Not one of SJVN's best
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Sep 01, 2007 4:26 AM EDT |
I was severely perturbed at the Bush Justice Department for it's slap on the wrist handling of the Microsoft case, but... Even if the antitrust sanctions were themselves pretty toothless, it's hard to argue with what has happened in the 5-6 years. Remember -- antitrust sanctions aren't necessarily designed to eliminate a monopoly so much as they are designed to foster competition. That means making room for others to compete, not guaranteeing that they will succeed. At any rate -- Linux and Mac are both growing on the desktop. Alternative web browsers are eating IE's lunch. IE may still have share, but it's melting, melting, melting. Office remains a problem, but Vista may help out on that front. Vista is so terrible, I wonder how many people will get the heebie-jeebies just thinking about "upgrading" to the latest Office. When heebie-jeebies come, can opportunity be far behind? In short, Microsoft remains the 800 lb gorilla, but it's getting eaten alive by ticks and chiggers and mosquitos. Oh my! |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 01, 2007 4:59 AM EDT |
dino: All that is in spite of the antitrust sanctions, not because of them. |
| dinotrac Sep 01, 2007 5:02 AM EDT |
>dino: All that is in spite of the antitrust sanctions, not because of them. Umm, yes. Did you have a point? There is a school of thought that antitrust action, in most cases, is a waste of time and money because monopolies tend to implode under their own weight. Microsoft seems determined to demonstrate that theory. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 01, 2007 5:18 AM EDT |
Quoting:Umm, yes. Did you have a point? Yes. The articles message that the antitrust sanctions have had almost zero effect is correct. |
| nikkels Sep 01, 2007 6:23 AM EDT |
>>>>>in short, Microsoft remains the 800 lb gorilla, but it's getting eaten alive by ticks and chiggers and mosquitos. Oh my! Dino :-) I don't think so. I think Balmer was right. Linux is a cancer, and it's eating them from the inside out :-) |
| dinotrac Sep 01, 2007 6:25 AM EDT |
>it's eating them from the inside out So long as it gets fed... |
| dinotrac Sep 01, 2007 6:31 AM EDT |
>Yes. The articles message that the antitrust sanctions have had almost zero effect is correct. The article's message is crap and SJVN is just making noise he knows that people will enjoy hearing. Neither he nor you nor I have any idea whether or not the sanctions had any effect whatsoever. More to the point: nobody knows if any legally permissible (no, the law does not allow you go out and boil the entire Microsoft executive corps in oil) sanction would have had any more or better effect. The fact is that Microsoft has competition and it's growing, not shrinking. That's the intent of the law. |
| tuxchick Sep 01, 2007 9:16 AM EDT |
Monopolies "eventually" collapsing is small comfort to all the customers and businesses who are hosed during the decades that it takes for the collapse to happen. If it weren't for FOSS there would be zero competition to Microsoft, and we'd we a lot worse off. Strong antitrust sanctions that actually make a significant impact would be a good thing. Some kid ripping off a convenience store gets punished more severely than Microsoft, which has cost the world many tens of billions of dollars in overcharging, killing off competitors, and damage from malware. Ballmergates should be in jail, not comfortably ensconced in their counting houses and still looting and pillaging. |
| dinotrac Sep 01, 2007 9:23 AM EDT |
TC - I think everybody here is making the assumption that Microsoft has not suffered from the antitrust action. It's true that the government was shamefully lax on them, but... Have failed to notice the string of very large judgments and settlements that Microsoft has paid out since then? The courts (not the Justice Department legal weasels) handed the competition a very big present: a finding that Microsoft held a desktop monopoly. Microsoft then made a rather foolish move: they appealed. The Appeals court upheld the finding unanimously and the Supreme Court declined to review the case. Microsoft's monopoly status became the law of the land everywhere in the country. Anybody suing Microsoft for anticompetitive practices was relieved of the most difficult part of their case: establishing that Microsoft held market power. That fact was res judicata, ie, already establish in a court of competent jurisdiction. |
| tuxchick Sep 01, 2007 10:50 AM EDT |
Thanks dino, I hadn't thought of those aspects of it. But there is one gaping hole in the whole antitrust deal: their collusion with hardware vendors, which to this day is barely dented. And the feeble dents that do exist are solely because of FOSS, not because of any commercial OS vendors suddenly getting new inspiration courtesy of the antitrust ruling. Without FOSS the evil empire would barely be checked, because what marketplace alternatives would there be? Commercial Unixes? Apple? It is to laugh. FOSS is the rocket engine behind actual meaningful competition in the marketplace. There is not one single commercial operating system vendor who is capable of competing without all the vast banquet of FOSS goodies supporting them. And even though they benefit from it, they still act like it's radioactive. Microsoft still operates like a stereotype Mafia family, as their OOXML antics illustrate, with no penalties. Sure, we piss and moan and say "naughty! shame!" but what good does it do? At best they won't get their own way, which given the damage they've done to the standards process is a Pyrrhic victory. Which pretty much applies to everything they do- it takes enormous energy and resources to counter their dirty deeds, with small gains to show for all that work. This is rightfully the realm of law enforcement, but because it's white boyz in suits, instead of grotty hoodlums with guns, it's not taken seriously. They're the biggest grottiest hoodlums of all, but the law doesn't view them that way. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 01, 2007 11:49 AM EDT |
> The fact is that Microsoft has competition and it's growing, not shrinking. That's the intent of the law. Microsoft always had competition. F/OSS just turned out to be competition that Microsoft couldn't buy. Nothing changes that fact. I would assert, rather, that the DMCA, Trusted Computing initiatives, the expansions of Patent and Copyright that have been or will be perpetrated by governments are what endanger F/OSS far more than Microsoft ever could. All that even the most powerful Microsoft could do is make themselves "incompatible". Looking around, I don't see how any prosecution has changed that _at_all_. As far as the intent of the anti-trust laws go, I couldn't not disagree more. It goes back to the fact that you believe in the law first, and I question the law first. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/antitrust.html "There is no such thing as an effective, dangerous cartel on the free market." The anti-trust laws are arbitrary, their enforcement hinging upon political favors and deep corruption. The actions against Microsoft were urged by those who couldn't beat Microsoft in the "market", so they decided to use the power of government to do what they couldn't do. But then that power of government turned out to be buyable by the one with the greater money. Had those prosecutions not happened, no different result would have occurred. F/OSS would still flourish, as it did before the prosecutions, Microsoft would still be selling to government just as they are now. I will gladly assert that, had Microsoft continued to be as abusive as they were, their downfall would have occurred _faster_ by alienating more people sooner. http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=346 "In other words, the lawsuit was never an attempt by government to protect the consumers from a rapacious monopolist, as the Official Propaganda Line purports; it was always a corrupt, underhanded trick perpetrated by Microsoft's sour-grapes competitors." |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 01, 2007 11:50 AM EDT |
> They're the biggest grottiest hoodlums of all, but the law doesn't view them that way. Law is made and enforced by the real "biggest grottiest hoodlums of all", by definition. |
| tuxchick Sep 01, 2007 11:57 AM EDT |
Quoting: Law is made and enforced by the real "biggest grottiest hoodlums of all", by definition. That's a lovely little libel that spares you the pain of actually researching or thinking. I'm getting pretty bored with your broad-brush tarring. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 01, 2007 1:02 PM EDT |
> That's a lovely little libel that spares you the pain of actually researching or thinking. Telling the truth is a positive defense against charges of libel. "How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." --- George Washington > I'm getting pretty bored with your broad-brush tarring. Then ignore me. If you wish to call the rejection of coercion against others as legitimate means of interpersonal interaction "tarring", then I am a tar-baby in spades. Think of me on April 15th, or if you see a police car in your lane and get that sudden prickly feeling wondering if they're after you. |
| azerthoth Sep 01, 2007 1:25 PM EDT |
It's funny, its not that I disagree with you Bob, actually you and I seem to share a lot of the same opinions. I tend to think that you are at the more extreme end of the scale than I. Its your presentation that tends to rub me the wrong way, like Amway salesmen, door to door bible bangers, or RMS, the presentation of things I might agree with normally just sets my teeth on edge figuratively speaking. If I may, one of the tenets this country was based on was tolerance, or more specifically intolerance of intolerance. To me this means that for every extreme there needs to be room for compromise. Anyway, my .02 for what its actually worth. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 01, 2007 1:46 PM EDT |
> To me this means that for every extreme there needs to be room for compromise. Wonderfully said, and I couldn't agree more. One of the reasons the American Empire is such a disappointment. As I thought of saying over in the Mono/Icaza thread, it is only in an environment of general liberty that simple disagreement is possible. Coke Corp doesn't strafe the villages of Pepsi drinkers. Or another example: What if operating systems were put to a vote? With no doubt Windows would get a majority, and Linux would be illegal. No room for disagreement, it's the law. I'm sad my delivery hits you the wrong way. I will try to do better. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!