Breaking up microsoft goes against this idea. Microsoft became popular because EVERYONE used their software, not because they bought out all their competing OS's.
Two things. First, they originally got their market position because IBM made DOS the default OS to ship on all their PCs. Second, they don't have to buy out other OSes. Network effects are quite real and quite powerful. Since IBM made Microsoft the standard, it created a powerful incentive for everyone to use it, even if something better came along. Unless you can get everyone else to switch en masse along with you, you can't really move to a non-standard OS without alienating yourself from your customers, business partners, etc.
The people that want MS broken up are competition
Of course they are! They are the victims of Microsoft's illegal tactics! They want something done about it. I can't blame them for that. Even the appeals court didn't overturn the facts of the case which state that Microsoft DID abuse its monopoly. It did commit a crime!
From a user point of view, we have choices. We can choose to use: Windows, MacOS 9, Mac OSX, Linux, Unix, BeOS, etc etc etc.
Not if we want to run standard applications. That's the whole point. Microsoft IS the standard today. If Microsoft wants to make Apple irrelevant they simply have to stop porting Office, IE, and a few other apps and Apple will be relegated to being just another niche OS. They won't do this right now because Apple is convenient to point to when they need to claim they have competition.
However, the courts decides that they are only concerned with the x86 processor family, and only non niche OSes, (which is how they eliminated all the other OSes for x86).
Look at what you're talking about. The other OSes ARE niche OSes. Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS market, x86 or otherwise. Linux isn't a viable desktop OS for the vast majority of people simply because Microsoft doesn't sell a version of Office for it and it doesn't have a big enough marketshare for developers to create top-teir apps and games for it. This is why barriers to entry are so important in determining what constitutes a monopoly. If an OS doesn't have enough marketshare, then nobody develops for it. If nobody develops for it, it won't gain marketshare.
Microsoft knows how expensive it is for businesses to switch OSes. That's why they can get away with their onerous EULAs and high prices. Companies have to think of the bottom line. They have already invested heavily in Microsoft products. They can't just switch to something else unless they can show that it will cost them less over the next couple of quarters. So Microsoft prices their products as high as they can without crossing the line that would cause companies to abandon them in favor of another OS. So really there is no competition to make an impact on Microsoft's prices. The only thing that affects them are the barriers to entry of the OS market. That's why they tried to destroy Java. It threatened to lower the barrier. Same with Netscape. Browsers had the potential to become platforms themselves. They wouldn't allow that.
The only thing that even resembles competition for Microsoft is Open Source software. And that is only because it doesn't play the same game as Microsoft so MS hasn't been able to beat it yet. It is an anomoly though. It's not a commercial interest for the most part. Most attempts to make a profit from it have failed. I'm not sure it should even be considered part of the market by the court. It's really a strange animal. More of a backlash against the screwed up IP laws in this country than an attempt to compete with commercial software. It is, however, good to know that all the software know-how and code is not locked up by corporations yet.
How long would Apple remain a competitor without MS Office and IE available on that platform? Apple competes at Microsoft's discretion. Hell, Microsoft invests in Apple! Do you really think they consider them to be real competition?
Hell, you could have 100% of all market share and that still doesn't make you a monopoly.
Yes it would, actually. However, it wouldn't necessarily mean you've done anything illegal. There is no law against being a monopoly.
a. the ability to control prices in market
As the court found, Microsoft has increased their prices significantly over the years. They can do this due to network effects which create a high barrier to entry in the OS market. In other words, there is a point at which it becomes financially cheaper to switch to an alternative, however, that point is quite high due to all the infrastructure investments companies have made. Microsoft is taking full advantage of that fact by continually raising their prices, but keeping them below that point. They are reaping monopoly profits.
b. the unresponsives to customer needs
The only thing Microsoft has really had to fear is that someone else could get a stranglehold on part of the industry that would put them in a position to dictate terms to Microsoft. This is the only thing that has kept them "innovating." In this case I have to define "innovating" as buying up competitors or simply duplicating their products and distributing them with the monopoly OS to drive the company out of the market. As far as OSes alone are concerned, Microsoft only really competes with its own products (i.e. Win2k vs. Win98/ME).
c. the lack of serious competition or the threat of serious competiton.
As I've stated already, there is no serious competition in the desktop OS market right now. The barriers to entry are too high.
But just because the competition fails it doesn't mean that MS is a monopoly.
No, just because the competition fails, it doesn't mean MS is a monopoly. However, when you look at WHY they failed, then you see that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly, and not only that, they abuse their monopoly position quite regularly. The internal MS email that was revealed during the course of the trial illustrated quite nicely that MS understands their position very well and fully intended to take advantage of it.
if MS had a true monopoly, there would be only one OS on all systems.
By this statement alone, it's obvious that you don't understand what you're talking about. People like you love to throw out this nifty-sounding bullshit and hope that other ignoramouses will buy into it. If you knew a thing about markets, you'd know that you don't have to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly. You'd also know that having a monopoly is not illegal in itself. You'd understand that it comes down to how whether or not they use that monopoly in ways that gives their products a marked advantage over other products which has nothing to do with the quality of the product itself. This goes against the idea of free and open competition that our economy is based on. That's why the government is supposed to step in and right things. In Microsoft's case the government completely screwed its first attempt by believing Microsoft would abide by the spirit of their agreement rather than jumping straight through the first loophole they found. Now they're back for another try and I, for one, will be extremely pissed off if they screw this one up too. I'm sick of seeing Microsoft use their OS monopoly to beat OEMs and competitors into submission. Nor do I want to see them get away with the profit of their actions. Of course the fucked up IP laws in this country only make it easier for them.
I can certainly see why they made it. They were trying to create as realistic a human as possible. But since we live in such a sexually repressed country (US), people will of course get out of control over things like this. Owell. Someday we'll learn to lighten up.
I always thought Sikorsky invented the helicopter. But I just did a Google search and found this page (number 10 on the list) that says that William Purvis and Charles Wilson invented the helicopter in 1909. Is that just bunk or is there some dispute as to who actually invented the helicopter?
Yes, this is off-topic, which is why I didn't use the +1. Mod me down if you wish. I'm just curious about this.
Maybe a few fringe elements go after things like drinking, but most stick to limiting themselves to "underage drinking" or "drinking and driving." Things that most people would agree are not a good idea because they endanger others. Nobody has tried to ban alcohol in my city/state in my lifetime. They have tried to ban porn on multiple occaisions though. It is far and away the most persecuted of all the things he mentioned.
In this case "Illustrator" is a very accurate description of what the program does. That can be a defense against a trademark infringement suit. The word "adobe" is common, but not in relation to software. "Adobe" is not a descriptive term and bears no relation to what the software company does.
I think he meant submitting improvement ideas was naive. "Trying to make a difference" may or may not be naive, depending on how you go about it. His point seemed to be that it is naive to think that they are actually going to implement "improvements" that would actually have a real effect on the number or quality of patents being issued. Now there may actually be ways to make a difference. This just isn't one of them.
Unfortunately what the Firestone/Bridgestone case shows us is that in order to draw enough bad press to really have an effect on a large corporation, they have to kill a few dozen people.
Umm.. here's what I don't understand. If you don't get the service that they want you to pay for, how can you be considered to be "in debt" to them? In debt for what? What did they give you? Seems like if they aren't providing the goods, they shouldn't get the money, right?
I'd say she's at least entitled to legal fees as well. Additionally, I happen to agree that punitive damages are in order. Roger's shouldn't be allowed to get away with just losing the amount they owe her. Otherwise they'll have no incentive not to treat their other customers the same way. They should face at least SOME penalty.
Profit is not a "right" but if government policy prevents or diminishes the expectation of profit, investment dries up
I'm not arguing this. I was simply stating that profit is not a right. Corps shouldn't be able to make the profits without accepting the risk.
Under the public funding-public domain model, none of these patents would be valid. Chevy would have little incentive to improve their engine/suspension/etc system because, after spending $5,000,000 to perfect that system, Ford could put it in their car for just the cost of production.
Now this is just wrong. First of all, if the research was done with public money, then the research belongs to the taxpayers, not any particular corporation. Chevy could use the research to develop a new engine. Perhaps they would be able to patent certain aspects of it as well since they would almost certainly have to figure out how to deal with many issues that come up during the development. If they didn't do anything during development that was worthy of a patent, then they don't deserve a handout. If they simply took what NASA gave them and tried to turn around and sell it, then we shouldn't be protecting them from competition. Surely you understand this?
We need a good Latin term for it. It will sound better and people won't confuse the meaning. I'm sure some of you know enough latin to come up with something appropriate. Let's hear it.
Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?
If by that you mean they have a right to turn a profit from their investment, the answer is a resounding "NO!"
If I invest in the stock market, do I have a right to see a profit from it? Hell no. I'm taking a risk. As others have pointed out here, the trend is that risk is being socialized (i.e. they pass it on to us) while profit is being privatized (i.e. they keep the profits). If research is done with public funds, in whole or in part, it should not be patentable or copyrightable. It should be made available to the public that paid for it. Sure, corporations contributed to the development too, and they have as much right to the results as the rest of us. They just don't have a right to claim it as their own intellectual property and charge the public for the rights to use it.
How about the car rental company's right to fine people for driving the s*** out of there cars?
If they can determine any problem with the vehicle when i return it, they're welcome to charge me whatever we agreed upon in the contract.
So? They're often below those posted in traffic as well.
Exactly. So what good is a system that can't determine what the current safe speed is on the road you're on? Either way, I would never rent from these guys. I have a feeling such a system will generate a lot of ill will towards that company and won't last long. People don't like to be monitored like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Breaking up microsoft goes against this idea. Microsoft became popular because EVERYONE used their software, not because they bought out all their competing OS's.
Two things. First, they originally got their market position because IBM made DOS the default OS to ship on all their PCs. Second, they don't have to buy out other OSes. Network effects are quite real and quite powerful. Since IBM made Microsoft the standard, it created a powerful incentive for everyone to use it, even if something better came along. Unless you can get everyone else to switch en masse along with you, you can't really move to a non-standard OS without alienating yourself from your customers, business partners, etc.
The people that want MS broken up are competition
Of course they are! They are the victims of Microsoft's illegal tactics! They want something done about it. I can't blame them for that. Even the appeals court didn't overturn the facts of the case which state that Microsoft DID abuse its monopoly. It did commit a crime!
I'm talking about competition between platforms.
Platforms aren't viable without applications.
From a user point of view, we have choices. We can choose to use: Windows, MacOS 9, Mac OSX, Linux, Unix, BeOS, etc etc etc.
Not if we want to run standard applications. That's the whole point. Microsoft IS the standard today. If Microsoft wants to make Apple irrelevant they simply have to stop porting Office, IE, and a few other apps and Apple will be relegated to being just another niche OS. They won't do this right now because Apple is convenient to point to when they need to claim they have competition.
However, the courts decides that they are only concerned with the x86 processor family, and only non niche OSes, (which is how they eliminated all the other OSes for x86).
Look at what you're talking about. The other OSes ARE niche OSes. Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS market, x86 or otherwise. Linux isn't a viable desktop OS for the vast majority of people simply because Microsoft doesn't sell a version of Office for it and it doesn't have a big enough marketshare for developers to create top-teir apps and games for it. This is why barriers to entry are so important in determining what constitutes a monopoly. If an OS doesn't have enough marketshare, then nobody develops for it. If nobody develops for it, it won't gain marketshare.
Microsoft knows how expensive it is for businesses to switch OSes. That's why they can get away with their onerous EULAs and high prices. Companies have to think of the bottom line. They have already invested heavily in Microsoft products. They can't just switch to something else unless they can show that it will cost them less over the next couple of quarters. So Microsoft prices their products as high as they can without crossing the line that would cause companies to abandon them in favor of another OS. So really there is no competition to make an impact on Microsoft's prices. The only thing that affects them are the barriers to entry of the OS market. That's why they tried to destroy Java. It threatened to lower the barrier. Same with Netscape. Browsers had the potential to become platforms themselves. They wouldn't allow that.
The only thing that even resembles competition for Microsoft is Open Source software. And that is only because it doesn't play the same game as Microsoft so MS hasn't been able to beat it yet. It is an anomoly though. It's not a commercial interest for the most part. Most attempts to make a profit from it have failed. I'm not sure it should even be considered part of the market by the court. It's really a strange animal. More of a backlash against the screwed up IP laws in this country than an attempt to compete with commercial software. It is, however, good to know that all the software know-how and code is not locked up by corporations yet.
How long would Apple remain a competitor without MS Office and IE available on that platform? Apple competes at Microsoft's discretion. Hell, Microsoft invests in Apple! Do you really think they consider them to be real competition?
Hell, you could have 100% of all market share and that still doesn't make you a monopoly.
Yes it would, actually. However, it wouldn't necessarily mean you've done anything illegal. There is no law against being a monopoly.
a. the ability to control prices in market
As the court found, Microsoft has increased their prices significantly over the years. They can do this due to network effects which create a high barrier to entry in the OS market. In other words, there is a point at which it becomes financially cheaper to switch to an alternative, however, that point is quite high due to all the infrastructure investments companies have made. Microsoft is taking full advantage of that fact by continually raising their prices, but keeping them below that point. They are reaping monopoly profits.
b. the unresponsives to customer needs
The only thing Microsoft has really had to fear is that someone else could get a stranglehold on part of the industry that would put them in a position to dictate terms to Microsoft. This is the only thing that has kept them "innovating." In this case I have to define "innovating" as buying up competitors or simply duplicating their products and distributing them with the monopoly OS to drive the company out of the market. As far as OSes alone are concerned, Microsoft only really competes with its own products (i.e. Win2k vs. Win98/ME).
c. the lack of serious competition or the threat of serious competiton.
As I've stated already, there is no serious competition in the desktop OS market right now. The barriers to entry are too high.
But just because the competition fails it doesn't mean that MS is a monopoly.
No, just because the competition fails, it doesn't mean MS is a monopoly. However, when you look at WHY they failed, then you see that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly, and not only that, they abuse their monopoly position quite regularly. The internal MS email that was revealed during the course of the trial illustrated quite nicely that MS understands their position very well and fully intended to take advantage of it.
if MS had a true monopoly, there would be only one OS on all systems.
By this statement alone, it's obvious that you don't understand what you're talking about. People like you love to throw out this nifty-sounding bullshit and hope that other ignoramouses will buy into it. If you knew a thing about markets, you'd know that you don't have to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly. You'd also know that having a monopoly is not illegal in itself. You'd understand that it comes down to how whether or not they use that monopoly in ways that gives their products a marked advantage over other products which has nothing to do with the quality of the product itself. This goes against the idea of free and open competition that our economy is based on. That's why the government is supposed to step in and right things. In Microsoft's case the government completely screwed its first attempt by believing Microsoft would abide by the spirit of their agreement rather than jumping straight through the first loophole they found. Now they're back for another try and I, for one, will be extremely pissed off if they screw this one up too. I'm sick of seeing Microsoft use their OS monopoly to beat OEMs and competitors into submission. Nor do I want to see them get away with the profit of their actions. Of course the fucked up IP laws in this country only make it easier for them.
a 32bpp color palette only represents a fraction of the precision that the human eye can discern.
How big of a fraction? Exactly how many colors can the human eye discern? I thought I had read somewhere that 32bpp had it pretty much covered.
This post just illustrates how fucked up the domain name system currently is. And ICANN is trying to make it even worse.
It should be "The Previously Lost, But Recently Found City."
I can certainly see why they made it. They were trying to create as realistic a human as possible. But since we live in such a sexually repressed country (US), people will of course get out of control over things like this. Owell. Someday we'll learn to lighten up.
For a nonviolent crime from which the perpetrator did not gain financially, yes.
I always thought Sikorsky invented the helicopter. But I just did a Google search and found this page (number 10 on the list) that says that William Purvis and Charles Wilson invented the helicopter in 1909. Is that just bunk or is there some dispute as to who actually invented the helicopter?
Yes, this is off-topic, which is why I didn't use the +1. Mod me down if you wish. I'm just curious about this.
If I had mod points, you'd get one. Good post.
Maybe a few fringe elements go after things like drinking, but most stick to limiting themselves to "underage drinking" or "drinking and driving." Things that most people would agree are not a good idea because they endanger others. Nobody has tried to ban alcohol in my city/state in my lifetime. They have tried to ban porn on multiple occaisions though. It is far and away the most persecuted of all the things he mentioned.
In this case "Illustrator" is a very accurate description of what the program does. That can be a defense against a trademark infringement suit. The word "adobe" is common, but not in relation to software. "Adobe" is not a descriptive term and bears no relation to what the software company does.
I think he meant submitting improvement ideas was naive. "Trying to make a difference" may or may not be naive, depending on how you go about it. His point seemed to be that it is naive to think that they are actually going to implement "improvements" that would actually have a real effect on the number or quality of patents being issued. Now there may actually be ways to make a difference. This just isn't one of them.
Wouldn't work these days. If you said "So where's the lead?" and were overhead these days, they'd think you were talking about bullets and expel you.
Unfortunately what the Firestone/Bridgestone case shows us is that in order to draw enough bad press to really have an effect on a large corporation, they have to kill a few dozen people.
Umm.. here's what I don't understand. If you don't get the service that they want you to pay for, how can you be considered to be "in debt" to them? In debt for what? What did they give you? Seems like if they aren't providing the goods, they shouldn't get the money, right?
I'd say she's at least entitled to legal fees as well. Additionally, I happen to agree that punitive damages are in order. Roger's shouldn't be allowed to get away with just losing the amount they owe her. Otherwise they'll have no incentive not to treat their other customers the same way. They should face at least SOME penalty.
According to some other posts here this is already being done by some cd players.
Profit is not a "right" but if government policy prevents or diminishes the expectation of profit, investment dries up
I'm not arguing this. I was simply stating that profit is not a right. Corps shouldn't be able to make the profits without accepting the risk.
Under the public funding-public domain model, none of these patents would be valid. Chevy would have little incentive to improve their engine/suspension/etc system because, after spending $5,000,000 to perfect that system, Ford could put it in their car for just the cost of production.
Now this is just wrong. First of all, if the research was done with public money, then the research belongs to the taxpayers, not any particular corporation. Chevy could use the research to develop a new engine. Perhaps they would be able to patent certain aspects of it as well since they would almost certainly have to figure out how to deal with many issues that come up during the development. If they didn't do anything during development that was worthy of a patent, then they don't deserve a handout. If they simply took what NASA gave them and tried to turn around and sell it, then we shouldn't be protecting them from competition. Surely you understand this?
We need a good Latin term for it. It will sound better and people won't confuse the meaning. I'm sure some of you know enough latin to come up with something appropriate. Let's hear it.
Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?
If by that you mean they have a right to turn a profit from their investment, the answer is a resounding "NO!"
If I invest in the stock market, do I have a right to see a profit from it? Hell no. I'm taking a risk. As others have pointed out here, the trend is that risk is being socialized (i.e. they pass it on to us) while profit is being privatized (i.e. they keep the profits). If research is done with public funds, in whole or in part, it should not be patentable or copyrightable. It should be made available to the public that paid for it. Sure, corporations contributed to the development too, and they have as much right to the results as the rest of us. They just don't have a right to claim it as their own intellectual property and charge the public for the rights to use it.
If you don't like those terms, use a different car. Welcome to a free country where you can make choices.
Yeah, make your choices while you're still allowed to. Sooner or later these things will be mandatory. Free country indeed.
How about the car rental company's right to fine people for driving the s*** out of there cars?
If they can determine any problem with the vehicle when i return it, they're welcome to charge me whatever we agreed upon in the contract.
So? They're often below those posted in traffic as well.
Exactly. So what good is a system that can't determine what the current safe speed is on the road you're on? Either way, I would never rent from these guys. I have a feeling such a system will generate a lot of ill will towards that company and won't last long. People don't like to be monitored like that.