Slashdot Mirror
LinuxPlanet Interviews Robert Bork
Greg writes: "Robert Bork, former Supreme Court appointee from the Reagan era and a recent entrant in the MS antitrust case, did an
interview
over at LinuxPlanet. The topic? The Evil Empire's court settlement." Bork isn't actually new to the Microsoft case or to the subject of monopolies -- his legal experience makes this an interesting read, even for those who don't consider Microsoft an "evil empire."
Bork is widely acknowledged in legal circles as one of our country's greatest legal minds.
He is widely respected for his integrity.
He is a well known legal conservative and strong believer in strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.
Anyone who thinks that the Microsoft case is a left-wing attack on big business should pay careful attention to Bork's words. Whatever else Bork may be, he ain't no left-wing anti-business type.
Let me note that for the record, Reagan attempted to put him on the Supreme Court, but he was rejected. This was because of ideological reasons, hence the term "borked" was invoked when Bush appointed Ashcroft Attorney General. Anyways, just wanted to note that while he was nominated, he was not actually placed on the Supreme Court, as "Robert Bork, former Supreme Court appointee" suggests.
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
"So it is not so remarkable that a noted conservative lawyer would see perfect reason for action to be brought against Microsoft for the transgressions we have all witnessed and experienced over the years; what is remarkable is that people would find such a position at all unusual."
I'm not sure I agree, at all. Alright, so from an intellectual standpoint, it's ridiculous that the public would find the Judge's position unreasonable, but from the Public's Perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Mircosoft Provides Software to the Large Majority of the Public that they Encounter Every Single Day for, in their mind, a reasonable price. Therefore, people who use this software have nothing against Microsoft, don't realize what it's doing to the industry as a whole, and keep going with their MSWord/Internet Explorer/WindowsXP Spyware.
The web has started to become "optimized" for Internet Explorer, but the public doesn't really care, because they aren't seeing the huge technological impairment that Microsoft is - they're only seeing the benefits.
If and when Microsoft really does make a PR mistake, or Linux finally jumps into the mainstream, I expect the "flyswatter of freedom" (from the article) to crack down on their heads, but for now, they're going to stay afloat because of public opinion and use.
Robert Bork is the #1 authority on modern antitrust law, with Richard Posner (who served as a mediator in this case) a close #2.
Modern antitrust law is essentially what Bork & Posner suggested would better protect consumers in a series of law beginning inthe late 60's. They pointed out that the current state of the law made no sense, conflicting wsith itself and the economics it dealt with (Brown Shoe, Bork's favorite: Brown & Kinney, with 5% and 1% of the manufacturing & sales markets for shoes, wanted to merge. DoJ blocked this (successfully with the USSC) on the grounds that it would allow them to sell a product of comparable quality at a lower price than their competitors . . . aren't you grateful for such protection?)
Anyway, Bork is seen as a rabid conservative, which is inaccurate (though he's now a conservative on many issues), but he wasactually a screaming leftist (borderline socialist) who learned some economics and changed his positions based on them--to achieve the original goals.
Bork argued that the sole legitimate test of the competition was whether it benefitted or hurt the consumer: if consumers will see lower prices from the merger of ten firms down to 3, than it is a pro-competitive merger. He also arugued that the law should protect competition, not the other competitors.
His antitrust rules are *not* republican--the Clinton administration pretty much took the same path.
hawk, esq.
Huh? This is Slashdot, right?
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
I guess it's time to create alt.judges.robert.bork.bork.bork ...
?-|||-----x<*))))><
The Honorable Judges Sporkin and Bork eat pork with forks, popping corks off ports while chortling over court reports of sports of a sordid sort.
"I believe in innovation, not litigation."
(I almost expected him to follow with "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit". But I digress.)
Anyway, this statement could have -- and probably DID -- come straight from the mouths of Microsoft's PR department, probably in the same envelope as a campaign contribution (to be fair, I'll bet Gore got one too).
Our best hope is that the President's advisors listen to intelligent conservative commentators like George Will, who wrote an excellent column in the Washington Post about Enron, in which he made the following point:
Capitalist economies don't spring up automatically, like crabgrass. They are dependent upon a complex set of laws. Capitalism is a government program.
Will was speaking about laws which require accurate financial disclosure so that people have faith in the market. But the same priciples hold for the right to fair competition. Without that right, where the success of a startup [e.g., Netscape] leading to its imminent demise by those seeking to maintain their control [e.g., Microsoft], why would anyone risk their money to enter the marketplace? The result in such a case is stagnation, and the loss of a healthy economy.
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
I was reading Ayn Rand recently (Capitalism: The inknown Ideal, 1967 or so) and she pointed out that in all previous anti-monopoly cases it was the government itself that gave some exclusive rights to the companies and these exclusive rights allowed the companies to grow into the illegal monopolies. The AT&T case supports this statement, but what about Microsoft?
In your opinion, did they (MS) get any exclusive rights from the government or are they the exception of a company which managed to get to this position all by itself?
"Evil empire" was first used by Reagan himself to describe the USSR (then lead by Brezhnev, I believe).
Just read it.
For those who haven't, here is the summary.
Linuxplanet: Isn't the proposed settlement horseshit.
Bork: Yes, I'd have to say I agree with that.
Insightful - NOT !
The US government is larger today than it has ever been. I'd venture that the percentage of government office computers running Windows is roughly equal to the overall percentage of American office computers running Windows - in other words, friggin' huge. So how much of your paycheck goes to Microsoft every month?
What would be the effect on Microsoft's monopoly if every federal and state (since the state governments are the ones complaining now) government office installed Linux or bought a Mac? If you never had to apply for a government job by submitting your resume as a Word document? If every publicly-funded school stopped teaching kids on Windows? If every government web site complied with HTML standards?
The government takes your money to buy from Microsoft, then it takes more to pay lawyers to bring down Microsoft. God bless America.
grep -ri 'should work'
"was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan"
Damn. I think this is the first conservative that actually interprets conservatism for the people. I am impressed.
Generally most conservatived *cough* Bush interprets "small government" as "laissez-faire" which then they perverse into "leave big corporations alone even if they have a monopoly" in and Adam-Smithian belief that "The Invisible Hand" will fix everything. Of course they don't argue because it also fixes their wallets.
It is VERY nice to see a person interpret small government as NOT laissez-faire economics. If the whole Republican party went by that ideology I would vote for them every time.
This is a really good point. This case was about the browser issue.
Once upon a time, not too many years ago, there was real innovation in the browser market. People could barely keep up with the features coming left and right from Netscape, Spyglass, Mosaic forks, Cyberdog, etc., and features were piled on left an right. Forms! Tables! JavaScript! Java! DHTML!
Then Microsoft crept over the 50% market share mark. Now the new browser feature people get excited about is TABS, for Pete's Sake! They're still trying to get a decent CSS2 implementation done, ECMAScript is stagnant at best, and Java applets still don't work all that reliably.
And it's been a few years. There's no innovation to be found. Yeah, Mozilla has some froody features, and XUL may still kick ass someday, but if you want real innovation, you need competition, and any capitalist can tell you that. If IE had to compete on the open market they might even run lint on it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I wasn't following politics too much at the time Bork was put forward for the supreme court, but years later I saw him on a William Buckley show where "Free Speech" was debated. (Mark Green, who just lost the NYC mayorality to Bloomberg was on this show too.) Bork argued what seemed to me to be an anti-free speech position (arguing the original intent of the Bill of Rights). He thought it obvious that a lot of sexually-related expression had no place in a civilized society. The example he kept giving of expression going too far was (I kid you not) "Michael Jackson gyrating his hips..."
Off topic? Maybe. But for me this clinched my impression of Bork as someone I not only disagreed with, but who seemed damned-right retarded.
IANAL, but there must be more to consumer 'benefit' that simply tomorrow's retail prices.
What good does it do for consumers to pay lower prices tomorrow, but inflated monopoly or collusion prices 5 years from now become some anti-trust decision deemed that lower prices tomorrow was in the 'consumer interest'.
What good does it do for consumers to pay lower prices tomorrow because of some anti-trust decision when future innovations that could could create evolutionarily or revolutionarily better products are stifled by that decision?
The trick is, consumer retail prices are easy to measure, and and therefore make for more straightforward cases.
Lawyers like easy cases.
You might want to read a book before posting next time. I can suggest Ludwig von Mises "Human Action" as an excellent trist on the subject.
Here's why capitalism is like crabgrass: Any time property rights are protected to any degree, and freedom to associate is allowed to any degree, people begin to trade their skills and materials with others. If money is available, money is used.
Those with high skills or materials in demand trade their skills or materials at a higher "price" than lesser skills or materials.
Bingo. Capitalism. Supply and demand. A good barber in Kabul the day after the Taliban runs out has more business than a bad barber. No one plans it, the myriad decisions of each individual creates capitalism spontainiously.
So, Eryq, do you wish to say why you believe "capitalism" does not exist except by some plan or decision from On High? Care to give an example? Would you please support your assertion?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I actually read the article. Carefully. And damn if I don't agree with the grumpy old bastard.
Wow. Either this is a fever dream or reality has just warped.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
from: http://www.techlawjournal.com/atr/80421bork.htm
Robert Bork formerly practiced antitrust law, taught antitrust law at Yale Law School for nearly twenty years, and wrote what is perhaps the most influential book on antitrust law in recent decades. (The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1978.)
I love this link
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... in restoring competition? One of the assumptions behind anti-trust is that business practices valid for small agressive companies are not legal for monopolies. But imposing behaviour constraints seems to be like pissing in the wind ... basically if the officers are not legally responsible for their corporate culture (e.g. FUD sales tactics) then there is no incentive to alter their mindset.
.NET cough)
Perhaps its it time to consider identifying where the competitive pressure has failed and why it is os. Competition refers to more than the guy trying to do unto thee what you're trying to do unto them. It also includes substitute goods/services, threat of entry, pricing power of suppliers, and pricing power of buyers. Here we see specific tactics that should be considered as hindering competition
- denial of interoperability to avoid subsitution
- rapid change of APIs to impose high conversion costs to smaller entrants (cough
- extend and embrace to extinguish markets created by more gung-ho startups
- distribution contracts that forbid secondary sales
The last component is a subtle one as it disguises a depreciating service (license) as a phsycial good (CPU). If people were free to sell their MS software license (substitute Linux instead say) on their OEM box then the market price for MS software would be established by the free market which would estimate the half-life of a specific version of their OS/app. Unfortunately a free market does not serve the needs of a monopolist as people can then have an alternative to compare the cost of other features (such as lack of security).
So what can the legal system do to help restore competition to the software market? I would recommend requirements that licenses/terms of usage be written in clear language rather than legalese, that any promises (spam-free mail) be backed up by some form of performance bond, and that termination/opt-out clauses be subject to scrutiny by fair trading groups.
LL
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=alt.swedish.chef .bork.bork.bork&hl=en
Intercarve Networks, LLC
From historychannel.com:
"Three of the very best men in the Nixon administration have been ousted from it because they put loyalty to the law of our land above loyalty to Richard Nixon." (October 20, 1973)
-Alan Cranston, U.S. senator of California
On October 20, 1973, U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned after refusing to fire special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox, who earlier in the day had announced that he would not accept White House summaries of the Watergate tapes. The Watergate tapes, subpoenaed three months before under the authority of the Senate, were official recordings of White House conversations that were believed to heavily implicate the president and his staff in the Watergate affair. Hours after Richardson resigned, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, also unwilling to fire Cox, likewise handed in his resignation. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork agreed to fire the special prosecutor. Later that night, Alan Cranston, a Democratic senator, reacted to what became known as the "Saturday Night Massacre." On Capitol Hill, the event galvanized congressional outrage at President Nixon's conduct, and on October 23, even as the president finally agreed to turn over the tapes, eight impeachment resolutions were introduced against him in the House of Representatives.
The only difference between "conservative" and "liberal" is in what things about your life they wish to control through government force.
Some people suggest it's "economic control" verses "private choice control", but it all ends up being control.
I consider Bork to be a hypocrite in so far that he both argues for "limited governemnt" and for "one that enforces what I think is right."
Freedom means freedom to do what other people find objectionable, the limit being force or fraud.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The second amendment is a perfect example of this. It says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You can read this in few ways. In one sense this may suggest that you only should be able to bear arms for the purposes of defending the state. Basically that you need to have guns for things like the national guards, etc. But you can focus on the "free" part of that comment and read that the average citizen should have the right to have a weapon to defend their freedom from those within the state who would take it.
Personally I find the interpretability of the constitution to be one of its most valuable assets. It gives our nation a common thread to work from but it also provides flexibility to accomodate for changing attitudes.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Am I the only one who feels like this interview never took place and the author just took comments that the Judge made to somebody else and put statements around them to make it sound like an interview? I mean we never see the actual questions that he is answering.
Here is an example:
Microsoft is evil, very evil. I hear they torture little boys and feed them to Bill Gates. He cruches their bones and spits out the cartilage.
Judge Bork - "Yes. I hear that can be very detrimental to society."
What ever happened to a straight question/answer session without all the bullshit posturing and editorializing in between.
The government has helped MS immensely. Basically MS pays a lot less taxes than any real business. They are able to write off huge amounts of "loss" due to software "piracy".
If anything, piracy helped MS become what they are today, so it's doubleplus good for them.
These fictional losses they get to take against their income, and therefore pay very little taxes, relative to real businesses.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You forgot the last reason Bork is important--he was the Nixon flunky (Solicitor General, I believe), who acted in the capacity of Attorney General to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, after Elliott Richardson refused to do it, and his deputy Ruckelshaus also refused. How anyone could "widely respect him for his integrity" after that is a mystery to me.
During the Watergate scandal, Archibald Cox (the first ever independent prosecutor, a la Ken Starr) faced down the Whitehouse in an (ultimately succesful) effort to unearth damning evidence of criminal activity by both President Nixon and Veep Spiro Agnew.
Nixon wanted to fire Cox, but it wasn't in his power to do so. As an Independent Prosecutor, Cox was subordinate only to the Attorney General, Elliot Richardson. So Nixon demanded that Richardson fire Cox. This was an appalling abuse of power. Nixon essentially threw out the rule of law to satisfy his political ends. In an act of great courage, Richardson refused to comply. So Nixon fired him. Then he promoted the Deputy A.G. to acting A.G. and gave him the same order --- fire Cox. Again, a refusal; and again Nixon fired the guy. Next in line at the Justice Dept was the Solicitor General. At the time, this was none other than our friend Robert Bork. Nixon made him acting A.G. and ordered him to fire Cox. Bork consented and fired him. As an added bonus, he sent FBI agents over to the Prosecutor's office to seal it off, temporarily shutting down the investigation of the President.
This was the famous "Saturday Night Massacre" --- the most serious constitutional crisis ever faced by the United States, in fact. Bork's decision to cave in to Nixon's unconstitutional power grab forever marked him in the eyes of many Americans, and not just Democrats, either. When Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court, the possibility of having someone who had helped Richard Nixon flaunt the rule of law sitting on the highest court in the land was just too much for many to bear. And so he was borked.
People talk about "Microsoft using its monopoly power to..." without recognizing that the only power Microsoft has is the price at which they sell their product.
That's not quite true, but it's a good start. You realize, with their market share, that this power means that Microsoft could instantly destroy Dell, Gateway, Compaq, or any other computer manufacturing company they choose by simply raising that OEM's prices through the roof? That they could bring about such a destruction a bit more slowly by simply raising OEM costs for Windows and Offices up to the retail price? And that the OEMs know this, and so are forced to sign whatever anticompetitive agreement Microsoft wants in order to stay alive?
If you're so libertarian that you don't have any problem with abuse of monopoly power, then what's your problem with the government? Just tell yourself, "The government owns all land within it's borders, and 'property deeds' are just end user license agreements that let me use the land as long as I follow the government's laws." Then you can think of the government as just the luckiest of the big corporations, you can happily bend over for them too, and everything should be A-OK.
and Microsoft dances away from this with a slap on the wrist. The only saving grace I can think of is that this will go a long way towards fueling the fires of Microsoft paranoia brewing outside the US. More non-US governments will look seriously for Microsoft-free solutions as it becomes crystal clear that the US goverment and Microsoft are sharing the same toothbrush and underwear.
Many people do not have that choice. The whole point of Microsoft's manopoly is that they're stifling choice and, incidentally, innovation. It's all very well to say that you have the choice of using another product, but Microsoft has deliberately used its power in a manner that has resulted in a situation where anyone who uses an alternative can find themselves at a major disadvantage--witness, if you will, the ubiquitous .doc format. Sure, I can use AbiWord or StarOffice, and send files as html or txt, but what happens when someone sends me a .doc file because everyone else uses Microsoft Word? Yes, AbiWord and SO have built in Word compatibility. Why do you think that is? Because Microsoft has such control over the market that without conforming to their "standards" you are crippled. The open source support for .doc is imperfect, and always one step behind as Microsoft constantly changes the format system each time they bring out a new version of Word. Why do you think that is? The only reason I can think of to do something so pointless is to keep the competition one step behind. It's not like there're any new features in Word that would require significant reworkings of the .doc format. Additions yes. Modifications? I don't think so.
It's all very well to say that everyone has a choice, and that if we're using Microsoft software it must be because we all chose to, but that's a very naive and simplistic, not to mention unexamined and self-deluding viewpoint.
If I weren't so nice, I'd be inclined to think you're a Microsoft employee, trolling (quite successfully I might add. It's not often I meet a troll browsing at +3).
I'm a Chicken! Tweet!
Before you start praising the supposed high moral character of Bork, perhaps you should take in a little history lesson:
On Oct. 20, 1973, Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson resigned in protest rather than carry out Richard Nixon's order to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired. Nixon's Solicitor General, Robert H. Bork, who was next in command, carried out Nixon's orders and fired Cox.
Anyone who would help Nixon cover up Watergate by firing the Watergate Special Prosecutor lacks the ethics, integrity, and judgement to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court. I, for one, am happy that the Democrats hae real integrity and blocked the appointment of that scoundrel.
Exactly what line on their income statement (man, I hope that's not a temporary link...) does the loss due to piracy fit into? How could they write off such a loss without writing the creation of the pirated software as a revenue in the first place? Does the "lost software" appear on their balance sheet anywhere?
I disagree that MS has enjoyed governmental help to achieve thier monopoly.
For the government's use of MS products, I think they are victims of MS's monopoly, not creators of it. I don't see any collusion between MS and the gov to install MS products exclusively on gov computers. The majority of gov computers use MS because it is the de facto industry standard. Everyone uses MS Word, so you better use software that can read MS Word docs. The majority of off the shelf software runs on Windows, so if you want to use off the shelf software, you better run Windows. The government is no different in this respect than the rest of the country. The gov didn't buy MS products exclusively early on, helping to create the monopoly. They gradually moved to it as the corporate and private worlds did.
As for tax breaks and writeoffs, I am unaware that MS gets any different treatment in that respect than any other large software manufacturer.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
This interview is simply amazing. After reading it, I strongly believe that Robert Bork is very knowledgeable in his field of work, and at the same time, he understands technology--and the business of technology--quite well, making him the ideal person to bridge the gaps, so to speak, between corporate executives, legal departments, and the technical community.
I applaud Robert Bork for having the interview with LinuxPlanet, and for making such a good impression in the technical community.
That's a gross oversimplification. Microsoft wouldn't be worth jack squat if there weren't billions of .doc and .xls files out there that their products process better than anybody else's.
Why can't others duplicate Microsoft's products? Because Microsoft enjoys the dual protections of copyright and trade secrets. Without either one, competitors would swarm out of the woodwork and eat Microsoft's lunch because office software is a mature product that should be a commmodity by now.
How are the copyright and trade secret protections facilitated? By the heavy hand of government, of course. It is interesting that when the U.S. Constitution was written, there was no single technology such as software that could combine the two protections in such a powerful way. The powerful combination allows the barrier of entry into a monopolized software market to be almost infinite.
Take the example of Sun, who is giving away a capable office suite for free. Most people doubt that even at this price that they can significantly impact Microsoft's market share. This is largely because their handling of proprietary .doc and .xls files is less than perfect. This proves that microsoft's chosen pricing has little to do with the dynamics of this market.
In fact, I'd argue that if you can't even give a product away, it's not a market. There is no market for office software today. Just a government-facilitated fiefdom.
I've never had any use for Bork since I heard that he wrote that he found civil rights legislation stopping restaurant owners from discriminating on racial grounds "repugnant", then later upheld Georgia (I think) law under which sex (in this case, gay) between consenting adults in their own home could be illegal and the police could come in and arrest them. For this dipshit, government interference is bad - unless it's interfering in something he's against, then it's OK. (Of course, I'm inconsistent in the opposite direction, but I think it's a much better argument that the government DOES have a place in restaurants and NOT in the bedroom.)
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Netscape had a monopoly and blew it. When faced with an obvious competitive threat from the bundled and free Explorer, they basically didn't take any effective measures to protect their market share.
Have consumers, in net, been harmed by Microsoft's giving the browser away for free, bundled?
On the harm side, there's the theoretical loss of some unknown benefits of competition, and the hypothetical threat that Microsoft may yet someday use its monopoly to price gouge.
On the benefit side, consumers don't have to buy Explorer separately or download it and install it separately or even think about it very much. It provides some small benefits through tight integration with the Windows interface - radically exaggerated by Microsoft, of course.
So, by Bork's theory of harm to consumers as the standard for application of anti-trust - where's the big net harm to consumers?
All Microsoft did was take reasonable steps to maintain it's market share in the software platform business, in the face of a competitor that publically bragged that they were going to put an end to Microsoft's dominance. If you pull the lion's tail, you shouldn't complain about being mauled and eaten. STUPID!
Netscape could have offered to license their browser to Microsoft on very reasonable terms for bundling with Windows, back when Explorer was just an idea. They could have built up a wall of proprietary technologies that they licensed to web content creators. Fully automatic and invisible browser updates sure wouldn't have hurt their existing market share. They could have done an AOL, and sent free CDs around the country - or joined forces with AOL sooner. They had many options, and again - their egos and greed made them blow it.
I'm not surprised that Bork opposes that joke of a deal. While he's certainly been a critic of antitrust law in general, he at least sticks to his principles. Many "conservatives" bash the antitrust case out of either deference to Micro$oft (a large campaign contributor) or sheer ignorance.
Many people overlook another conservative who chose to follow the law and base his thinking on the facts: Thomas Penfield Jackson...the judge in the original antitrust case. Jackson too was appointed by Reagan. In fact, he was appointed specifically to quash antitrust cases that came his way. But U.S. vs. Microsoft was just too compelling...they openly flaunted the law and even went so far as to fabricate evidence (the infamous video showing how difficult it was to remove IE). His findings of fact in the case, which were upheld by the appellate court, paint a picture of an extremely arrogant and socially destructive corporation openly engaging in socially destructive practices in clear violation of the law of the land.
I long for the days when there were still principled conservatives to be found in positions of power. I can respect an honest difference of opinion...but that's rare anymore. In a world where most conservatives are Enron conservatives it's nice to see someone take a principled stand (Bork's work for Netscape notwithstanding).
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
I would say that Ayn Rand is wrong in this case. What governmental protections did Standard Oil, or the Sugar and Tobacco Trusts receive? I think AT&T is the exception here, not the rule.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Where in the constitution is power granted to government to violate voluntary contracts?
Congress has the power to regulate interstate (as well as international) commerce. Whether that commerce is voluntary or not...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
During the Reagan era, the term "Evil Empire" generally meant something else....
'course, times change...
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The courts have always had the power to ignore, modify or selectively enforce contracts that were held not to be in the public interest
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
"Most people doubt that even at this price that they can significantly impact Microsoft's market share."
Actually it's largely because they don't believe Sun is fully committed behind it. Are they? Is Sun willing to risk the company on being a Microsoft competitor, or are they just tossing something out to make a point?
But I do agree that file formats should be documented. In fact I think it should be a Federal law and apply to everybody as it has been a pain in the butt with every product I've ever used.
hmmmm first he talks about taking a break and then getting ready for the next big thing and then he says:
NewsForge: How about original games native to Linux?
Draeker: If I were going to start a new Linux game company tomorrow that's what I would do.
maybe after the break thats what he'll do.. not be optimistic.. but the idea of cool original games for linux is just thrilling.. granted tux racer was pretty original.. but the linux community needs something more in the way of games..
Microsoft never broke down someones door and forced them to buy a product at gun point.
Guns are so last century. In the digital age violence takes other forms. What Microsoft have done is to destroy competing products by changing the underlying OS so they no longer work.
To me that is similar to Chrysler competing with Ford by bombing their factories. I realize there are also differences, but to my libertarian instincts, such sabotage must be wrong, even if Mill or Rand didn't have the foresight to figure out exactly how to treat software in a natural rights manner.
That's not to mention all the theft of intellectual property and contract violations that is standard practice in Redmond.
Of course, as you point out, the actual laws that Microsoft has been caught by are doubtful in many ways, but that doesn't mean that Gates and his gang are not a bunch of ruthless criminals.
Ecceptunce-a ooff zee prupused settlement in U.S. f. Meecrusufft vuoold cleer zee rued fur zee cumpuny tu ixtend its munupuly tu must iff nut ell espects ooff cumpooteeng, seys Joodge-a Rubert H. Bork.
Bork Bork Bork!
"I dun't theenk it dues unytheeng tu Meecrusufft," seeed Bork in un interfeeoo veet Leenoox Plunet. "I theenk it joost lets zeem cunteenooe-a es zeey vere-a beffure-a."
Iff thet heppens, he-a seys, Meecrusufft's cuntrul is leekely tu ixtend beyund zee sufftvere-a indoostry, leedeeng tu munupuleees in erees incloodeeng oonleene-a eccess und zee Internet.
Bork Bork Bork!
Zee reeleety ooff Joodge-a Bork is fer mure-a interesteeng thun zee cereecetoore-a screebbled by hees inemeees, vhu deesegree-a veet hees "streect cunstroocshuneest" feeoo -- shered veet zee Fuoondeeng Fezeers -- thet gufernment is zee lest resurt, nut zee furst, fur sulooshuns tu suceeetel vues.
Bork Bork Bork!
He-a is knoon cheeeffly fur zee tremenduoos perteesun bettle-a thet iroopted vhee he-a ves numeeneted tu zee Uneeted Stetes Soopreme-a Cuoort by Preseedent Runeld Reegun, und thet, tuu, is sed. Fur hees ixpereeence-a in zee lev, ispeceeelly untee-troost lev, is ixtenseefe-a, es is hees schulersheep. He-a hes serfed es curcooeet joodge-a, U.S. Cuoort ooff Eppeels fur zee Deestrict ooff Culoombeea (vheech hes heerd tvu U.S. f. Meecrusufft ceses in zee teeme-a seence-a he-a lefft zee bench), suleecitur generel, und ecteeng etturney generel ooff zee Uneeted Stetes, es vell es 17 yeers es a pruffessur et Yele-a Lev Schuul und 12 yeers in preefete-a precteece-a. He-a is a seneeur felloo et zee Emereecun Interpreese-a Insteetoote-a. Hees buuks incloode-a Sluoocheeng tooerds Gumurreh: Mudern Leeberelism und Emereecun Decleene-a (1996), Zee Unteetroost Peredux: A Puleecy et Ver Veet Itselff (secund ideeshun, 1993), und Zee Tempteeng ooff Emereeca: zee Puleeticel Sedoocshun ooff zee Lev (1989). Poobleeshed in a veede-a fereeety ooff pereeudicels, und freqooent netvurk telefeesiun legel unelyst, Joodge-a Bork hulds B.A. und J.D. degrees frum zee Uneefersity ooff Cheecegu.
Bork Bork Bork!
Bork deed vurk fur Netscepe-a in cunnecshun veet zee unteetroost cese-a und hes feeled memurunda in fefur ooff a feending egeeenst Meecrusufft.
Bork Bork Bork!
You asked where in the constitution it gave congress the power they exercise. It's right there.
If you want to go outside the Constitution to find the definitions of govt power, and use "strict constructionism" as your excuse, feel free, but you'll understand if a lot of us don't go along for the ride...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The Macintosh for one. It runs a very nice version of Microsoft Office that is fully compatible with the Windows version.
So even if you absolutely must have 100% compatibility with MS Office, you still have a very viable choice. Or are you saying that the Macintosh is crap?
"Is Sun willing to risk the company on being a Microsoft competitor"
.NET. Of course I need not mention the hundreds of companies they either own outright or have a huge stake in.
.NET they would immediately sell every subsidiery and stop selling all software that was not written in .NET and stop selling all hardware. Not very likely nobody is foolish enough to bet their company on just one product.
it would be irresponsible to shareholders to "risk the company" on any single product or technology. that's why MS continues to make and market xbox, office, sql server etc while saying they are "betting the company" on
If MS was betting the company on
War is necrophilia.
"Kissinger did some really interesting work in ending that war."
Kissinger also did an awful lot of really evil shit. Have you read the book by Christopher Hitchens?
War is necrophilia.
Either "constructionist" means "as reasoned by those that constructed it", or the term is meaningless.
I didn't invent "constructionist" as a term, nor did I invent going back to the arguments and reasons for something to discover its arguments and reasons for existing. That particular discovery technique somewhat predates me as you would know if you read a book.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable
one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson,
June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
>'benefit' that simply tomorrow's retail prices.
Of course there is, and the analysis is not that simplistic. I'm not going to be able to explain detailed economic analysis in a page or two (and If I did, it would publish in a journal, not here).
Price is the example. Consumer welfare is the standard. Bork isn't out on the fringe of the Chicago school that thinks one firm is enough for competition (it's an honest argument; I just don't buy it).
If it created monopoly power, Bork would be against it.
Note that Bork was highly suspicious of the predatory pricing argument, as (at the time he wrote) there were other explanations for all the past cases. Microsoft seemes to be a better example, and possibly the first.
Again, Bork is saying that microsoft's pattern of behavior is *bad*, and anti-competitive--andthis from the father of the school of thought that opened the way for more mergers.
hawk
Bork *expected* the crisis to escalate upon the firing (as would *anyone* who gave it serious thought). He was also concerned about the justice department--he was the only senior official left, and *someone* had to mind the store.
To suggest that he thought that this would in *any* way assist the coverup is to be willfully ignorant. Suggesting that integrity was at all involved in the Borking of the nomination shows a loose grip on reality--put the crack pipe down.
hawk
Except that in this case you're talking about a clause which is quite clear in its meaning as written.
As written, the text of the Constitution was ratified by the various states of the union, and thus, as written, they accepted that amount of power.
The federalist (or Anti-federalist) papers were not voted on by anyone. Persuasive as they may or may not be, and educational, they are in no way limiting to the unambiguously broad powers that the interstate commerce clause gives Congress.
I did not claim you invented the notion of constructionism, only that you seek to use it as an excuse to justify your own reinterpretation of the Constituion into your own ideological form. What, after all, is the point of having a written Constitution and going through that messy process of ratification and amendment, if the ultimate legal restraints and responsibilities of governemnt will be defined by whatever one-sheets are published anonymously in New York that given week?...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The topic? The Evil Empire's court settlement.
Wow, I had no idea that the former Soviet Union had even sued anyone.
No.
Without the proprietary formats, all of Microsoft's office software features could be cloned by any midsize software company within 24 months.
He's been so taken over by laissez faire conservatives and libertarians who've never actually read him, that most people don't even know what he stood for anymore. If any of them actually picked up a copy of Wealth of Nations once in their lives, they'd see quotes like this:
....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'
The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state
> IANAL, but there must be more to
> consumer 'benefit' that simply tomorrow's
> retail prices.
Why?
> What good does it do for consumers to pay lower
> prices tomorrow, but inflated monopoly or
> collusion prices 5 years from now become some
> anti-trust decision deemed that lower prices
> tomorrow was in the 'consumer interest'.
What good does it do for consumers to pay inflated prices *now* because there might be some highly theoretical price collusion five years from now? Deal with the monopoly price collusion when it occurs!
Chris Mattern
It's in the U.S. Code (10 USC 311) that all able-bodied males between the age of 17 and 44 are part of the unorganized militia. See this page for the applicable sections of the U.S. Code.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
In your opinion, did they (MS) get any exclusive rights from the government or are they the exception of a company which managed to get to this position all by itself?
"Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8)
I don't think Microsoft would be in a monopoly position without these grants of exclusive rights in the forms of copyright and patent protection.
Why doesn't slashdot have a killfile?
I only wish to read intelligent commentary, and it's become abundantly clear Malcontent is incapable of that.
Without the proprietary formats, all of Microsoft's office software features could be cloned by any midsize software company within 24 months. Except the bugs. They'd have to create their own bugs. 8-)
Seriously, I doubt that any company could put _all_ the alleged features into one program and have it work right. (This includes Microsoft, which demonstrably can't make bloated programs work right.) But I'm pretty sure at least 80% of the users would be quite satisfied with less than 20% of the features, in an non-bloated, reliable program. And you provide hooks so others can write add-ins for the features a few people just have to have. (Open source is a good way to avoid misunderstandings about the interface...)
switch (right) {
// 1st amendment:
// 2nd amendment:
// 9th amendment:
case speech: return true;
case arms: return true;
case other:
default: return true;
}
It's hard to take someone seriously who doesn't know the difference between "flaunt" (display conspicuously) and "flout"
How exactly is "murder" an argument from the absurd? It's something that happens every day, not some hypothetical uber-crime that we may never hear of in our lifetimes.
Civil damages aren't exactly the best deterrent to crime, either. Do you think all the muggers out there are maintaining stockpiles of cash or buying insurance to pay restitution with if they get caught?
The problem is that if a suffienctly large company feels like it, they can drive their competors out of business. For example, a large software company can give away a product, while their smaller competitor cannot afford to do so. Later on, the larger company is free to raise their prices again, knowing that there is no competition.
Hold on there.
Courts have a hard enough time figuring out 1) what happened, and 2) what is happening now. Asking them to be crystal ball jockeys is not fair. They deal with the past, the present, and (at best) the near future. If they can put it off until it is clearer (the doctrine of "ripeness") they generally will.
Ah another well researched and oh so clever response from the resident Microsoft troll.
War is necrophilia.