Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Eike Preuss]

It depends upon how different the products are and how easy it is to
shop out of your local market. If the products are equally good and
reasonably interchangeable and it's hard to shop out of your local market,
then you're right. The more the smaller product is better than the larger
product, the less interchangeable they are, and the easier it is to shop out
of your local market, the more wrong you are.

How often do you hear, "I'd like to use Linux, but I just can't get
ahold of it"?

And how many people do you hear saying, "I'd like to use Linux, but I'm
not willing to shell out the bucks to buy it since I already bought Windows
with my computer".

On the other hand, where you might be right is in the possibility that
Microsoft's lock on the market prevented other companies from making
operating systems at all. That is, that had Microsoft used different
policies, other companies would have introduced operating systems to compete
with Microsoft, and we'd all have better operating systems for it. If
Microsoft's conduct was legal, this argument establishes that the conduct
was necessary.

DS

Yes, as I said: It is much more complicated than your beautiful argument
'well, then, taking a huge portion of 5% would be much more preferable
anyway' suggests.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=]

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:




Right, Microsoft imposed a lesser restriction. They allowed you to sell
competing products, but charged you a fee.




It shows that Microsoft's purportedly draconian restrictions are much
less than restrictions that people don't even bat an eye at.

DS

Ok, let me just make my opinion very clear on this and then I'll just
leave this thread altogether.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges so whatever conclusion you
manage to draw from that is in my eyes invalid. It doesn't matter, in my
opinion, if you managed to conclude that Microsoft was the saints
themselves because, in my opinion, your reasoning is not valid. I'm not
saying one way or the other, I'm just picking at your reasoning.

To me it sounds like concluding that the prices of RAM will drop because
the swallows are flying high this fall.

But enough, I'll just leave it.

 

[imagespaul]

http://www.idpz.net/wolfgang/

 

[JavaByExample_at_KickJava_com]

Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about

browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?

Wonder why MSN.com is one of the most visited sites, I speculate that
it is largely because it is the default home page of IE browser.

And now Firefox makes Google.com its default home page.

That is one area where they can make lots of money off billion's eye
balls years.

David
=====================================
http://KickJava.com - Java Examples, Source Codes, Free Online Books,
News and Articles

 

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,

Actually, it is a crime and they've been convicted.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to (e-mail address removed)

 

[David Schwartz]

The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use
of force".

I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates you
to engage in such crazy distortion. Of course the quote about the Mafia
compares MS's actions to actual use of force.

It compares MS to people who are willing to use force to
get their ends. But there is no "actual use of force."

This is a gross distortion. What makes the Mafia the Mafia, and the only
reason to invoke them, is because they actually do use and threaten force.
They're not just willing to use force, they directly threaten it and use it
to get their ends, and it's the only thing they do.

The type of threatening force that the Mafia uses it the type that is
itself force. When you say to someone "give me all your money or I'll shoot
you", it's force whether or not you actually have to shoot them.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

Ok, let me just make my opinion very clear on this and then I'll just
leave this thread altogether.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges so whatever conclusion you
manage to draw from that is in my eyes invalid. It doesn't matter, in my
opinion, if you managed to conclude that Microsoft was the saints
themselves because, in my opinion, your reasoning is not valid. I'm not
saying one way or the other, I'm just picking at your reasoning.

To me it sounds like concluding that the prices of RAM will drop because
the swallows are flying high this fall.

But enough, I'll just leave it.

There is no value whatsoever in simply saying "I don't agree with you"
and including no argument or reasoning. Were you afraid someone might
erroneously think you did agree with me and that this would harm your
reputation? If you want to participate in discussion, you have to make
claims and defend them.

MS imposed a restriction that was logically lesser than saying "if you
want to buy Windows wholesale, you cannot sell products that compete with
PCs with Windows pre-loaded on them". (Logically lesser because they allowed
you sell them but charged a fee. You could avoid the fee by simply not
selling them.) This is a perfectly ordinary type of franchise sales
arrangement engaged in by companies of all kinds. For someone who does not
already have a monopoly, it is even perfectly legal.

DS

 

[Paul Rubin]

Is it your position that Micorosoft's monopoly was illegal when they
first acquired it?

It's utterly irrelevant whether it was illegal when they acquired it.
The law is against acquiring OR MAINTAINING a monopoly by
anticompetitive means. That's what MS was convicted of.

No. I have never received a dime from Microsoft, either directly or
indirectly. I am one of those people who believes that conduct that's
perfectly legal, moral and ethical before you can be said to have a monopoly
does not suddenly become immoral or unethical the day you acquire 51% of
what someone calls a market.

The Sherman Act has nothing to do with acquiring 51% of a market.

I am not the only person with this view.
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945999623?v=glance
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=31
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=344&org_name=NTUF

I could care less what the self-serving libertarian lunatic fringe thinks.

 

[Mike Meyer]

I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates you
to engage in such crazy distortion. Of course the quote about the Mafia
compares MS's actions to actual use of force.

Maybe true, maybe not - but it doesn't matter. The point is that you
respond to *every* comparison of MS with other criminals as a
comparison to "criminals with guns", and then refuse to discuss the
issue, with utter disregard as to what the other person said. That you
might be right in one case is irrelevant - we're talking about a
pattern of behavior.

If MS had been found guilty of abuse of monopoly power in one
instance, few people would care. People do make mistakes. That they
have been found guilty of such abuse repeatedly, on multiple
continents, and were recently caught doing it yet again - that's what
makes them criminals. It's the pattern of behavior that matters, not
the single instances.

I'm still waiting for you to come up with an explanation for the
pattern of your behavior other than that you're taking orders from
MS. But I expect yout to deny that it exists.

<mike

 

[David Schwartz]

Maybe true, maybe not - but it doesn't matter. The point is that you
respond to *every* comparison of MS with other criminals as a
comparison to "criminals with guns", and then refuse to discuss the
issue, with utter disregard as to what the other person said. That you
might be right in one case is irrelevant - we're talking about a
pattern of behavior.

That is not true. I make a serious distinction between crimes that
involve the use of force and crimes that don't. Microsoft was convicted of
crimes that do *not* involve use of force. I am trying very hard to make
sure that distinction is preserved.

If MS had been found guilty of abuse of monopoly power in one
instance, few people would care. People do make mistakes. That they
have been found guilty of such abuse repeatedly, on multiple
continents, and were recently caught doing it yet again - that's what
makes them criminals. It's the pattern of behavior that matters, not
the single instances.

Except that none of this behavior involves any use of force or fraud.
Actions involving force or fraud are fundamentally different in type from
actions that don't. And it's this distinction that I'm trying to preserve.

I'm still waiting for you to come up with an explanation for the
pattern of your behavior other than that you're taking orders from
MS. But I expect yout to deny that it exists.

The pattern of my behavior is that it is vital to me to preserve the
distinction between force and non-force. Guns and arguments represent two
fundamentally different categories of human behavior. And I reject the moral
claim that it is okay to respond to arguments with guns. Microsoft's
behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not involve force, the threat
of force, fraud, or the threat of fraud. This is perhaps the most vital
distinction that there is.

DS

 

[Mike Meyer]

That is not true. I make a serious distinction between crimes that
involve the use of force and crimes that don't. Microsoft was convicted of
crimes that do *not* involve use of force. I am trying very hard to make
sure that distinction is preserved.

Except you treat *every* mention of any crime other than abuse of
monopoly power as a crime that involves the use of force - whether it
does or not. In the example I quoted, you did it with "theft" -
without reference to how the theft happened. There are lots of forms
of theft that don't involve use of force - abuse of monopoly power is
one of them, but so is embezzlement. Yet you accused me of equating
arguments with guns.

The pattern of my behavior is that it is vital to me to preserve the
distinction between force and non-force.

If it that vital, then you need to make the distinction yourself, and
quit treating *any* crime not committed by MS as if it involved the
use of force.

Guns and arguments represent two
fundamentally different categories of human behavior. And I reject the moral
claim that it is okay to respond to arguments with guns.

Oh, we know you reject it. You never miss an opportunity to say so -
even if it's not at all relevant.

As predicted, you denied the truth of what I said, then provided an
excuse for a behavior that you don't follow. So we're still waiting
for an explanation for your actual behavior other than your being a
shill for MS.

Microsoft's behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not
involve force, the threat of force, fraud, or the threat of
fraud. This is perhaps the most vital distinction that there is.

Wrong. Either your definition of force is to narrow, or you're wrong
that it's the distinction is even vaguely vital. If I convince
everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
you - an economic force. This is the kind of force that MS wields
illegally. I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force. But in
that case, the fact that I didn't use "force" against you is
irrelevant to you - you're just as dead.

<mike

 

[Tim Roberts]

That's basically slander.

Slander is spoken. When it's written down like this, it's libel.
Slander/spoken start with S, libel/literature start with L.

Normally, I would never post such a trivial correction, but I thought it
was quite appropriate to throw yet another completely useless fact into
this completely useless thread, which was started by a completely useless
troll.

 

[David Schwartz]

Wrong. Either your definition of force is to narrow, or you're wrong
that it's the distinction is even vaguely vital. If I convince
everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
you - an economic force.

Right, you would say that, because you don't see the difference between
guns and arguments.

This is the kind of force that MS wields
illegally. I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force. But in
that case, the fact that I didn't use "force" against you is
irrelevant to you - you're just as dead.

No, it is completely relevant. You are trying to say the means don't
matter if the same end is achieved. But if you're going to say that, you
might as well say there's no difference between shooting someone and letting
them die of natural causes.

But you are completely and utterly wrong. Civilized interactions between
men consist of prohibiting certain *means*, not prohibiting certain ends.

DS

 

[Mike Meyer]

Right, you would say that, because you don't see the difference between
guns and arguments.

Except I'm willing to allow your definition. All it takes is reading
the next paragraph for you to see that.

Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity
to distinguish between, as you put it, "guns and arguments." You
always act as if every mention of a crime committed by someone other
than microsoft involved guns, even when most of them don't. You have
as yet to offer any explanation for that other than that you're
following MS's orders.

No, it is completely relevant. You are trying to say the means don't
matter if the same end is achieved. But if you're going to say that, you
might as well say there's no difference between shooting someone and letting
them die of natural causes.

Another straw man argument. I'm not trying to say anything of the
sort.

<mike

 

[David Schwartz]

Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity
to distinguish between, as you put it, "guns and arguments." You
always act as if every mention of a crime committed by someone other
than microsoft involved guns, even when most of them don't. You have
as yet to offer any explanation for that other than that you're
following MS's orders.

Your sole evidence for this claim is that I once equated "theft" with
force. Yes, you are correct that it's possible to steal something without
using force. Even in this case, from context, it was quite clear that
forceful theft was intended.

There is a fundamental category difference between the fundamental
inter-personal wrongs of force and fraud and every other invented wrong.
People are making a concerted attempt in this thread to obliterate that
distinction, and I include you in those making that attempt.

The *only* motive I have ever seen to obliterate that distinction is to
justify responding to arguments with bullets. And that is precisely what you
advocate. Quoting you:

If I convince
everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
you - an economic force.

Your convincing and paying is an argument. It's in no way analogous to,
for example, hiring someone to kill me (wherein force is actually used).
Certainly if I did starve you by force, you would be justified in responding
with force, that is, with bullets if needed, to defend your life.

What possible motive is there for making an argument like this other
than to justify the use of guns in response to arguments? That's why you
need to equate metaphorical "market force" with *real* force. But there is
no more important distinction in the world.

Again, I utterly reject your argument. The use of actual force is
justified only in response to force, fraud, or things that *really* are
force.

I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force.

The point is not whether you call it force or not. The point is whether
you believe it justifies the use of force in retaliation. There is no
difference between someone who says "while arguments aren't force, it's okay
to respond to them with force" and someone who says "arguments are force so
it's okay to respond to them with force".

The premise I utterly and totally reject is that good arguments, shrewd
negotiations, and anything else that is not actual force, not fraud, not
inducing others to use force, or anything like that are somehow the same as
real force. You have an obligation not to use actual force against other
people, you have an obligation in a negotiation not to misrepresent your
product to induce a payment, and failing in these obligations are serious
wrongs. But they are in no way comparable to trying to get what something is
worth. They are in no way comparable to persuasive negotiations.

This point transcends the issue of Microsoft. I would make this same
argument regardless of whose non-force were claimed to justify a forceful
retaliation. (And have done so consistently.)

DS

 

[Mike Meyer]

Your sole evidence for this claim is that I once equated "theft" with
force. Yes, you are correct that it's possible to steal something without
using force. Even in this case, from context, it was quite clear that
forceful theft was intended.

No, my evidence for this claim, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is
that *every* time someone compares MS with any other criminal
activity, you whine about "guns" and refuse to deal with the
issue. You've gone from claiming that you don't do this, to claiming
you only do this when people refer to guns, to ducking the issue.

There is a fundamental category difference between the fundamental
inter-personal wrongs of force and fraud and every other invented wrong.
People are making a concerted attempt in this thread to obliterate that
distinction, and I include you in those making that attempt.

Another straw man. I'm not trying to oblitarate that difference, I'm
trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for
everyone but MS. You respond by falsely claiming that you aren't doing
so, or by ducking the issue.

<mike

 

[David Schwartz]

Another straw man. I'm not trying to oblitarate that difference

No matter how many times I quote to you where you specifically do
exactly this, you insist you aren't. Yes, you are. You equate metaphorical
force with actual physical force. You say the difference doesn't matter
because the end result can be the same. Why point out that what's important
is that the end result is the same if you're not trying to obliterate the
difference?

Here's a quote from you:

Why point out that the difference is irrelevant if not to obliterate the
difference? What possible other purpose could you have in that comment?

I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for
everyone but MS.

To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I
talk about something other than MS. But if you do a little research, you'll
find I'm completely consistent and have said similar things about numerour
other entities.

I consistently and always distinguish between the severe inter-personal
wrongs (actual force, the threat of force, and fraud) and activities that do
not fall into this category. I always complain loudly when people (such as
you) seek to blur this distinction. Even the term "economic force" (used the
way you use) it is an attempt to blur this distinction, because you equate
the metaphorical use of market force with the actual use of coercive
physical force.

DS

 

[Mouser]

It's good to see that tilting at windmills hasn't gone out of style
since Cervantes' time. [[hehehehehe...]]

 

[Mike Meyer]

To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I
talk about something other than MS.

You do that *every time* someone compares MS with other criminals -
you immediately refer to "criminals with guns" and refuse to discuss
the issue further. And yes, you've already claimed that you only do
that when the other reference is to "actual use of force", and I've
already disproved that.

But if you do a little research, you'll find I'm completely
consistent and have said similar things about numerour other
entities.

Not in this thread, you haven't. The only consistency here has been
trying to treat MS's crimes as somehow different from other peoples
crimes. I'm still waiting for you to quit trying to lie (or, as you
would say, "argue") your way out of it, and come up with a reason for
this behavior other than doing so at MS's orders.

<mike

 

[David Schwartz]

You do that *every time* someone compares MS with other criminals -
you immediately refer to "criminals with guns" and refuse to discuss
the issue further. And yes, you've already claimed that you only do
that when the other reference is to "actual use of force", and I've
already disproved that.

You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is
one case where the word "theft" was used (while earlier in the thread,
actual physical force had been used, but not in that specific spot) where
the context strongly suggested that it meant theft by force.

You are correct that it is possible to steal something without actually
using physical force. But that's not an important difference. The hugely
important difference, and the one that you and others *are* seeking to
obliterate, is the difference between inherently unjust actions such as
force and fraud and actions that are neither forceful nor fraudulent.

Not in this thread, you haven't.

Well duh, this thread is about Microsoft.

The only consistency here has been
trying to treat MS's crimes as somehow different from other peoples
crimes.

That's because the only crimes that have come up in this thread are
Microsoft's crimes (that don't involve force or fraud) and other crimes
(such as theft, threats of force, and the like) which do. Duh.

I'm still waiting for you to quit trying to lie (or, as you
would say, "argue") your way out of it, and come up with a reason for
this behavior other than doing so at MS's orders.

The reason is that there is a huge difference between crimes that
involve force or fraud and crimes that don't involve any force or fraud.
Theft, threats of force, and the like are in a totally different category
from purely consensual crimes such as the ones Microsoft was accused of.

There were a few narrow cases where Microsoft was actually accused of
actions that I do consider force or fraud. And had Microsoft been convicted
for *those* actions (rather than metaphorical use of "market force"), then I
would not be defending them. I don't defend them of those charges, which
would have been (and is) equally wrong for a monopolist or a non-monopolist.

DS