Peter T. Breuer said:No - they got the deal with IBM when they were a garage startup.
Steven D'Aprano said:The board of directors are also employees of the company. That's why the
company can fire them.
An employee who refuses to act as directed, claiming that he's thinking of
the shareholders' interests, can be fired for cause. His only recourse
would be to become a shareholder (not hard), and then get the attention of
either the board or a large block of shareholders (much harder). If
management is actually breaking the law (say by Enron-like looting) rather
than simply making decisions he considers suboptimal, he can also go to
the authorities, but he does this in his capacity as private citizen; his
status as employee gives him no additional rights or responsibilities in
this respect.
his status
as employee gives him no additional rights or responsibilities in this
respect.
So what I'm getting here is, that they abused their monopoly power to
secure their initial deal with IBM.
Nobody made IBM sign that deal, IBM thought that it
worked out OK for both parties. As for later deals with OEM
manufacturers, if it's OK for MS to make that deal with IBM,
then why
does it suddenly become an "abuse of their power" if they're using the
same business model?
That's basic economics. Something which can be allowed or ignored or even
encouraged when done by small businesses in a competitive market can
easily become harmful and bad for the economy when done by a monopolist or
duopolist in an uncompetitive market.
There is no way Microsoft could have expected the
market to be defined in this way and no way to argue that Microsoft had any
reason to believe their conduct was illegal.
Microsoft goal is and should be their own success, not the success of
the economy or the market in general.
Microsoft's status of a "monopolist"
is only meaningful if you define the market as "desktop operating systems
for 32-bit x86 computers".
There is no way Microsoft could have expected the
market to be defined in this way and no way to argue that Microsoft had any
reason to believe their conduct was illegal.
Mike Meyer said:Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.
That obligation has nothing to do with computing - it's to make a
profit. It's MS's habit of doing things in pursuit of profit that,
while short of force, are borderline fraud, and are illegal, immoral,
unethical, bad for their business partners, bad for their customers,
bad for the industry and bad for society that causes people to
characterize them as "evil".
on 10/18/2005 said:Yes, he deserves credit for what he did.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:47:27 -0700, "David Schwartz"
If what they did to me in the 90s was not illegal it damn well should
have been.
Neither I, nor you, nor the government of any nation, should care a
monkey's toss specifically for Microsoft's success. Microsoft is one
special interest, out of a potentially unbounded number of possible
players in the economy of a country and the world.
Unless you or I are specifically shareholders in Microsoft, we should not
care about their specific success; and the government should be entirely
agnostic about who are the winners and losers in an economy.
The
government's role should be to ensure a level playing field, and minimum
levels of health, safety and environmental standards. There is no place
for government giving special-interests like Microsoft favours.
Society regulates where and how we park our cars: for instance, none of us
are allowed to park our car in the middle of busy road. and if we try, our
car is likely to be impounded. This is not because there is anything in
and of itself *wrong* with parking at such-and-such a place, but because
of the effect it has on others.
A sensible government cares for smooth
flowing traffic on the roads, with the minimum of delays and the maximum
flow practical.
Perhaps Walmart or Safeway might find it convenient to
park their trucks on public roads for any number of reasons. Too bad for
them: the benefit to them does not outweigh the loss to everyone else,
even if they don't specifically block access to their competitors.
Microsoft's behaviour over-all has been just as anti-social,
anti-competitive and harmful to the over-all running of the economy as a
hypothetical Walmart or Safeway that regularly parked their trucks in the
middle of the main road for a few hours while they unloaded.
Maybe, just maybe, if Mom & Pop's Corner Store tried it once or twice, we
could afford to turn a blind eye, especially if the disruption caused by
towing their delivery van was greater than the disruption caused by their
double-parking. Thousands of people break the law by double-parking for a
few minutes, and society doesn't collapse. But something that we can
afford to ignore when done by M&P's Corner Store becomes a serious problem
if done by somebody with the economic power of Walmart, with their
thousands of deliveries by 18-wheelers every day across the country.
That is *precisely* the market we're talking about. Not "any item that
runs off electricity", not "orange juice", not "pork bellies", not "all
computing devices", but desktop PCs. What did you think the Justice
Department's investigation was about? Motor vehicles?
Microsoft have lawyers. Microsoft destroyed emails and at least one senior
manager perjured himself in court. Microsoft created a fake video
demonstration which they then gave as evidence. Do you really believe that
Microsoft's executives are so incompetent that they don't get legal advice
before writing up contracts? Or that nobody in authority at Microsoft
realised that destroying evidence and lying to a judge are crimes?
In any case, even if you are right that Microsoft had no ideas... so what?
Ignorance of the law never has been an excuse for criminal behaviour. It
has always been every individual's responsibility to make sure that they
do not act illegally, and that goes for companies as well.
David Schwartz said:No, not at all. It is the gravest act of self-contradiction to maintain
that one should be allowed to pursue one's own interest while denying that
same right to others.
We should certainly care that Microsoft be allowed to pursue their own
success. The government should be agnostic about who the winners and losers
are, but must respect each entity's right to attempt to be that winner.
The problem is, people complain when the playing field is in fact level.
For example, Microsoft's "exclusionary" Windows agreements didn't ask for
more than Windows was worth (or nobody would have agreed to them). Yet they
are considered examples of the playing field not being level.
The problem is, the government does not own the economy. So it does not
get to manage it the way it gets to manage the roads it in fact owns.
Again, the analogy fails. You are comparing the government's right to
manage its own property with the government's "right" to interfere with
other people's right to manage their property.
I thought it was about operating systems, actually. And I thought that
both OSX and Linux competed with it.
When a criminal willing to use force points a gun at your head, you lie
to him.
I am not saying Microsoft did not know the law. I am saying that no
rational person could have expected the law to be applied to Microsoft that
way it was. The law *must* put a person on notice of precisely what conduct
it prohibits. However, in this case, the law's applicability was conditioned
on an abritrary and irrational choice of what the relevant market was.
If the deal didn't give you more than it cost you, all you had to do was
say 'no'. I understand the frustration at being forced to pay for something
what it is worth.
Not at all. No one is denying anyones right to purssue their own
interest. What's being denied is the right to use illegal means to do
so. If MS restricted themselves to legal means, no one would have a
problem with them.
Nice thought. Unfortunately, the government doesn't work that
way. They believe that a practical monopoly is a bad thing, and limit
the things such a company can do, and have been known to disassemble
companies they believe are harming the economy in general.
No, they didn't ask for more than Windows were worth. They tilted the
playing field against MS competitors by causing consumers to pay MS
money for products they didn't receive. In most countries, taking
money from unwilling victims without giving them anything in exchange
is called "theft".
Sorry, but you're wrong. The government *does* own the econnomy.
Who
do you think originally created all the money that is flowing through
it?
The government charges you for the privilege of participating in
their economy - it's called "income tax". 2000 years ago Christ knew
who owned the economy, and said "Render unto Ceaser that which is
Ceasers."
Sorry, but nobody but the government actually owns property. In most
places, you can't make non-trivial changes to "your" property without
permission from the government. They even charge you rent on "your"
property, only they call it "property tax".
You sound like an anarchist to me. This wasn't a criminal, this was
the government. Lieing to random individuals isn't a crime. Lieing to
the government is.
MS has a long history of dancing with the DOJ, and has been repeatedly
warned about the legality - or lack thereof - of their behavior. No
rational person who knew of that history could expect the law to be
applied to MS in any way other than the way it was.
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:10:24 -0700, "David Schwartz"
The choice was go along with MS arm twisting or go out of business.
I call that extortion.
The choice was go along with MS arm twisting or go out of business.
I call that extortion.
No, not at all. It is the gravest act of self-contradiction to maintain
that one should be allowed to pursue one's own interest while denying that
same right to others.
We should certainly care that Microsoft be allowed to pursue their
own
success. The government should be agnostic about who the winners and
losers are, but must respect each entity's right to attempt to be that
winner.
The problem is, people complain when the playing field is in fact
level.
For example, Microsoft's "exclusionary" Windows agreements didn't ask
for more than Windows was worth (or nobody would have agreed to them).
Yet they are considered examples of the playing field not being level.
Umm, no. It's because the government owns the roads and operates
them
for the benefit of all. This analogy applies *only* to government
property.
You could replace "government" with "road owner" and the analogy
would
then be correct. Governments don't give a damn if traffic flows smoothly
on private roads.
And this is what any road owner would do.
I thought it was about operating systems, actually.
And I thought
that both OSX and Linux competed with it.
When a criminal willing to use force points a gun at your head, you
lie
to him.
I am not saying Microsoft did not know the law. I am saying that no
rational person could have expected the law to be applied to Microsoft
that way it was.
The law *must* put a person on notice of precisely what
conduct it prohibits. However, in this case, the law's applicability was
conditioned on an abritrary and irrational choice of what the relevant
market was.
I see you are a totalitarianist or perhaps a communist. If you want to
live in America and discuss things that are relevent to America, let me
know.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.