Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Roedy Green]

Or would you like to suggest that Microsoft's board of directors should be
allowed carte blache to break any law, commit any deed, so long as it
makes Microsoft money?

Why should the standards of acceptable conduct be any lower for groups
of people (namely corporations) than individuals?

It would be like excusing bad behaviour based on other group
memberships such as churches or gangs.

 

[Mike Meyer]

The conclusion that the means were illegal is predicated on the
definition of the relevent market as "desktop operating systems for 32-bit
x86 computers". Conduct is not illegal unless some law puts people on
adequate notice that their conduct is illegal. What law put Microsoft on
notice that the relevent market would be defined in the bizarre and almost
nonsensical way?

Not at all. The conclusion that the means were illegal was because
*they worked*. If MS didn't have monopoly power, the people they were
dealing with would have laughed at them.

In other words, they believe the rights of Microsoft to do what they
please with what is theirs is subservient to some general obligation to help
the economy as a whole. I am saying that Microsoft has no obligaiton to the
economy as a whole but instead has an obligation to its stockholders. It
would be the gravest dereliction of that obligation for Microsoft to
sacrifice itself for some general benefit.

You do like straw men, don't you? Nowhere in the what I said does the
word "help" appear; you pulled it out of thin air, and what you said
in general has *nothing* to do with what you quoted above. The
statements don't contradict each other in any way, and both happen to
be true.

It is not theft if you can simply say "no" to the deal and all that
happens is that you don't get the product. Your argument is preposterous. If
you accept arguments that equate guns with arguments, the next step is that
using a gun is a rational response to an argument one doesn't like. Oh wait,
you're already there.

Yup, we're there - and you brought us there, by referring to federal
judges as "criminals pointing guns".

Of course, there are lots more straw men in this argument. I didn't
mention guns at all - you manufactured that from nothing. Theft
doesn't have to involve guns. Hell, it doesn't even have to involve
the knowledge of the victim, which is the case here. Everyone buying a
system from those that MS bullied paid for an MS OS, whether they got
one or not, and wether they knew it or not - and MS got the
money. They didn't even realize they were being robbed, so saying "no"
was never an option.

If you believe that, then there is no reaching you with reason.
The government created a medium of exchange, but that is not the same as
saying it created the wealth that money represents. The government created
the money simply as a stand in for the wealth that was created by others.

Another straw man. Saying "the government owns the wealth that was
created by others" is not the same thing as saying "the government
owns the economy".

The government charges you, notionally, for the services it provides. It
is somewhat silly to phrase as this as charging you for the privilege of
participating in *their* economy. I am familiar with just about every theory
for justifying government power, and I know of none that justifies a claim
of complete government ownership of the economy other than those that lead
to Communism or Totalitariansm.

Of course you aren't familiar with it. Statists seldom admit that
their system means the government owns the economy.

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.

You couldn't be more wrong. Then again, that's nothing new.

If the government prosecutes people for crimes wherein there was no
notice whatsoever that their conduct was criminal, it is acting criminally
itself. Apparently, in your world the only alternatives are that the
government owns everything or that the government owns nothing. As soon as I
claim anything is beyond the government's power, I'm an anarchist in your
book.

Yet *another* straw man. I do hope you enjoy arguing with yourself. I
never said the government owning nothing was an alternative. Nor did I
say you were an anarchist.

Since when does the DOJ get to make the law? (George Bush's claims to
the contrary not withstanding.) The issue is whether the *LAW* put Microsoft
on notice. A just law must itself put people on notice as to precisely what
conduct constitutes a violation of that law.

In that case, we hav an *awful* lot of unjust laws, because laws
seldom disallow "precise" behavior. Which is the only rational way for
a system of laws to work. Requiring that the law predict *everything*
that someone might do to harm others and explicitly listing all those
cases is silly. Instead, you outline a class of actions and tag them
all as illegal. That's why we have laws against assault and battery
and unsafe driving. And laws against exercising monopoly power in an
unfair manner.

<mike

 

[axel]

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.

Why would you say that - Mike Meyer made a point to which you have
obviously no answer. Or do you deny that his comments on this matter
of property are true?

Axel

 

[entropy]

(e-mail address removed) wrote...

Why would you say that - Mike Meyer made a point to which you have
obviously no answer. Or do you deny that his comments on this matter
of property are true?

Methinks David simply missed that Mike was being facetious. (Irony
and facetiousness don't translate well into print, as Frank Zappa
once noted.)

 

[entropy]

(e-mail address removed) wrote...

(e-mail address removed) wrote...

Methinks David simply missed that Mike was being facetious. (Irony
and facetiousness don't translate well into print, as Frank Zappa
once noted.)

Uh, you _were_ being facetious there, weren't you Mike?

 

[Mike Meyer]

(e-mail address removed) wrote...
Uh, you _were_ being facetious there, weren't you Mike?

No, I wasn't. The statements I made are true: the government charges
you taxes on your property, and in most places restricts the changes
you can make to it and the things you can do in it. I used the words
"rent" and "ownership" in an unconventional way to emphasize the
point.

The conventional usage of "ownwership" ignores these kinds of
facts. So you can talk about "your" house even if you're renting it,
or if the bank still owns most of the house. There are political
groups that are unhappy with these facts, and like to point out the
inconsistencies in the usage of the word "ownership". See <URL:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-propertyrights.htm > and <URL:
http://magazine.14850.com/9307/politics.html > for examples of this.

David claimed that everyone had a right to do whatever they wanted
with their property. This is simply false throughout most of the
civilized world - zoning laws control what kinds of business you can
run on your property, various laws designed to control the looks of
the town dictate what you can do to the exterior or lawn, flood and
earthquake laws state what kinds of structural changes you can make,
and so on. I took the view of a political extremist to point out that
he was wrong. David predictably used that to tar me as an extremist
from the other end of the spectrum.

<mike

 

[David Schwartz]

This is perhaps the most ignorant thing I've seen written down by somebody
educated for a long, long long time. An individual's self-interest may
very well include theft, murder or rape, to mention just a few examples.

You are dishonest, lying sack of shit.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

In other words, "why don't you go back to Russia, you commie pinko
fascist Jew Nazi".
No.

Mike Meyer has got just as much right to live in America as David
Schwartz. Nice to see how quickly Americans' supposed love of freedom
disappears once they are exposed to views that contradict their own.

This is about whether we're talking *ABOUT* America, you idiot. It's as
if he said the press has no freedom, and I replied, "if you want to talk
about some country where that's true, fine, but this discussion presumed
America as the basis".

Remember, he is the one who said the government owned the economy. That
may be true in some countries, but it's simply *FALSE* in this country. Our
government has limited powers and ownership of the economy is not one of
them.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

In that case, we hav an *awful* lot of unjust laws, because laws
seldom disallow "precise" behavior.

That is true. A law *must* put a reasonable person on notice of
precisely what conduct it prohibits and what it does not. At the "fringes",
the tie goes to the runner, that is, the conduct is not illegal. The law is
not supposed to care about things that are trivial. (Except in genuine
private entity versus private entity non-criminal cases, where the law
really is about the slightest tip of the scales and there is no presumption
for either party.)

Which is the only rational way for
a system of laws to work. Requiring that the law predict *everything*
that someone might do to harm others and explicitly listing all those
cases is silly.

That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking that the law *clearly* put
people on notice of what conduct is prohibited. That's very easy in
legitimate laws, because we all know what it means to punch someone or to
rob them. It becomes very difficult in illegitimate laws, because there is
no reasonable test to decide whether something is a 'monopoly' or not. This
burden makes it harder for the government to pass unjust laws, and that is a
good thing.

Instead, you outline a class of actions and tag them
all as illegal. That's why we have laws against assault and battery
and unsafe driving. And laws against exercising monopoly power in an
unfair manner.

Interesting how you, again, equate a gun and an argument. It is very
important to you to justify responding to arguments with guns. However, I
reject that premise at its roots, not just in your application of it.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

Why would you say that - Mike Meyer made a point to which you have
obviously no answer. Or do you deny that his comments on this matter
of property are true?

His comments are not applicable to America. They are applicable to a
country where the government owns the economy.

No reply is needed to his comments except to point out that they only
apply to a communist or totalitarian state. We don't have one here, so his
argument doesn't apply.

I am not saying "because you are a communist, your argument is wrong". I
am saying, "because your argument is based upon communist or totalitarian
premises about the relationship between the government and the economy, it
does not apply to the United States, and we were talking about the United
States."

I really felt that this was obvious, but I guess it wasn't.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

David claimed that everyone had a right to do whatever they wanted
with their property. This is simply false throughout most of the
civilized world - zoning laws control what kinds of business you can
run on your property, various laws designed to control the looks of
the town dictate what you can do to the exterior or lawn, flood and
earthquake laws state what kinds of structural changes you can make,
and so on. I took the view of a political extremist to point out that
he was wrong. David predictably used that to tar me as an extremist
from the other end of the spectrum.

Here's a question for you, Mike. Presumably, you have the right not to
be shot for no reason at all. Does that right act as a bulletproof vest that
actually physically prevents me from shooting you? If I argued that a person
had a right not to be shot for no reason at all by a random stranger, would
you point out that such shootings occur throughout the civilized world as
some kind of refutation?

The way you respond to what I'm saying shows that you really don't have
any clue whatsoever of what the words I'm using *mean*. Do you even know
what a "right" is? (Such that, for example, it's possible for rogue
governments to violate the rights of their citizens even if those
governments don't recognize those rights.)

DS

 

[Alex Martelli]

David claimed that everyone had a right to do whatever they wanted
with their property. This is simply false throughout most of the
civilized world - zoning laws control what kinds of business you can

Incidentally, the perfectly good rationale for this universal existence
of limitations to "doing whatever you want with your property" is known
in economics as *externalities*. Transactions that appear to involve
just one or two parties, and be entirely voluntary between them, may in
fact produce all sort of beneficial or detrimental effects on further
parties who have not necessarily agreed to that. For example, I may
"own" a certain lot of land, but if on that lot I place a siren blaring
and a huge flashing red sign, the energy of the sound waves and light
will inevitably also affect other nearby places, which I do _not_ "own"
(either they're commons, or owned by somebody else), imposing an
externality on owners and/or users of those nearby places.

Of course, while some externalities are entirely obvious (it's hard to
argue against such sirens and flashing lights being otherwise), many
others are subtler and more debatable, so one reasonable society might
acknowledge a certain class of externality and try to regulate it while
another might prefer not to do so. But the general concept of society
as a whole placing limitations on private owners' uses of the property,
based on externalities certain uses might impose on unwilling parties,
is as solid as a rock, both practically and theoretically -- however
much anarchists or extreme libertarians might wish otherwise.


Alex

 

[Matt Garrish]

Here's a question for you, Mike. Presumably, you have the right not to
be shot for no reason at all. Does that right act as a bulletproof vest
that actually physically prevents me from shooting you? If I argued that a
person had a right not to be shot for no reason at all by a random
stranger, would you point out that such shootings occur throughout the
civilized world as some kind of refutation?

The way you respond to what I'm saying shows that you really don't have
any clue whatsoever of what the words I'm using *mean*. Do you even know
what a "right" is? (Such that, for example, it's possible for rogue
governments to violate the rights of their citizens even if those
governments don't recognize those rights.)

I'd be interested in hearing what you think a right is? In Florida, for
example, you have the right to gun someone down if you think they're a bit
too menacing. In Canada, most people find that reprehensible. So does a
Floridian visiting Canada have their rights infringed on by our rogue
government because they're not allowed to gun down menacing looking
Canadians at will? Should they be able to exercise that right regardless and
not have to face the consequences of our laws?

I think "right", however, was the wrong choice of words in this thread;
there is rarely anything codifying a company's "right" to succeed at all
costs and at the expense of all competition (except Crown Corporations and
the like, which are created (in theory, anyway) in the interest of general
population as opposed to it). Your question here appears to be one of
ethics. Is MS ethically bankrupt for pursuing business practices that run
counter to society's established norms, and should they be punished for
doing so? And is their behaviour the more reprehensible because of the
contempt they show for the decisions of society's judicial arm.

Matt

 

[David Schwartz]

I'd be interested in hearing what you think a right is?

A right is a scope of authority. That is, a sphere within which one's
decision is sovereign.

In Florida, for example, you have the right to gun someone down if you
think they're a bit too menacing. In Canada, most people find that
reprehensible. So does a Floridian visiting Canada have their rights
infringed on by our rogue government because they're not allowed to gun
down menacing looking Canadians at will?

That's obviously a complicated question but totally unrelated to the
issue at hand, which was one's sovereignty over one's own property.
Obviously issues where a person has to use force against another are going
to be complicated. The existence of complicated questions doesn't make the
simple ones complicated.

Should they be able to exercise that right regardless and not have to face
the consequences of our laws?

I think there are objective criteria in which the use of force is
justified regardless of the laws. However, the strategic decision of whether
to use objectively justifiable force when one may not be able to justify it
to non-objective observers who may use force against you is going to be a
complicated one.

I think "right", however, was the wrong choice of words in this thread;
there is rarely anything codifying a company's "right" to succeed at all
costs and at the expense of all competition (except Crown Corporations and
the like, which are created (in theory, anyway) in the interest of general
population as opposed to it).

My point was that the Microsoft corporation was not an impersonal
entity. It is an entity that is supposed to embody the will and rights of
its shareholders and exists to allow them to act together for their own
benefit.

Your question here appears to be one of ethics. Is MS ethically bankrupt
for pursuing business practices that run counter to society's established
norms, and should they be punished for doing so? And is their behaviour
the more reprehensible because of the contempt they show for the decisions
of society's judicial arm.

It is only proper to show contempt for bad decisions. MS obligation was
to comply with the law and not perform actions that the law put them on
clear notice were prohibited. The court's determination of the relevent
market, on wich all of their other decisions were predicated, was arbitrary
and bizarre, and the law did not provide any notice of how the market would
be determined.

In the sense of interchangeability, almost all operating systems are
monopolies. And if you go by application, Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD are
all interchangeable -- there is nothing significant you can do on one that
you can't do on the other.

DS

 

[Mike Meyer]

Interesting how you, again, equate a gun and an argument. It is very
important to you to justify responding to arguments with guns. However, I
reject that premise at its roots, not just in your application of it.

Another straw man. I never mentioned the word "gun" at all, and none
of the crimes I discussed require a gun.

You apparently aren't interested in constructive intercourse on the
question. You're just interesting in knocking down your own
arguments. Personally, I'd rather not watch you masterbate.

<mike

 

[Matt Garrish]

A right is a scope of authority. That is, a sphere within which one's
decision is sovereign.

Then why were you claiming that a government can infringe on a person's
rights if those rights are not codified or even accepted by those people?
The idea of inalienable rights for anyone in a Western society only exists
if you believe that the rights of Western societies are inalienable and
should be respected everywhere. There is a huge arrogance in that
assumption, though, and once you enter a jurisdiction that does not hold
your rights to be inalienable they are no longer your rights.

You can have generally agreed upon rights, but as you note, those rights can
only be hoped for if the systems exist to enforce them. Once those systems
erode, you no longer have rights only hopes. The more you allow those
systems to be eroded, the less you can expect your rights to exist.

In the end, the slippery slope theory would suggest that if you allow MS to
get away with bad business practices you are in effect giving all companies
the right to leverage whatever means are at their disposal to do the same,
to the detriment of society.

That's obviously a complicated question but totally unrelated to the
issue at hand, which was one's sovereignty over one's own property.
Obviously issues where a person has to use force against another are going
to be complicated. The existence of complicated questions doesn't make the
simple ones complicated.

I brought it up as an example of why rights are difficult in all cases. You
can't claim that anyone has a right to the land they live on. Your only
legitimacy to ownership comes through goverment and its ability to enforce
that legitimacy for you. And if you really want to get contentious, in
Canada and the US your only legitimacy comes from an artificial transaction
between a landowner and your government at some time in the past to
legitimize its sovereignty over Native American land.

Your only real right when it comes to land ownership is to receive some kind
of compensation if it is taken away. Your government could decide at any
time to expropriate your property to build a new highway (for example), and
you'd be out in the cold. You can try to fight the government in court but
more often than not you'll lose because the greater good of society
outweighs your right to own the land (and the assumption is always that
governments work for the greater good of society).

And add to that all the covenants and municipal laws you have to obey when
purchasing property and the notion that you have sovereignty over your land
becomes even less tenable.

Matt

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

You are dishonest, lying sack of shit.

And David posts his true colours to the mast at last. When rational
argument and logical thoughts fails, fall back on personal insults.

 

[David Schwartz]

Another straw man. I never mentioned the word "gun" at all, and none
of the crimes I discussed require a gun.

You can't be that stupid, can you?! Tell me it wasn't obvious to you
that the phrase "a gun and an argument" means the difference between force
and disagreement.

You apparently aren't interested in constructive intercourse on the
question. You're just interesting in knocking down your own
arguments. Personally, I'd rather not watch you masterbate.

You're are the one who brought up assault and battery and unsafe
driving, equating Microsoft's persuasive negotiation tactics with force in
an attempt to justify responding to them with force.

DS

 

[Alan Connor]

:
<body not downloaded>

That does it. From this point on my newsfilter is killing
(leaving on the server) any articles cross-posted to more than
three groups.

To all of the snivelling punks polluting the Usenet with their
verbal diarrhea here:

Shut up and go away.

Done.

(I haven't read a single post here, but don't need to. A bunch
of aliases with no posting histories equals trolls equals verbal
diarrhea.)

And my killfile thanks you for the sumptuous feast all of the
aliases used on this thread have given it.

Do your Mommy's know that you are playing with their computers
again?


AC

 

[David Schwartz]

Then why were you claiming that a government can infringe on a person's
rights if those rights are not codified or even accepted by those people?
The idea of inalienable rights for anyone in a Western society only exists
if you believe that the rights of Western societies are inalienable and
should be respected everywhere. There is a huge arrogance in that
assumption, though, and once you enter a jurisdiction that does not hold
your rights to be inalienable they are no longer your rights.

You can have generally agreed upon rights, but as you note, those rights
can only be hoped for if the systems exist to enforce them. Once those
systems erode, you no longer have rights only hopes. The more you allow
those systems to be eroded, the less you can expect your rights to exist.

This would suggest that rogue governments can't infringe on the rights
of their people because those people have no rights since their societies
don't recognize any. This is another principle I reject at its roots. Your
rights exist whether or not others choose to respect them.

DS