Slashdot Mirror
Gates orders survey with Rigged Results?
Normally I don't post this sort of thing because it's
major flamebait, but this one is just so funny so I'm gonna
let it through. Jason Eric Pierce writes "The DOJ surprised Microsoft's computer "expert" by revealing
that the survey he used as part of his testimony was actually
ordered by Gates. Bill being the nice guy he is, he went
ahead and specified what the results of the survey should be. "
Read this one and laugh.
... On the other hand, it's good that David Boies was able to rattle the witness with it. Judge Jackson is a sharp guy (although tech-clueless): I imagine Judge Jackson can tell when "something is rotten in the state of Redmond", to misquote Billy Shakespeare.
That article is really funny IMO. I'm gonna print it out and give it to my stat prof.
What? Are all of you guys living at Chocolate Bar Lane in Candyland? Of course polls are rigged, otherwise the companies that sponser them wouldn't. Geesh, who's shocked by the obvious?
9 out of 10 randomly sampled dentists do not prefer Crest either.
It is sad to see a professor of a reputed institute, creating statistics. If he really did this, I mean conducting a non genuine survey to get what M$ asked for, he is no more than a conman. As a result , all the research he had done becomes questionable.
So you are telling me that while the rest of us are buying candy and flowers, hoping to screw our S.O.'s, Mr. Gates is buying survey results in the hopes of screwing the general public?
Makes sense in a way, for him.
He's just another Bill from Washington.
I was not the least surprised at this "revelation". As a former tech support engineer for Microsoft, I can testify first-hand that this is SOP for Microsoft, because it almost cost me my job. I detail it on my website: "Microsoft Reports 97% Customer Satisfaction" (calvin.richter.org/MS_CustSat.html).
that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The all new Microsoft Poll(tm) version 1.0 is guaranteed to give YOU the results that YOU want.
Are YOU having problems with the Department of Justice?
Just pull out new Microsoft Poll(tm) 1.0 and your problems will just go away!
With Microsoft Poll(tm) 1.0 YOU will be able to produce polls and statistics that will confuse and befuddle the ordinary public, sheep and the Chief Information Officers of MAJOR CORPORATIONS.
Microsoft Poll(tm) 1.0 allows YOU to specify to within 7 percent the results that YOU want to receive from ANY polls that YOU commission.
Soon to be released New Microsoft Poll Pro(tm) 1.0, this new IMPROVED version Microsoft Poll(tm) for professionals has the additional feature of allowing YOU to specify YOUR poll results to within ONE percent, yes you heard right, ONE percent and EXPERT testimony when confronted with the Department of Justice is INCLUDED FOR FREE!
Microsoft Poll(tm) 1.0 is just $49.99
Microsoft Poll Pro(tm) 1.0 $99999.99
E&OE
These prices do not include P&P or sales tax.
Both lie, both try to cover thier tracks, both are guilty as hell, and if we're lucky.... both will go down in flames this year. Clinton for being stupid, and Gates for being a powerhungry, arrogant Harvard flunkie. Should have stayed in business school and learned something Mr. Gates, It might have saved your greedy ass!
I'm sitting here thinking that maybe if we took a poll that we could display we could get more people to switch. Think if the next time a major publication had a story on Linux they talked not just about the amount of growth it's had but could say "in a recent poll 90% of IT professionals prefer Linux to Windows."
The funny thing is I was thinking about it and it will be hard to get a poll that sounds realistic. Obviously you could ask a question like "Which do you think is a more stable OS, Linux or NT?" to a group of people pre-screened to have used Linux (because you don't want uninformed opinions) and get a 99% result, but even though it's true that seems rigged. Maybe something like "Which do you think has a lower total cost of ownership?"
It could be extremely useful to get this sort of thing out now so that we can preempt Bill getting his (rigged) polls out later.
``It would HELP ME IMMENSELY to have a survey showing that 90 percent of developers believe that putting the browser into the (operating system)
:-)
makes sense,'' wrote Gates on Feb. 14, 1998.
Cant wait to see ESR's Valentine Day Paper on this one
What else would you expect from Bill Gates? The man is one of the most heinous white-collar criminals of this century; rigging poll results is nothing more than child's play to him.
Where did they take this survey, anyway? The Microsoft Campus, perhaps?
jce2@po.cwru.edu in case I forget to put this at the bottom.
This trial is becoming MORE and MORE childish. The reason why? The charge is BULLSHIT and is completely motivated by POLITICAL reasons. It is motivated by other computer companies WHINING instead of either getting together and creating their OWN damn operating system, or threatening to develop for alternate platforms. It's also motivated by continual JEALOUSY that we always seem to have towards the company that is the most successful. The government feels jealous and angry towards any company that is PROVING the superiority of the private market over the public market, and will do anything to either regulate them or make them submit and beg in front of them.
The word "Monopoly" has become MEANINGLESS. Either a company needs to have *ONE HUNDRED EXPLETIVE PERCENT* of the market share, or be the ONLY company providing a product in that area, or the term is MEANINGLESS. A Monopoly is not 90% of the market, because that proves that there are other products out there. It's not 95% of the market. It's either all or nothing. Otherwise, you are using the term without credibility. Of course, the government wants to re-define this term to anything they EXPLETIVE want to, because then they can pretend they actually have a basis for doing what they are doing.
Windows 95-98-NT,2002.4, are all property of Microsoft. They own it, they can sell it at any damn price or any damn way that they want to. They don't HAVE to sell you what you want to buy. In return, you don't HAVE to buy what they want to sell.
Let me introduce the concept of "niches" to you. Linux computer users do NOT fit into the mainstream niche. Why? Because one requires INTELLEGENCE to run Linux, and Linux assumes that you know what the hell you are doing. The unfortunate fact is that at least 80% of computer users are COMPLETE BLITHERING IDIOTS when it comes to interacting with the computer. We (the intellegent computer user population), get VERY pissed off at Microsoft giving us limited ways of installing software, or only giving us one way to do an operation. There's a reason why Microsoft software is designed that way, it's because the brainless computer operators don't WANT to pick between options. They want brainless simplicity. They fit into the niche of mainstream computer purchasers. Gateway, Dell, etc, tend to sell to MAINSTREAM users. They want their computers to power up and work correctly right out of the box without thinking. So, the contract between Microsoft and those vendors is mutually exclusive. The vendors like it too, because they get a volume discount for an operating system. Those computer systems are the Vendors, and again, they can sell them however the hell they want to. They can also break the "exclusive" agreement with Microsoft at any damn time if it makes economic sense for them to do that. Quit arguing that you're oppressed by Microsoft because you can't buy a computer from Gateway without an operating system on it. There's a simple solution to that problem...DON'T BUY FROM GATEWAY! Several vendors are now trying to fill the niche for users who want Linux pre-installed. BUY FROM THEM. Don't say that you don't have a choice, because you DO have a choice. No one is FORCING you to buy from a mainstream vendor! In fact, if you are an experienced computer user, it's probably a very BAD idea to buy from a mainstream vendor because you will get a configuration that is optimized based on price, not quality. You'll get better and LINUX FRIENDLY hardware. And don't complain that those vendors aren't "mainstream"...because there isn't a mainstream niche for Linux! If you do NOT want to pay for Microsoft Windows (the MS tax), then DON'T buy from a vendor who pre-installs it on every model!
Microsoft didn't HAVE to give out documentation for the Windows API. It could have refused to give out ANY information. Of course, that would be suicidal because then there would be no third party products. They don't have to put out ANY developer documentation if they don't want to. Of course, Microsoft has TRIED to make themselves programmer friendly because the number of Windows applications developed by other people is their life-blood! So if you DON'T like the API or you feel like the API isn't open enough, DON'T PROGRAM FOR IT! You CAN write assembly language Windows programs and completely bypass the API. Or you can refuse to write Windows programs at all. It's not like Microsoft is preventing other companies from writing their OWN operating systems. It's just that companies like to moan about the problems with Windows and then are too lazy to write their own OS that handles these problems better. And people DO use OS/2..they're just another small niche.
Netscape could have kept charging businesses to use their browser, they just had to add enough new features and enough quality to it to make it worth paying for. Anyone ELSE could have written a free browser as well. And Microsoft LOST MONEY by making a product and giving it away. Of course they wanted to get some market share quickly. The idea of "dumping" is bullshit..the only reason why the concept exists at all is because of protectionistic governments who don't want to explain to workers that they are overpaid or less efficent then people in other countries. Microsoft had made a mistake by disregarding the internet, and now they needed to correct that mistake very quickly.
I've got to go to class, I'll finish this rant later.
(and btw: I use Linux and wouldn't think of going back to Windows 95/98 whatever..)
I've worked as a consultant to some companies in the MR industry for years. It is not at all uncommon for a buyer to informally request that their questions be worded is such a way as to get a desired response.
Its just part of the business. 50%+ of our customers are using these 'surveys' to convince someone within their own company to spend money, so they just dictate what results they need and leave it up to us to word the questions right.
Today at the trial of Pres. Clinton, the prosecution pointed out that the definition of the felony "obstruction of justice" includes presenting false information to a witness in the hopes that the witness will repeat it while under oath. That seems to mean that Bill G is at least as guilty as Bill C. Probably more.
"Dear Ghod, chill out before you blow a tube or something."
Umm, so what do YOU think a "rant" is? Someone who's happy with the current situation? No, It's someone who's really pissed and wants to scream about something to let his feelings out.
"As for your rant, there's so much wrong with it, factually, conceptually, morally, and philosophically, that I can't even begin to correct it all. Maybe later this weekend, if I find the time."
Go ahead and try to refute it. It will probably be more of the same "well, I can't buy it from a mainstream vendor", "It's a monopoly because so many people buy it."...which all bubble down to one childish statement:
"I want Microsoft to give me exactly what *I* want and because they won't, I want them to be broken up and I'll use any BS excuse to justify them being broken up."
jce2@po.cwru.edu
*sniff* *sniff*
Ahh, the fresh scent of flamebait
Might you be speaking weightily from the depths of your junior-high education on antitrust laws? I have no idea where you've come up with this "a monopoly is all or nothing" nonsense; Rockefeller might have disagreed with you when the government declared Standard Oil a monopoly with sixty or seventy percent market share.
.. ..
When a company is a monopolist, as Microsoft quite clearly is, the rules that it must play by are different. This is not unfair, nor is it prejudism; it is the very foundation of antitrust law. One monopoly cannot be used to create another, and that is at the heart of the browser issue. The browser issue, incidentally, is only the tip of the iceberg, and I was glad to see the DOJ fan out into other areas as well. (By the way, I find the notion of forcing Microsoft to provide Netscape with its operating system to be simply preposterous.)
My guess is that you've fallen victim to the incessant stream of spin coming from Mark Murray and the other court jesters of Redmond, whose angry cries of foul play and persecution can be used to set a watch. Their carefully-rehearsed protest speeches, their assertations that they're the target of attacks motivated by jealously and technical ineptitude, and their emotional claim that they're being bullied by the government are all intended to drum up public sympathy. Don't give it to them; poor Redmond doesn't deserve your sympathy any more than it deserves mine.
I'm reminded of the old song by the Platters:
Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown,
He's a clown, that Charlie Brown
He's gonna get caught, just you wait and see
(Why's everybody always picking on me?)
uhhh...the legal definition of a monopoly is far below 90%. in fact, the doj forced a san diego radio conglomerate to sell a number of their stations when it hit 45% of market or so.
on could argue that radio is different -- that radio is a means of communication, and it is crucial to our freedom to have a diversity of stations to listen to, rather than a single corporate opinion.
of course, computers and msn.com are a form of communication, too.
well, that's about it -- your diatribe was boring after i saw you had nothing valid to say in your first point.
lates.
The poll is probably very accurate. Most developers write for windows and free internet ntergration is good for all windows developers because microsoft spares them the need to write the code.
As the enterprise manager of VB said "We write more code so you dont have to."
Besides I saw another poll that said that 85% of all Americans favor bill Gates.
Most people love him and all his company.
The poll might not be accurate enough for a court case but the poll came from an indepent organization and Bill Gates probably allready knew about the two polls that found him to have an 85% approval rating by sonsumers. This is why mac and solaris is failing. Zdnet magazines tell everyone about windows and they believe it.
All microsoft has to do is show a commercial that says "FROM MICROSFT, THE GUYS WHO MADE YOUR PC FAST AND RELIABLE..." see all this constant hype and remember old windows95 commercials by the marketing department showing that your free and you can explore all the cool things with windows like having no more system crashes, may the rest in peace..... bla bla bla.
ah h ah ha ah ha h haha haahha
Come now, surely you do not believe this is
the first time a biased poll was refereced that favored Microsoft....they didn't get to be a monopoly with honest and fair tactics. They used
every trick they could to convince the masses that their products were to ONLY answer. The
media played right into their hands. If the DOJ
loses it's case Linux users can expect a lot of
media to anti-linux articles full of FUD....
If you don't believe it, look up OS/2 and
see what the media did with that, if you
believe the media, IBM could not do anything
right! It happened before and it can happen
again! The current popularity of Linux in the media is ONLY because it benifits Microsoft,
and helps in their case against the DOJ. Once
that case is over look out linux!!!!!
If you cannot tell when your own posts are flamebait, then you really are an idiot, or a completely clueless newbie.
"Libertarian claptrap. Might as well shut the government down and bring back child prostitution and slavery while we're at it."
Both of those would STILL be illegal in a libertarian government. Both take rights AWAY from those individuals.
Microsoft, on the other hand, does NOT take rights away from individuals.
jce2@po.cwru.edu
From Bill Gates and his countless PR people
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Great, first Bill, and now Bill. It looks like the DOJ isn't taking any bull from MS's lawyers.
:)
Can Microsoft survive? Should we let it?
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Microsoft didn't do anything illegal by requesting a poll and specifying the results. They were just stupid to call a witness who based his testimony on the results of the poll.
Posted by jonrx:
``It would HELP ME IMMENSELY to have a survey showing that 90 percent of developers believe that Jón is underpaid,'' wrote jonrx on slashdot.org on Feb. 14, 1998.
hehe, of course!
_jón
Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:
Is Gates competing with CLinton fotr the
"(Un)Slick Willy Award"
While it was very bad of him to do this...
it goes on every day. In fact...it is funny
the US Gov would point to someone doing this...
since they are the worst offenders!
(However they do it with so called "Scientific
Studies")
ANyway....I hate Microsoft, I will never use their
software again unless I am paid to (which I am
so I am...but at home its linux all the way)
I Hope that ALL that comes of this trial is to
discredit the hell out of MicroShit and help
deplete their resources. I do NOT wan tto see
regulation of the industry...just discredit them
and show int he open what rotten bastards they
are.
Then let Linux and Open Software do the rest.
Further down in the article, there was another survey mentioned which claimed that 76% claimed MS was good for consumers & the industry. I'd be curious to see who was polled. I believe that the general public is largely ignorant of the issues in the case in the first place.
How many American's can even answer the question "What is an Operating System?" It's gonna be interesting to watch, anyway.
AT&T was a monopoly, but it didn't have 100% market share; there were competitors like MCI and GTE, who probably weren't very pleased to be permanently consigned to "niche" status by the near-omnipotence of The 800-Pound Octopus Known As Ma Bell. OS/2 wasn't designed to be a "niche" OS; it was supposed to be the successor to the ubiquitous DOS, no? It ended up a victim of IBM's cluelessness and Microsoft's predatory practices. But the fact that there are still passionate (or nostalgic) OS/2 users out there may be a clue that a superior OS got muscled out of a chance to really succeed in the MS-tainted marketplace.
Windows 95-98-NT,2002.4, are all property of Microsoft. They own it, they can sell it at any damn price or any damn way that they want to. They don't HAVE to sell you what you want to buy. In return, you don't HAVE to buy what they want to sell...
MS can do whatever they want, as long as it can't be construed to be an act of flexing their OS-monopoly muscle to extend their dominance to other spheres of activity. Like the browser market, for instance.
I've got to go to class, I'll finish this rant later.
There's probably better things to do on a Friday :)
--
--
=8^
So if you DON'T like the API or you feel like the API isn't open enough, DON'T PROGRAM FOR IT!
And, sir, if you don't like this country's antitrust policy or you feel it is politically motivated, DON'T LIVE HERE!
Meeting illogic with illogic,
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
When the richest man in the world says "It would be nice to have xyz." It will be taken by his underlings as if it were a direct order, whether Gates actually meant it that way or not.
:)
Reminds me of when thieves stole statues from some NY church. John Gotti said something like "That was not a very nice thing to do." The statues suddenly showed up again.
What about Thomas a Becket?
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Back in mid-November, a few people started reporting that they had gotten a phonecall from a pollster asking questions about the Microsoft court case. Apparently, the questions were obviously slanted such that you either had to appear to be pro-Microsoft or anti-capitalism. See "http://www.macintouch.com/mssurvey.html" for the comments.
Yesterday on Pointcast I found an article titled "Majority of Americans Believe Microsoft is Good for U.S. Economy abd Has Benefited Customers." It's on the Companies channel, under MSFT. The article is a PRNewswire release which gives all of the questions asked in the phone survey, along with how many people gave each answer.
I desperately want to give people the URL to this article... problem is, I can't find it anywhere on the web. It's not on Microsoft's web site, it's not on PRNewswire's web site, and I can't find a web site for the polling company (Hart and Teeter, who have run similar polls to show that Americans didn't want the government to block the Win 98 release and that Americans love Microsoft in general).
If anyone can help me figure out why this press release shows up in Pointcast but not anywhere on the web, I would really like to know!
"It would HELP ME IMMENSELY if Bill Gates kissed my butt!"
In a textbook of mine last year, there were some examples of experiments in rigging surveys. Using a few differently worded versions of the same question (not nearly so grotesquely biased as the Gates survey) they got _completely_ different results. Survey participants are highly susceptible to even slightly suggestive versions of the same question . . . every research institution has courses in research methods that cover this stuff.
if Prof. Schalmansee will have any credibility left among his peers after this. Anyone at MIT who can tell us what the Ec dept. thinks of their duelling profs?
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
(oops... forgive if this is already up... hit return at the wrong time the first time)
New slogan for the masses:
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics... and then there's Microsoft.
(see the subject line).
Surveys, Polls, Opinion Polls, etc., mean nothing, especially when the questions are worded such that you have to agree to something because you only see one side of the issue.
I'm not surprised that Microsoft uses tactics like this, but it would be nice if more people noticed this type of manipulation. And it comes from the government, from other media sources.
People lie with statistics all the time. Unfortunately, they only teach you how to really read into statistics in college. Sure, you can learn this yourself, but this is why I think college is important. There is a lack of critical thinking, and college helps foster that.
Most people believe these surveys and use them to defend a poorly research opinion of theirs. It's unfortunate, but it happens all the time.
What I'd like is for companies to reveal the survey questions, as well as the results, as well as the sample that they sent it to for all of their surveys. That might help foster some sort of fairness.
Ben
Amen. You can replicate this behavior with the following project:
Call 100 random people in the town of
Vandergrift, Pennsylvania (trust me,
languid wills and torpid minds abound
there) and ask these two questions.
Then, you can try this question in big cities
like Williston, South Dakota to compare results.
Stupid Americans abound.
-----
".sig,
Only wanted to know since I replied to one of his flam- I mean, comments.
Of all the economics professors in the world, why, oh, why, did Microsoft had to get an MIT guy for their sycophancy?
To make this all the more bitter, this guy has tenure.
*fume*
This is precisely the tip of the iceberg that was talked about in the info I recieved from a Microsoft Employee...
:-)
To Recap
M$'s strategies are going to be close to the following. (from a source inside of M$)
1.The closer to the Win2000 release the more FUD we should spread about open source.
2.Spread FUD about how it is unstable, hard to use and is not in use in large numbers in corporate America.
3.Spread the perception of ease-of use of Windows
4.Infiltrate the newsgroups (SlashDot et. al) with inflammatory comments making more rift in the Linux camps and then spread more FUD on fragmented the so-called "Linux-Community" is.
5.More than embrace & extend, we go after the companies that are known to use or embrace Linux and offer them large incentives to switch to Windows.
6.Use the news sources and media outlets at our disposal to conduct mock tests against Linux and other competing operating systems, first by making windows lose to the competing OSs then after the debut of Windows-2000 conduct tests by "Independent Media Outlets" to let the world know how much our product has improved and outdone the competition. This "Impartial Validation" methods wins consumers over.
7.Increase marketing pressures on current media partners and increase our financial stake in those companies.
Microsoft is scared... hell they have a server there running Linux....
http://egg.microsoft.com
The interesting thing that I see is that in Office2000 they have a new "advanced" feature that makes the curser disapear if it is not moved for about ten seconds..... it's called unclutter.rpm(or T.gz) folks...we've had it for several years... So many of the things touted by the clueless idiots (reporters) in the media are things we have had for years. No one hears about them because up until this week, there has never been a concerted marketing effort by a Linux group.... That changes this week....wish us luck!
Nick
LSG
_____________________________________
>The DOJ surprised Microsoft's computer "expert"
>by revealing that the survey he used as part of
>his testimony was actually ordered by Gates. Bill
>being the nice guy he is, he went ahead and
>specified what the results of the survey should be
Sometimes polls can useful for showing things: you just have to look at the petty details that don't fit in.
For example, in a poll done before a local election, the pollster knew the mayor was in trouble when one unknown candidate was the choice of 2% of the folks surveryed. Why? Cause the unknown happened to be the pollster's dog.
Gates ordered^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hstrongly suggested that a poll be commissioned showing that 90% of the population thought Windows was the best operating system. Despite all of their efforts to spin the question, the best the posllsters could get was 87%
What does this tell me? That if Microsoft were the last software company left in the world, 13% of the US population would be scouring garage sales & Goodwill for old TRS-80s, CPM machines & Apple ]['s before they would buy Microsoft.
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
After the way this bozo Schalmansee was ripped apart on the stand, I can't wait to see the rest of Microsoft's "defense."
The whole thing will probably go so badly that they will be forced to have Gates testify. Now that will be really damaging to Microsoft. For a great laugh, read through his depositions as http://www.usdoj.gov.
He was merely commenting on how nice it would be to have a 90% in his favor survey. He never 'demanded' it or 'ordered' it. Silly DoJ trying to strangle Microsofts innovations!
*crying for america*
> DoJ trying to strangle Microsofts innovations!
Innovations?? Like what??? Having to reboot my NT machine at work every 10-15 min? Not being able to totaly rid myself of IE?
--Dast
This sig is false.
New Survey: 85% of MS Developers think that making the OS slower would be beneficial bc users are so stupid. ;-)
This sig is false.
Hmm... between that article and a couple of the ones linked to it, I think we can conclude that Microsoft is attempting to use the "Clinton Defense".
Gates: Lets make sure they define all the variables precisly so we can step around this on technicalities...
My statistics teacher told our class that there was a major change in the way statistics was taught about 15 years ago and that was why almost every survey taken in the '90s sucked eggs. I have no idea if he was making it up or what, but it could be right... look what happened when they took away phonics.
"... I declare our city to be a free and independent state to be named Tri-Insula!" --Fernando Wood, Mayor of NYC 1861
Don't get me wrong...I have respect for Microsoft and their technology. That's where my respect ends. The thing that bothers me about microsoft is the way they do business. They are too dependant on "the next version." I think a company that has the most popular operating system in the world should worry about customer services. If nothing else, it would've prevented this need for something new (check out how Linux is becomeing more popular).
Meanwhile...in an interview with Barbra Walters, he simply said "its a tough business" in repsonse to everyone accuseing him of shady business. In actuality...it is a though business...but take some lessons from the good guys. It can't hurt.
There was a great book in my High School Library around 1984 entitled "How to Lie With Statistics". I forget the author's name, but it was a great laymans intro to statistics and how they are often distorted.
But your right, no really talks about this until stats class in college.
From what I remember from econ, a monopoly is not necessarily 100% of the market, but rather the ability to control the price on ones product, indicating a basic removal from the laws of supply and demand. Microsofts Windows family's price has remained stable for an extremely long time, and the variation in prices is usually no more than a dollar or two. Microsoft (at least with 95, I havent bothered looking recently) limitied the price range to within acouple dollars at all outlets through creative use of advertising promotions and subsidizations. Hence, it has effective control over the price of its products, indicating a monopoly. Granted, it is a weird monopoly. Wether you buy this definition of a monopoly is another matter, but I is one that is more accurate than pure 100% market share.
All this time, I've heard the industry lament that software piracy is the reason they have to raise their prices, and why we pay so much for software.
Now all of a sudden I hear software piracy being used by Mikey$oft as a factor in keeping software prices down?????
What's the deal here?
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
In the article, the busted economist claims that piracy makes the prices lower than they would have been otherwise. While I can sort of see his logic, I don't think I've ever heard anyone--especially an MIT economist--make that claim before.