is in any of the currently vastly overinflated NASDAQ-list stocks, which are the ones now taking the worst beating.
Personally, I'm conflicted. I don't like govt. meddling in business, but I don't like the New Standard Oil any better. And I do know the bubble needed bursting before it went on its own, and worse.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
But seriously folks, take a look at this government we've got. How dare they try and enforce their laws!
I won't even begin to try to figure out the Omega equation whereby decisions of the court are handed down by Clinton. I'm sure the Illuminati and the Antichrist are involved too, if we look hard enough.
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
Anyway you cannot blame the government for the fall in share prices. They were overhyped and a crash was inevitable.
------------------
"We set sail on this new sea because their is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won" John F Kennedy
members.aol.com/mfwan/index.htm
And before anyone asks what computer makers like Dell are supposed to do if MS won't sell Windows to them, might I suggest writing their own OS? Computer companies have put _themselves_ in a position of dependancy on MS. With those kinds of resources at their disposal, how hard could it be? Or even better: get in contact with Apple and offer to port their OS. Think of how many computers you would sell with the ease of use and stability of OS9, and the compatibility of Windows. With that, you could drive Microsoft out of business, or at the least force them to make a stable OS. The companies have choices. They chose poorly.
"How dare they try and enforce their laws!"
Sol, do you have any idea what constitutes a monopoly, specifically? Well, don't worry. Nobody else does, either. You're a monopoly when the government decides you are, and there's no way to avoid it, since you can't know that you've broken the law until you've been convicted of it. It's a vague law that gives no basis for future reference, and yet another one that has no constitutional basis. The government was never given any authority to regulate the economy, except interstate commerce, and therefore CAN NOT DO SO. Therefore, what you say with irony, I say with conviction: how dare they try to enforce this law!
And if you want some monopolies, look at the ones that the government sanctions, and even enforces. Public education comes to mind. Social security. Even television and radio. As things stand, Congress could (and has tried, to some degree, and succeeded, to a lesser one) pass a law stating what can and can not be said on the air. The FCA doesn't like you, and boom, you don't have a broadcast licence any more.
And again I ask, if Microsoft's distruction is supposed to help the industry, why is it going down the tubes? Doesn't seem to be a very useful process, does it? And where's the public outcry against MS? Microsoft's got a better public approval rating than any politician since Washington.
And Clinton will be blamed because it's his (obstruction of) justice department that's doing this. Besides, when the economy goes bad, it's remembered as the president's fault.
"The goverment has a responsibility to protect businesses from unlawful practices."
But the government has not the authority to make a business practice unlawful. Look through the constitution some time, nx. Read the tenth ammendment.
"It unfairly used its powers to threaten other businesses"
Now who else would that sentence describe besides Microsoft. I'll give you all a hint: Smith and Wesson. When Microsoft, who has no actual power to force anyone to do anything, applies pressure to get something it wants, it's suddenly eeevil. But when the US government, who CAN force someone to do what they want, tries to destroy entire legal industries, no one complains. Am I the only one that finds this a _little_ disturbing?
And Frank, I may not like Microsoft, but I like the illegal aspects of the US government even less. Lesser of two evils. But not by much.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
I also don't get how including IE is abusing Microsoft's powers. For all it matters, IE could be a integrated part to Windows, right? Would it be a problem then? Would it be better if they didn't include a free gift with every Windows 95/98/NT package? People can easily delete IE, right? No one's making them keep it if they prefer something else. What does it matter? If the Netscape people were to design an OS and give Netscape out with it, would people be complaining and saying that it's illegal?
My ramblings of the day.
Me, I just don't use IE, especially as I prefer only having to dump 1 cache instead of four (or is it just mine that did that?)
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
When I had 95, I deleted all traces of Internet Exploder and had no problems. But when I upgraded to Win98 Exploder was with everything.
I love Netscape, I've had few problems with it and I prefer it always. I do not consider Exploder being bundled with Win98 as a "gift". But alas, if I want 98, I am forced to take it no matter what.
Think of it as buying a car and having a selection of tires to choose from. You want Goodyear, but the car company has welded/glued Dunlops onto it.
------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond, UB Student
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
The government of the Untied States does have the Constitutional power to regulate business. Read the 14th Amendment. Now, wasn't that simple.
Now let's take a look at a bit more of that normal skewed Omega logic.
quote:
...how dare they try to enforce this law!
The Sherman Act reads in part:
quote:
� 1: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony....
The 14th Amendment gives the government power to regulate business. The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914), along with the Celler-Kefauver Act (1950) are instruments of that power. Moreover because they haven't been declared unconstitutional since 1890, 1914 and 1950, they are therefore the law of the land. Clear, simple, and codified. Look up Title 15 in the United States Code on Commerce and Trade.
It is therefore clear that if the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission do not act when they see clear violations of the law it would certainly violate that conservative mantra about "the rule of law".
It was made abundantly clear to me during the impeachment farce that the Republicans and by extension conservatives are all choked up about the rule of law. It's not about sex they said, it's about the rule of law. Apparently only when it suits their wacked political purposes it seems.
The only real question here is if Microsoft violates the above acts and thereby constitutes a monopoly. A federal judge just said yes in his ruling. The rest of the conservative tripe about this, that and I hate Bill Clinton therefore everyting the government does is wrong, is plain stupid.
------------------
Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya.
~C. Montgomery Burns
And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited April 05, 2000).]
Um, no. Compatibility with all those other programs that require Windows. That is, require it unless you've got another OS that does the same job. If Mac OS could run all Windows software, how could you say that Microsoft had a monopoly? Apple made the OS.
Sol: Keep it. You need it more than I do.
Jay: You're gonna have to break it down simpler than that if you want me to see a clause that allows control of the economy, 'cause as far as I can tell, it ain't there, and I've got it sitting on my desk. Unless, of course, it's one of those clauses that's like the one in the bill of rights that gives a woman the right to kill her child...
Ammendment XIV, section one defines citizen, states that all citizens have civil rights, and states that the states can not revoke said rights. Section two states that if the states refuse to allow certain people to vote, assuming that they are not criminals or under 21 (now 18), then their representation shall be diminished accordingly. Section three states that anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US, or has given aid to its enemies, is ineligable for any office requiring them to take an oath of loyalty, except in the case of a two-thirds vote of congress. Section four states that the national debt is valid, but that the debt incurred by the rebel states is not. It also states that there is no debt incurred by the emancipation of slaves.
No control of business is mentioned or implied. Care to try again?
"The 14th Amendment gives the government power to regulate business. The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914), along with the Celler-Kefauver Act (1950) are instruments of that power."
Again, no it doesn't, and therefore those laws excercize power that is not held by the government.
"It is therefore clear that if the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission do not act when they see clear violations of the law it would certainly violate that conservative mantra about "the rule of law"."
Sorry, but US constitution trumps rule of law every day of the week.
"The only real question here is if Microsoft violates the above acts and thereby constitutes a monopoly."
No, the question of whether the law is valid is primary. And even if we agreed that it was, then you'd have to proove that Microsoft constitutes a monopoly before I'd agree with you, and you'd have trouble doing that. Exactly how, praytell, does it restrain commerce?
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
That's pretty much what I was talking about. Consider why there are programs that require Windows...if it wasn't used so widely, software manufacturers would always have multiple versions of their programs available.
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
quote:
Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D.La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable 'to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or impairment by the law of a State.' Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (1869). This conclusion was in harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869), to the effect that corporations were not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in Article IV, Sec. 2. See also Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (1912); Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908); Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 U.S. 71, 89 (1928); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936).
quote:
The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases. Certain kinds of business may be prohibited; and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. . . . Statutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do enter into agreements, are within the State's competency. ~ Nebbia v. New York
There is some more fascinating reading. You might want to try some Omega.
Part of constitutional scholarship is reading the court cases that actually interpret clauses, sections and amendments to the Constitution. So whilst you say the 14th Amendment does not allow for such regulation, the federal courts clearly say that you are, well let me check here, yes, wrong. Incorrect. Not right as it were.
Moreover, until a law is declared unconstitutional in the federal courts system, that is the constitutionality of any given law called into question by legal challenge in the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court had the final constitutional say, laws are valid. And as such they require implementation by the agencies given authority in the law as passed by Congress. In the case of the Antitrust laws, the FCC and the Department of Justice. The point here is not to argue the essential nature of a monopoly by Microsoft (although a federal court has ruled that it is a monopoly), rather to argue that the laws are valid having suffered no constitutional challenge.
------------------
Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya.
~C. Montgomery Burns
And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited April 07, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited April 05, 2000).]
Power flows from the people downward towards the governments, ending with the federal government. The members of each echelon bands together to form a larger, lesser one, each time giving up some of their privelages to be part of the still more limited whole. The federal government is in fact the lowest level. Not the highest.
You are effectively claiming that a corporation does not have the rights of a single person. But what is a corporation but a group of people? It in fact comes from a word meaning "body". As an individual I have rights, but as a member of a group, I have none? I think not.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
------------------
Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya.
~C. Montgomery Burns
And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited April 06, 2000).]
Indeed.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
quote:
The Congress shall have Power To...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes...
quote:
The etymology of the word "commerce" carries the primary meaning of traffic, of transporting goods across state lines for sale. This possibly narrow constitutional conception was rejected by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, which remains one of the seminal cases dealing with the Constitution. The case arose because of a monopoly granted by the New York legislature on the operation of steam-propelled vessels
on its waters, a monopoly challenged by Gibbons who transported passengers from New Jersey to New York pursuant to privileges granted by an act of Congress. The New York monopoly was not in conflict with the congressional regulation of commerce, argued the monopolists, because the vessels carried only passengers between the two States and were thus not engaged in traffic, in "commerce" in the constitutional sense."The subject to be regulated is commerce," the Chief Justice wrote. "The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the
interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more--it is intercourse." The term, therefore, included navigation, a conclusion that Marshall also supported by appeal to general understanding, to the prohibition in Article I, Sec. 9, against any preference being given "by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another," and to the admitted and demonstrated power of Congress to impose embargoes.Marshall qualified the word "intercourse" with the word "commercial," thus retaining the element of monetary transactions. But, today, "commerce" in the constitutional sense, and hence "interstate commerce," covers every species of movement of persons and things, whether for profit or not, across state lines, every species of communication, every species of transmission of intelligence, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise, every species of commercial negotiation which will involve sooner or later an act of transportation of persons or things, or the flow of services or power, across state lines.
Once again from Find Law
And futhermore, the Sherman Antitrust Act was written under the authority of that clasue.
quote:
Congress' chief effort to regulate commerce in the primary sense of "traffic" is embodied in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the opening section of which declares "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise," or "conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations" to be "illegal," while the second section makes it a misdemeanor for anybody to "monopolize or attempt to monopolize any part of such commerce." The act was passed to curb the growing tendency to form industrial combinations and the first case to reach the Court under it was the famous Sugar Trust Case, United States v. E. C. Knight Co.699 Here the Government asked for the cancellation of certain agreements, whereby the American Sugar Refining Company, had "acquired," it was conceded, "nearly complete control of the manufacture of refined sugar in the United States."...
In short, what was needed, the Court felt, was a hard and fast line between the two spheres of power, and in a series of propositions it endeavored to
lay down such a line: (1) production is always local, and under the exclusive domain of the States; (2) commerce among the States does not begin until
goods "commence their final movement from their State of origin to that of their destination;" (3) the sale of a product is merely an incident of its production and, while capable of "bringing the operation of commerce into play," affects it only incidentally; (4) such restraint as would reach commerce, as above defined, in consequence of combinations to control production "in all its forms," would be "indirect, however inevitable and whatever its extent," and as such beyond the purview of the Act.701 Applying the above reasoning to the case before it, the Court proceeded: "The object [of the combination] was manifestly private gain in the manufacture of the commodity, but not through the control of interstate or foreign commerce.
From Find Law
I do so love Constitutional history.
------------------
Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya.
~C. Montgomery Burns
And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
And this is Microsoft's fault how?
They happened to make a product that people either liked or could stand enough compared to others?
------------------
"Warning: The contents of this Physics lab are 100% matter. Should the lab come in contact with antimatter in any way, a catastrophic explosion will occur."
How can I disagree with it, but not think it's wrong and stupid?
And here's my argument against that interpretation of "commerce": if that were the meaning of that clause, then congress could effectively prevent anyone from leaving their state for any reason. Or the country, for that matter. Does it make any sense for congress to have such a power? Is there any conceivable reason for congress to have this power? Could this not easily lead to power being used in a manner similar to Fidel Castro and other communist countries forcibly preventing their people from leaving? I submit that said interpretation of the term "commerce" is incorrect in this context. I have a right to the persuit of happiness. What if that requires my leaving the country? This interpertation would seem to cause a contradiction.
Thus I disagree with many of the judicial interpretations of the constitution. Maybe we should have a jury of, say, fifty to make these interpretations, instead of one man.
And I still disagree with the judge's decision to declare Microsoft a monopoly, for the reasons I and Elim have already stated.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
It's the fault of the people (whether they be the people at the computer stores or the actual consumers) who bought so many copies of Windows. There wouldn't be so many games and programs if it weren't for that. Plain and simple.
This is what is known as the "demand" in "supply and demand." 
Or you could blame it on Apple for not being as well-liked and competitive.
IMO, you can hardly fault Microsoft for taking something that the people (who the people are, exactly, I'm not sure; but it's someone else) gave them and running with it. That's the simplest bit of business sense.
Besides, nothing is stopping you from getting a Mac or a Linux-based machine and associated programs.
------------------
"Warning: The contents of this Physics lab are 100% matter. Should the lab come in contact with antimatter in any way, a catastrophic explosion will occur."
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited April 06, 2000).]
It's business sense, like I said. People want a product; you do what gets the best possible benefits out of it for you and your company. In this case, this just happens to be having them take the extra products to get the one which they wanted.
quote:
Microsoft forced computer makers to bundle DOS with their products, or else they wouldn't have the option of including DOS at all.
I think you missed Frank's first point. This is a problem. Its called killing the competition. A company makes a computer, but is told they either have DOS on it, or never have DOS on it period. This really kills the chances of other OSes being used on that computer.
------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond, UB Student
"You either ship with DOS, or you can't have it at all."
See Spock's last line of ST6 for my response.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
In other words microsoft is intervering in the basic rights set out in the Constitution. The right for others to do business without interference. The US government had this problem a century ago and although the scenery changed the arguments have not.
PS. Does the government still use the Sherman Anti-Trust act (1890)?
------------------
"We set sail on this new sea because their is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won" John F Kennedy
members.aol.com/mfwan/index.htm
[This message has been edited by nx001a (edited April 07, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by nx001a (edited April 07, 2000).]
(Picasso)But just on a side note, do you recall the last time your government had nothing to do with your economy? As I recall something pretty major happened around the late 1920's. A crash of some nature, know what I am on about?
------------------
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
------------------
Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya.
~C. Montgomery Burns
And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
Frank exaggerated. Microsoft didn't force anyone to do anything. That's utterly illegal and if they had, they wouldn't be around today.
"This is a problem. Its called killing the competition."
No, it's called keen business sense on marketing a product.
They really wanted DOS, so they had to settle with the package Microsoft made them take for it; or they had to give up the idea of having DOS. Big deal. It works for some companies (Microsoft) but not others (UPN).
Nobody complains that UPN practically does the same thing. Double standard? I think so.
And why? Because that didn't cause UPN to "kill the competition" (quite the opposite, in fact). Nor was that a reason that Microsoft apparently "killed the competition." If anything, the dealers and such killed Microsoft's competition.
Right?
"A company makes a computer, but is told they either have DOS on it, or never have DOS on it period."
Yes, smart of them, isn't it?
It's like a strategy game: You have a very beneficial advantage on another player(s). Do you exploit your advantage? Of course you do!
"This really kills the chances of other OSes being used on that computer."
Well, if Microsoft owns DOS, it's their priority to do what they want with it.
Again, no one is stopping another company from designing another OS that runs without DOS.
nx, Microsoft may have used it's position unfairly. I'll give anyone that. I'm not big into U.S. economics, so I don't know for sure. I'm just saying that some of the examples given here are hardly fair at all.
If anything, they're very "businesslike."
------------------
"Warning: The contents of this Physics lab are 100% matter. Should the lab come in contact with antimatter in any way, a catastrophic explosion will occur."
But on the other hands, Microsoft is a little bit too "bossy" in the market nowaday.
For Internet Explorer issue, I think Bill's justify for putting them into Windows, after all, Windows is "HIS" creation. If he choice to intergrate IE into Windows, and you can't delete it, well, tough luck. You can say that it is damn inconvient, or even say it sucks, but you can't say that it's monoply. Bill never said that we can't use Netscape or others, he just said that from now on, "HIS" Windows and IE come in one package. If 95% of personnal computer use Windows, it is us as consumer that made it this way in the first place, not Bill pointing a gun at our heads and force us to buy it. After all, we are free to choose any other OS or internet browsers out there in the market.
This is just ironic, you are suppose to beat your competitors in a free market system by any legal means necessary, but then, when you finally achieve your goal and defeated all your competitions, any further attempt to maximize your profits suddently become monoply, and the next thing you know, government's breaking your company up. But then, if the government decides to do nothing, we will be forced to use inferior products at a much higher cost. Man, this is just one vicious cycle that keep repeating themself over and over.
Imagine a copy of Word that would only allow me to type certain things. Or a car which would only open its gas tank at a Shell station. We hold certain products to different standards, and an operating system is one of these products.
Does that mean that Windows violates that set of guidelines? Not being the judge in this case, I cannot stay. But the fact remains that there are a different set of standards for companies that produce products that could best be described as metaproducts.
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven