posted
I think Omega has missed the point. I understand your arguments and if the company does well like microsoft then I would be the first to say well done. However, there were times when it used its position unfairly. In a recent Times article there are examples when rival companies such as AOL wanting to make business deals with Netscape and Microsoft used their position to threaten other companies by withdrawing Microsoft support. There is nothing wrong with large corporations and as a economist I know the advantages they can bring. But this abuse is not acceptable and this is why microsoft is being taken to court. Omega you can disagree with me however at present it seems that the government is right for their actions.
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
posted
Doesn't really look like Jay needs any help because the arse whooping is really making Omega red (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"
posted
Yes, nx, the Sherman Antitrust Act is still in use. You can go to the Department of Justice page on Antitrust Case Filings just to see how often the law is used.
------------------ 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
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.
posted
An operating system is not just another piece of software, which seems to be a fact often neglected. It is not, strictly speaking, designed to perform a function so much as it is designed to allow other programs to perform functions.
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
(Picasso)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
