Slashdot Mirror
Domain: metrolink.net
Stories and comments across the archive that link to metrolink.net.
Comments · 7
-
Re:Violates Anti-Trust? It's about the money.The antitrust laws have been gutted by a series of court cases. One of the "new" standards is harm to the consumer, an almost impossible to prove issue. (So, how do you know Netscape wouldn't have gone bankrupt anyway?) Actually, harm to the consumer is a good standard - since predatory pricing generally helps, not harms, the consumer. If Company A decides to sell a product below cost to drive out company B; the consumer gets goods at below market - a good deal. Now, when A decides to raise prices, competitors reenter the market; keeping prices lower than what A would like to charge. In the end, A loses a lot of money and doesn't get the benefits at the end; a net win for consumers. This is especially true for markets where entry / exit is easy; if companies invest large amounts of capital they often stay in business hoping that either they have deeper pockets or the predatory pricer will eventually give up and let prices return to profitable levels (which is what the airline industry wants).
As for the computer fields, there are alternatives to almost everything MS sells; at prices starting at free and selling for more than their products.
As a consumer; I like the harm standard because it lowers my cost; I really don't want the government deciding what prices should be - I really don't want to go back to paying $2000 or more for an airline ticket I can get today for $900 or less, for example. -
Re:Violates Anti-Trust? It's about the money.
How exactly is the GPL violating Anti-Trust laws? Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*? The whole point of open source is to allow others to have access to the same code, thereby leveling the playing field
SCO tried this same stunt, and we know how well it worked out for them. It all turns on the parts of the anti-trust laws that targets predatory pricing. With predatory pricing, your company sells your product at a loss in order to bankrupt your competitor, then mark your prices up to a level you couldn't sustain if there was any competition. The argument goes that Linux, with a price of zero, must be anticompetitve since it is impossible to underprice them.
There's a whole raft of problems with this argument. Here's my short list. Feel free to add your own.- * The GPL isn't a monopoly. There's plenty of competition for software out there, including a convicted monopolist.
- * GPL code cannot be priced up if a monopoly is ever achieved. The terms of the GPL prohibit charging for GPL code ever, so real predatory pricing is precluded.
- * The antitrust laws have been gutted by a series of court cases. One of the "new" standards is harm to the consumer, an almost impossible to prove issue. (So, how do you know Netscape wouldn't have gone bankrupt anyway?) While Microsoft has benefited from this standard, it also will require Skype to prove that giving away software for free harms the consumer.
-
Re:It's about time.From the Link's Homepage (ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW;
AMERICA'S ONLY ANTI-MONOPOLY JOURNAL
That is just sad; that their tag line is that they are the ONLY anti-monopoly journal in America. For a topic this important, you'd think that more people would care, but they don't seem to anymore. Democracy and Capitalism can only work if the masses force themselves to care about their own well-being -- and make their voices heard with their votes and with their dollars. But many people vote without understanding whose interests their chosen leaders will serve, and many people buy inferior products without researching better deals elsewhere, thereby crippling capitalism's advantage over communism (which is that competition causes the best product to win over inferior products because people will seek out the best products and support them).
Take this however you want, but understand that the apathy of the masses is more dangerous to freedom than any WMD, even the ones that aren't imaginary. -
Re:It's about time.That's why the link. There's an overview of the main arguments here and the main site's here. I found the site and joined the mailing list when I was following the IE/Netscape case.
The basic case is that the courts have changed antitrust in such a way as to make it impossible for the plaintiff to win. For example, they've added an argument that the plaintiff must prove "harm to the consumer". In the Microsoft case, Netscape proved that Microsoft had used it's Windows monopoly to destroy Netscape's market share, but Microsoft argued that doing so had not harmed the consumer. Such an argument can't be proved either way without using a crystal ball. It used to be assumed that limiting competition harmed the consumer. Competition is what capitalism is supposed to be about, right?
Microsoft also argued that Netscape might have gone bankrupt anyway due to their own poor business decisions. That's kind of like arguing that the guy you just shot might have been hit by a car because he got a jaywalking ticket last week, but the court's seem to have bought the argument.
-
Re:It's about time.That's why the link. There's an overview of the main arguments here and the main site's here. I found the site and joined the mailing list when I was following the IE/Netscape case.
The basic case is that the courts have changed antitrust in such a way as to make it impossible for the plaintiff to win. For example, they've added an argument that the plaintiff must prove "harm to the consumer". In the Microsoft case, Netscape proved that Microsoft had used it's Windows monopoly to destroy Netscape's market share, but Microsoft argued that doing so had not harmed the consumer. Such an argument can't be proved either way without using a crystal ball. It used to be assumed that limiting competition harmed the consumer. Competition is what capitalism is supposed to be about, right?
Microsoft also argued that Netscape might have gone bankrupt anyway due to their own poor business decisions. That's kind of like arguing that the guy you just shot might have been hit by a car because he got a jaywalking ticket last week, but the court's seem to have bought the argument.
-
It's about time.
I'm glad to see that at least Europe still has some functioning antitrust laws, unlike the US where antitrust laws were effectively gutted by the judiciary.
-
Blame Canada!
Should we blame the images on TV? NO, Blame Canada!
Haven't these people learned anything??!?!