posted
Well, we've just disproven that. The government claims that Microsoft is hurting their entire industry, so they try to destory them. Well, guess what? Now their entire industry is screwed. Even their compeditors, who claimed they were being hurt by Microsoft, are now being hurt in reality. So tell me: exactly how is it a good thing that the government broke up this so-called monopoly? No one is helped, and everyone is hurt. Wealth is being destroyed at an incredible rate. If anyone would care to point out how this government intervention in the economy shows that a free market does not function better, please do.
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.
posted
How would the breakup of Microsoft be anything less than the restoration of freedom to the modern world?
------------------ 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
posted
All I know is that during the first quarter, the value of my stock holdings increased by $2,000.
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
posted
Microsoft a monopoly?! When we can all so easily use Linux? (Pause, smile, what for laughter to die down.)
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
posted
Microsoft is a monopoly since it has 95+% of the market. However, what every one forgets is that the american government would not have intervened if microsoft had not abused its position ie windows 95 with ie. It unfairly used its powers to threaten other businesses and there are good evidence to support this. The goverment has a responsibility to protect businesses from unlawful practices.
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
posted
Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason Microsoft supposedly has a monopoly (they don't, as you DO have a choice) is that they actually have what most people want? If you want compatability, you get a Windows machine. If you want stabitity and ease of use, you get a Mac. If you want to run a server, I gather that you'd get Linux or similar. Really, would you prefer to walk into a store and go up to a display computer, only to discover that there's no OS? How many everyday people know how to install an OS? Microsoft never forced anyone to do anything. It's Bill's product, and he can sell it on whatever terms he likes. If he says "the CEO of any company I do business with can't wear pants for the rest of the year if they want to buy Windows," that's his call. No one HAS to do business with him. Again, it's his property, and he can do whatever he darned well pleases with it.
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.
posted
The fact that people use Windows at all should be a pretty clear indicator that there are those who have no choice in the OS they use.
------------------ 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
posted
If people, at some point, didn't want a Microsoft OS, then people wouldn't get it. And they can easily do that. For example, Frank has a Mac and Adam Bauer has Linux.
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?
posted
Well, most version of 95, it'll safe if you delete IE... But with windows 98, it is impossible. IE is integrated into pretty much everything. You can install Netscape, and have Netscape take over most of what the IE does, but it sucks to have it pop open unexpectedly.
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
posted
Omega: Compatibility...with all those other Windows computers. Ta-da, monopoly!
------------------ 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
posted
Geeze, what a crock of rubbish. Omega you ought to become a gradener cause you are excreting enough crap to fertilize a whole mess of plants.
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
posted
"Compatibility...with all those other Windows computers. Ta-da, monopoly!"
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
