Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Steven D'Aprano]

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.

You keep saying that, as if people could do their word processing and run
their financial accounting software on the micro-controllers of microwave
ovens or the computer in their car engine.

The market of desktop PC is a perfectly obvious and natural market. You
are the one insisting on arbitrarily lumping together who knows what other
products in with the desktop PC. I say "who knows" for a reason -- the
only two examples you have come up with were Apple Macintoshes and
desktop PCs running Linux (both less than 5% of the market *now*, and
even less back when the court was investigating Microsoft). Making your
position even more bizarre, both of these products were recognised by the
court as part of the market in question, both were recognised as potential
competing products put at risk due to Microsoft's illegal behaviour.

In the sense of interchangeability, almost all operating systems are
monopolies.

You don't know what the word monopoly actually means in either law or
economics, do you? What you have written is a perfectly grammatical
sentence that makes no sense whatsoever. If OSes are monopolies, then they
are NOT interchangeable -- but you state in the very next sentence that
they are.

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.

Try telling that to a business that needs to do computerised book-keeping
of wages and payroll.

 

[Roedy Green]

As well as blame. The commercialization of the Internet was grossly
mismanaged. Take the InterNIC - please!

As global bureaucracies go, I think they have done a good job. Can
you imagine herding the cats of egotistical dictators and politicians
from every country on earth who have not a clue about what the
function of domain are?

 

[Matt Garrish]

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.

I'd say to that that you're confusing a belief with a right. A belief
doesn't become a right until society acknowledges it as such and puts
measures in place to ensure it. If people are perfectly happy living under
communist rule, who are you to tell them they must have the right to own
property? If that society later acknowledges that it wants the right to own
property then the government (in an ideal society) should respond
accordingly. If the society demands a right and governments denies it, only
then are the people's rights being oppressed (which may be what you were
originally saying now that I look back, but I read it at first as the
citizen's not ackowledging the right either).

The counter-argument is that oppressive socities work to prevent their
citizens from expressing their desire for rights or selectively apply them,
which is all true. Without just laws and the instruments of justice to
enforce them, however, you cannot correct the problem. There is still an
acknowledgement on the part of society that things are wrong, and societal
problems eventually come to a head when the time is right else we wouldn't
be where we are and still not be where we need to go.

I'm not claiming that the world is an easy place to live in... : )

Matt

 

[Matt Garrish]

/kooks/alanconnor.shtml

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up...

Matt

 

[David Schwartz]

AC

You wouldn't be this Alan Connor would you:

http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/why/connor.html

DS

 

[Roedy Green]

As global bureaucracies go, I think they have done a good job. Can
you imagine herding the cats of egotistical dictators and politicians
from every country on earth who have not a clue about what the
function of domain are?

Imagine assigning two letter abbreviations to 200 five years olds and
getting them to accept their assignments. That would be a much easier
task.

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Only because the product they were providing you was so important you
were unable to do business without it.


Microsoft had something you need so badly that you could not go into
business without it. So they demanded from you that you pay them what their
software was actually worth to you. That is not extortion. Everyone who
sells something tries to get the maximum possible value for it.

If a company wants to be paid for things it didn't deliver, then I think
that is extortion. Microsoft want te be paid a license on windows for
P.C.'s that were sold without windows.

 

[axel]

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.

I see that you cannot make a reasoned argument against the fact that
property in the form of houses is taxed in America.

Also may I remind you that these newsgroups are international.

Axel

 

[axel]

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.

The last time I looked, property taxes were enforced in many states of
the USA. Do you deny this?

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."

Then you are sadly deluded if you think that the US government does not
make decisions on the economy.

Axel

 

[Roedy Green]

I see that you cannot make a reasoned argument against the fact that
property in the form of houses is taxed in America.

And what has his inability to do that to your satisfaction got to do
with the price of eggs?

 

[David Schwartz]

If a company wants to be paid for things it didn't deliver, then I think
that is extortion. Microsoft want te be paid a license on windows for
P.C.'s that were sold without windows.

I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can walk up
to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must pay me $1 every
time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say "no" and all that
happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I have no obligation to do
anyway), it isn't extortion.

The funny thing is that if Microsoft really had a monopoly on x86
operating systems, their deal would have been fair. Since you can't use a
computer without an operating system and theirs would have been the only
one.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

I see that you cannot make a reasoned argument against the fact that
property in the form of houses is taxed in America.

What does that have to do with anything? Look, this isn't a politics or
an economy newsgroup. I don't have to make rigorously valid economic or
political arguments. It's sufficient that they be valid with respect to the
subject at hand. And you can watch people reply to me by saying, "yeah, well
that isn't correct for Afghanistan". Well, guess what, Microsoft isn't an
Afghanistan company.

Also may I remind you that these newsgroups are international.

So what? We are talking about a United States' company's actions with
respect to United States laws. There is no reason to make this about
philosophy, politics, law, international relations or any such things. If we
did that, we would wind up on tangents (just like this one!) that have
nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft.

Yes, in a discussion about Microsoft, I will make economic or political
statements that aren't 100% valid in every possible imaginable case. But
guess what? They'll be 100% valid for the case we're discussing.

And you can watch all the replies about how my statement isn't true in
every possible case. Well, guess what? I only care about one case.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

The last time I looked, property taxes were enforced in many states of
the USA. Do you deny this?

What do property taxes have to do with Microsoft?

Then you are sadly deluded if you think that the US government does not
make decisions on the economy.

That's true. Of course, I do think the US government makes decisions on
the economy.

DS

 

[axel]

And what has his inability to do that to your satisfaction got to do
with the price of eggs?

Not that I care much since eggs bring on a rather strong reaction
within me, but his arguments were totally false.

Axel

 

[David Schwartz]

Not that I care much since eggs bring on a rather strong reaction
within me, but his arguments were totally false.

So you maintain that the United States government owns its economy?

It might be instructive to google for "non-government economy". Not even
the Chinese government claims to own its country's economy.

DS

 

[joe]

I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can
walk up to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must
pay me $1 every time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say
"no" and all that happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I
have no obligation to do anyway), it isn't extortion.

Extortion isn't the right word, of course. Nevertheless, being unable
to pay for a computer without also having to pay for an operating
system I don't want seems wrong to me.

Yes, I have alternatives, I generally buy components and put them
together myself. But why should I have to do that simply to avoid
paying for an OS I'm not going to use?

The way this seems to work in practice strikes me as questionable at
best. Perhaps not illegal (IANAL so I don't know that) but certainly
one-sided. For one example, see

http://www.netcraft.com.au/geoffrey/toshiba.html

joe

 

[David Schwartz]

Extortion isn't the right word, of course. Nevertheless, being unable
to pay for a computer without also having to pay for an operating
system I don't want seems wrong to me.

Then don't do it.

Yes, I have alternatives, I generally buy components and put them
together myself. But why should I have to do that simply to avoid
paying for an OS I'm not going to use?

When you are not in the majority, you are going to face inconveniences.
You'd face the same inconvenience if you wanted to buy a new car without
seats. Most people wants cars with seats, so that's the way they're
packaged.

The way this seems to work in practice strikes me as questionable at
best. Perhaps not illegal (IANAL so I don't know that) but certainly
one-sided. For one example, see

http://www.netcraft.com.au/geoffrey/toshiba.html

This, I think, is unacceptable.

DS

 

[Roedy Green]

I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary.

In the days prior to Win95, Microsoft said "Co-operate with us is this
immoral scheme to screw OS/2 or go out of business. Your choice."

I call that extortion, even if their lawyers were careful enough to
skirt the letter of the law.

 

[entropy]

(e-mail address removed) wrote...

So what? We are talking about a United States' company's actions with
respect to United States laws. There is no reason to make this about
philosophy, politics, law, international relations or any such things. If we
did that, we would wind up on tangents (just like this one!) that have
nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft.

Yes, in a discussion about Microsoft, I will make economic or political
statements that aren't 100% valid in every possible imaginable case. But
guess what? They'll be 100% valid for the case we're discussing.

And you can watch all the replies about how my statement isn't true in
every possible case. Well, guess what? I only care about one case.

But I was told recently that the broader discussion is exactly was
Usenet if for.

 

[David Schwartz]

In the days prior to Win95, Microsoft said "Co-operate with us is this
immoral scheme to screw OS/2 or go out of business. Your choice."

I call that extortion, even if their lawyers were careful enough to
skirt the letter of the law.

Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, "we will only sell
Windows wholesale to dealers who don't sell other operating systems?"

DS