If you don't like porn and you stumble into a porn site, you will just leave. If you don't know if you like porn and you stumble into a porn site, you will look around, decide whether you like it or not, and either leave or stay based on that decision. If you know you like porn, then you won't mind stumbling into a porn site anyway. I don't see the problem except that some people are too immature to deal with accidentally catching a glimpse of something they don't like. Their immediate solution is to not let anybody look at that because it offends them. I think these people need to grow up and realize that the world does not revolve around them and their beliefs. Other people have to tolerate accidentally running into religious sites and other potentially disagreeable sites, so why should porn sites be any different?
As I understand it, most of these people aren't upset at the actual rates, they are upset that their service is being downgraded while they are still having to pay the same amount. It comes down to what @Home said in their advertising and what customers are actually getting. From what I've seen of the advertising and what I'm hearing now, it looks like the ads were very deceptive.
Even if Micorosoft is using XML, they can add all sorts of proprietary tags to it can't they? As I understand it, XML lets you define your own standard, but if everyone doesn't go by it, then it's worthless. It should be easier to make other products that can read those files, but it wouldn't mean it was a good format? Am I missing something here? I think I need to read a bit more about XML.
Microsoft no longer has contracts that require OEMs to pay for Windows on every machine whether it ships with Windows or not.
You are absolutely correct in this statement. BUT, I will say it again, I'm not saying they require them to pay for Windows on EVERY machine that is shipped. As I said in the previous post, they don't have the power in the server arena to do this yet.
The per processor licensing issue was part of the original DOJ case in 1994 that was resolved by the consent decree. It was not an issue in this trial.
I didn't say they were using "per processor" licensing, did I? I said "per machine." Actually, "per model" would be a bit more specific. You see, they now have contracts that require OEMs to pay for Windows on every machine of a particular model if any machine of that model ships with Windows installed. So, if Compaq wants to ship any Deskpro model with Windows, they must pay for Windows on every Deskpro machine that ships, whether the customer wants Windows or not. That is how Microsoft got around the "per processor" wording in the consent decree and is one of the reasons that the consent decree was such a joke. That's also why the DOJ is professing its determination to have an airtight resolution to this case. They don't want Microsoft to be able to weasel out of it on a technicality... again.
The current DOJ case revolves around the question of whether Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, and if they do, whether they used that monopoly illegaly in an attempt to gain control of the browser market.
I'm well aware of what this case is about. I've been reading transcripts and following it very closely. I read everything I can find that is written or said by an anti-trust attorney. This case is about a lot more than just browsers, but that has become the most understandable and obvious part of the case and so became the focus of the DOJ. It's kind of like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. They use what they know they can make stick in court. If they tried to show all of what Microsoft has done, they would probably just confuse anyone who doesn't already understand what's been going on. It gets too technical and people, including the courts I would think, don't have the patience for it.
Illegal anti-competitive acts are considered to automatically harm consumers. Many consumers aren't far-sighted enough to see it now, but it is understood by most economists and the courts. If the DOJ can prove that Microsoft tried to prevent competition, then they don't have to prove direct harm to consumers. Even if they did have to prove direct harm, they could easily use the Windows Refund Day incident as a good example of customers who were harmed by Microsoft's practices.
That's how I understand things to be, but since IANAL I expect anyone with better insight into this to correct me.
No they don't have contracts that force an OEM to ship only Microsoft OSes. They can't do that yet because they don't yet have enough power in the server arena. They do however have contracts that force OEMs to pay for Windows on every desktop machine they ship, whether it ships with the software or not. Since the OEM can't afford to be paying for software that the customer isn't paying for, they only allow the customer to buy a computer with the Windows software which the customer must pay for. Hence the lack of consumer choice arguments.
The government can slap Microsoft down because the government gave Microsoft the power to get where it is today. People tend to assume that our free market system is perfect and should not be interfered with because it will correct itself. I don't buy that. I can't think of a single thing our government has set up that is perfect and I don't think that this system is any different. It needs constant attention to keep it running properly.
If it weren't for government laws that allow Microsoft to buy and control intellectual property, and for the advantages that come with incorporation, Microsoft would not exist today. In return for these privileges, Microsoft must obey certain laws. Microsoft allegedly (*cough*yeahright*cough*) hasn't done that and now they are in trouble. It's fine for a company to profit by using the system, but it's not ok to abuse the system. I look forward to many lawsuits against Microsoft. I hope to see them pay for their arrogance and abuse. They will hopefully end up coughing up a lot of the money they've ripped off from consumers over the years. If that happens, I might regain some bit of faith in the legal system... not much mind you, but some.
I don't think anyone can raise a stink about Linux. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. It's hard enough to make charges against Microsoft stick, and they've been about as blatantly abusive as any company I can think of. They wouldn't have a prayer of making any kind of case against Linux.
They are not confusing as they all relate to different markets.
Oh, I see... so you're saying that she's in the same market as AOL? She's an ISP then? I don't see how anyone could confuse "African-American Online Search" with "America Online". Just because they happen to have a lot of letters in common and can be represented by the same acronym doesn't make it an infringement. Do you seriously believe that someone could mistake her website for the AOL website? I don't.
When I shoot in the dark looking for a website, I find all sorts of sites that I wasn't looking for. Does that mean they are all infringing on each other? No. Just because they have names that could logically be associated with the company I'm looking for doesn't mean they are infringing any more than she is by using her domain.
America Online is a name. AOL is just an acronym to represent that name. Trademarking an acronym is just plain stupid. Those letters could mean anything. Just because your company decides that they mean one thing doesn't mean someone else shouldn't be able to use those letters to mean something else. This is all getting really ridiculous. I think AOL should be slapped down for this. If they want her domain they should pay for it. I don't care how well known they were. Three letters in a row does not mean a damn thing except what the company says it means in relation to them. If you take that acronym in relation to something else, it means something totally different.
Was "AOLsearch" trademarked? AOL is just a three letter acronym. Are we not allowed to use those three letters to stand for anything else anymore? Her organization had a legit reason for using the letters and for registering that domain. She didn't want to give it up. It should have remained hers and AOL should have come up with another domain name to register. If they were determined to take it from her whether she liked it or not, then they could have at least had the decency to compensate her for it.
Well, maybe that didn't sound right to her. Maybe she though AAOL sounded like "Alcoholics Anonymous OnLine" or some such thing. I just saw that www.aaol.com is already registered as well. The fact is that she used an acronym that is perfectly legit for the name of her organization. It doesn't stand for the same thing as America Online's acronym does, and I'm quite certain that nobody could confuse her site with America Online. That should have been the end of the story. Unfortunately, get enough money and lawyers together and any hope of justice is right out the window.
There is a difference between registering something as blatant as Burger King and registering an acronym that America OnLine uses as a substitute for their name. Her organization happens to have the word OnLine in it as well which is not surprising these days. Hence we have the O and the L. Now from the first part of the organization's name, we could either use the A or a double-A. I think that either way, AOL was going to be ticked off. From the name of her organization, I could come up with two.. well four different options.
www.aolsearch.com
www.aaolsearch.com
www.aols.com
www.aaols.com
The first three are quite likely to annoy America OnLine. The last one is just not very appealing. She could have simply used the last one, but I don't see why she should have to. An acronym is an acronym. The letters will be the same, but the meaning is different. Is there any way someone visiting her site would confuse it with America OnLine's site? I doubt it. So where is the consumer confusion? I think AOL was out of line, plain and simple. You shouldn't be able to take someone's domain just because they use the same acronym as you.
What does the Internet have to do with anything? Are you saying that it's ok for all those companies to have the same name in the phone book, but not to have the domains www.metropolitanauto.com, www.metropolitaninsurance.com, www.metropolitanopera.com, and www.metropolitancatering.com registered because they would cause confusion online? I think that is ridiculous. How is that different from www.aol.com and www.aolsearch.com?
This person registered the domain and can do with it as she pleases. She did not want to sell it, so it can't be considered cybersquatting. AOL should just pick another domain like everyone else has to do. I seriously doubt anyone can confuse the site with AOL's site. Who goes to AOL's site other than AOL users anyway? They don't even have to enter the url. I don't see the problem here.
Not sure how Linux is more accessible to such people. I would think it would be the other way around. I don't entirely buy the whole 10 to 1 ratio either. One unscientific test does nothing to prove anything either way. I think there are just a lot of nuts out there. They hitch their wagon to whatever strikes them as being cool. Windows isn't cool to many of these people, so they flame anyone who seems favorable toward it rather than Linux, which is obviously cool.;) I don't think you can fault the Linux community in general for the actions of a small, but vocal minority who most likely have nothing to do with the OS itself, other than the fact that they may screw around with it because they think it's cool.
I think you assume too much. I don't think that the majority of responses they got were like this. They posted what... 5 or 6 emails? If that was the worst they got, and we can safely assume that this provoked quite a few responses, then they are being manipulative by only posting a few bad emails as being representative of the replies from the Linux community. This is highly misleading, since I know that I and many others sent in rational replies to their tests. These, of course, were never posted. If they aren't going to post the good as well as the bad, then they are being misleading, plain and simple.
You're overlooking the fact that just about every community has loonies like these. Post something positive about Linux and you'll get a bunch of MS loonies flaming you. It isn't representative of the community as a whole though. They conveniently ignored this and posted the childish responses in an effort to sway people's opinion in their favor for having to deal with a bunch of kooks like the Linux community. I think they are trying to divert attention from the real issues, and they chose a very unprofessional way of doing it. It says a lot about their company.
So? He hasn't actually given the money away... it's just earmarked for charity. What's he going to do with it? Buy Windows PCs for children in poor countries? When he starts using significant amounts of his money to benefit people in ways that do not also directly benefit him, then maybe I'll believe that he's being charitable. 'Til then, I don't buy it.
The way I see it, as long as the Feds are paying for this stuff, they have every right to dictate how the money is spent.
'Scuse me. Where do you think the Feds got the money in the first place? That's right... TAXES. Who pays those taxes? You and me and everyone else with a job. They don't have any right to try to end-run around the Constitution and use the money that US citizens gave them to impose their morals on our local libraries. Our libraries are controlled by our communities, just like they should be.
Everything that exists in society or on the Internet is not appropriate for kids, especially at the high school level where maturity is in short supply.
That's what parents are for. I'm sick of seeing the government try to raise everyone's kids for them. I don't want my tax money going to libraries where I have to have the content filtered for me. If they are concerned about children, try spending more on education rather than making it more difficult to access information. Maybe if parents were better educated, they could actually take care of their children. Maybe if children were better educated they would be less inclined to do stupid things. Unfortunately, I suppose that they don't want to do that because it isn't what the nuts have been screaming about lately and it costs money that they would rather squander on something that will have much less effect on the country. There's also the problem that education produces people who can't be herded like sheep. That must scare the hell out of politicians.
There's also the practicality issue. I haven't seen a filter yet that actually worked properly. They don't exist. There are plenty out there that can be customized, but you can't customize them to the point where they only block out the "bad stuff" and not other stuff as well. Then there's the problem of the software makers providing defaults that block out sites that they simply don't like because they criticize their company or filtering software in general, among other things.
This bill is idiotic. It will do nothing but force libraries to censor all sorts of things that should not be censored. Why do adults need filtering software anyway? Are we not mature enough to decide for ourselves what we should or should not see or read? Congress is trying to (once again) end-run around the Constitution by using this kind of extortion to beat libraries into submission. I don't want my tax dollars used like this. I don't see how anyone else could either.
First, just because Netscape still exists and is owned by another company it does not necessarily follow that they are doing well. If they were doing so well, they might still have a profitable browser business. Unfortunately, Microsoft feared Netscape becoming a platform unto itself, so they did everything they could to sink Netscape's browser. They did pretty well until the browser went open source. They can't touch it directly now. All they can do is hope to proprietize as many protocols and whatnot as possible so that nobody else has access to them. This was all laid out in the Halloween memos.
Secondly, cut-throat tactics can be very illegal if you have a monopoly.
They do not have a monopoly, they just have a succesful company. (...) A monopoly is when you can hike the prices and people -must- pay
Once again, Windows is proprietary. Businesses have to standardize in order to keep their support costs as low as possible. If you want to exchange documents with 90% of the computer-using world, you need to have Microsoft Office. MS Office is only available on Windows and Mac platforms. The Mac platform is too risky because Microsoft can take Office away from them at any time and has threatened to do so in the past if Apple didn't do what they wanted. Businesses can't take that risk if it's not absolutely necessary.
I think the ruling in the DOJ case will confirm that Microsoft has a monopoly. It is due to network effects. They are real. They do exist, no matter what Microsoft's pet economist says. If they didn't have a monopoly, they wouldn't be able to threaten OEMs with higher prices. They wouldn't be able to keep competitors from gaining access to the OEMs, or at least limit their access. They can and do raise prices at will, just not on the retail shelves where it is highly noticeable. They raise the prices to OEMs using secret contracts that nobody else knows any details of.
There are massive barriers to entry for any new OS. The only thing that makes any competition possible at all is people DONATING their time, money, and effort into creating an alternative. That is not a sign of a healthy market. Be actually offered to let OEMs ship BeOS for free if they would just give customers the option of purchasing a machine preinstalled with it. Unfortunately, OEMs are still rather afraid of Microsoft. They can have their prices jacked through the roof if they don't behave. The only reason we see any Linux machines being offered now is because Microsoft can't do anything with the DOJ breathing down its neck. If they (by some miracle) win their case or if the result is another weak agreement, all hell will break loose and Microsoft will once again crack down on everyone who was not kissing their butt the entire time.
The bottom line is that the average computer user really doesn't have much choice since they can't buy preloaded machines from the top ten OEMs out there (only one of which is offering anything other than Windows on a desktop machine). As long as Microsoft is able to keep the OEMs from offering anything else, it will remain this way. Perhaps their grip will be broken when the trial is over. One can only hope. Businesses have virtually no choice, depending on what business they're in. They may be able to run various types of servers, but on the desktop, it's nearly always Microsoft. There is no other option for them because Office is THE standard. Trying to get businesses to switch from one standard to a new one will cause alot of chaos. That's why Microsoft is sitting pretty. People are locked in. It would take a huge influence to move them. Unless Microsoft raises its prices above what the market will bear (which is quite alot due to the costs of switching), their monopoly will stay intact.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't like porn and you stumble into a porn site, you will just leave. If you don't know if you like porn and you stumble into a porn site, you will look around, decide whether you like it or not, and either leave or stay based on that decision. If you know you like porn, then you won't mind stumbling into a porn site anyway. I don't see the problem except that some people are too immature to deal with accidentally catching a glimpse of something they don't like. Their immediate solution is to not let anybody look at that because it offends them. I think these people need to grow up and realize that the world does not revolve around them and their beliefs. Other people have to tolerate accidentally running into religious sites and other potentially disagreeable sites, so why should porn sites be any different?
As I understand it, most of these people aren't upset at the actual rates, they are upset that their service is being downgraded while they are still having to pay the same amount. It comes down to what @Home said in their advertising and what customers are actually getting. From what I've seen of the advertising and what I'm hearing now, it looks like the ads were very deceptive.
Even if Micorosoft is using XML, they can add all sorts of proprietary tags to it can't they? As I understand it, XML lets you define your own standard, but if everyone doesn't go by it, then it's worthless. It should be easier to make other products that can read those files, but it wouldn't mean it was a good format? Am I missing something here? I think I need to read a bit more about XML.
the Yoda Sunscreen song had me ROFLing...
http:/ /rochester.real.com/showcase/g2audio/jive/wierd_al /wierdal_starwars.rm
Microsoft no longer has contracts that require OEMs to pay for Windows on every machine whether it ships with Windows or not.
You are absolutely correct in this statement. BUT, I will say it again, I'm not saying they require them to pay for Windows on EVERY machine that is shipped. As I said in the previous post, they don't have the power in the server arena to do this yet.
The per processor licensing issue was part of the original DOJ case in 1994 that was resolved by the consent decree. It was not an issue in this trial.
I didn't say they were using "per processor" licensing, did I? I said "per machine." Actually, "per model" would be a bit more specific. You see, they now have contracts that require OEMs to pay for Windows on every machine of a particular model if any machine of that model ships with Windows installed. So, if Compaq wants to ship any Deskpro model with Windows, they must pay for Windows on every Deskpro machine that ships, whether the customer wants Windows or not. That is how Microsoft got around the "per processor" wording in the consent decree and is one of the reasons that the consent decree was such a joke. That's also why the DOJ is professing its determination to have an airtight resolution to this case. They don't want Microsoft to be able to weasel out of it on a technicality... again.
The current DOJ case revolves around the question of whether Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, and if they do, whether they used that monopoly illegaly in an attempt to gain control of the browser market.
I'm well aware of what this case is about. I've been reading transcripts and following it very closely. I read everything I can find that is written or said by an anti-trust attorney. This case is about a lot more than just browsers, but that has become the most understandable and obvious part of the case and so became the focus of the DOJ. It's kind of like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. They use what they know they can make stick in court. If they tried to show all of what Microsoft has done, they would probably just confuse anyone who doesn't already understand what's been going on. It gets too technical and people, including the courts I would think, don't have the patience for it.
Illegal anti-competitive acts are considered to automatically harm consumers. Many consumers aren't far-sighted enough to see it now, but it is understood by most economists and the courts. If the DOJ can prove that Microsoft tried to prevent competition, then they don't have to prove direct harm to consumers. Even if they did have to prove direct harm, they could easily use the Windows Refund Day incident as a good example of customers who were harmed by Microsoft's practices.
That's how I understand things to be, but since IANAL I expect anyone with better insight into this to correct me.
No they don't have contracts that force an OEM to ship only Microsoft OSes. They can't do that yet because they don't yet have enough power in the server arena. They do however have contracts that force OEMs to pay for Windows on every desktop machine they ship, whether it ships with the software or not. Since the OEM can't afford to be paying for software that the customer isn't paying for, they only allow the customer to buy a computer with the Windows software which the customer must pay for. Hence the lack of consumer choice arguments.
See my earlier post on this subject.
The government can slap Microsoft down because the government gave Microsoft the power to get where it is today. People tend to assume that our free market system is perfect and should not be interfered with because it will correct itself. I don't buy that. I can't think of a single thing our government has set up that is perfect and I don't think that this system is any different. It needs constant attention to keep it running properly.
If it weren't for government laws that allow Microsoft to buy and control intellectual property, and for the advantages that come with incorporation, Microsoft would not exist today. In return for these privileges, Microsoft must obey certain laws. Microsoft allegedly (*cough*yeahright*cough*) hasn't done that and now they are in trouble. It's fine for a company to profit by using the system, but it's not ok to abuse the system. I look forward to many lawsuits against Microsoft. I hope to see them pay for their arrogance and abuse. They will hopefully end up coughing up a lot of the money they've ripped off from consumers over the years. If that happens, I might regain some bit of faith in the legal system... not much mind you, but some.
I don't think anyone can raise a stink about Linux. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. It's hard enough to make charges against Microsoft stick, and they've been about as blatantly abusive as any company I can think of. They wouldn't have a prayer of making any kind of case against Linux.
They are not confusing as they all relate to different markets.
Oh, I see... so you're saying that she's in the same market as AOL? She's an ISP then? I don't see how anyone could confuse "African-American Online Search" with "America Online". Just because they happen to have a lot of letters in common and can be represented by the same acronym doesn't make it an infringement. Do you seriously believe that someone could mistake her website for the AOL website? I don't.
When I shoot in the dark looking for a website, I find all sorts of sites that I wasn't looking for. Does that mean they are all infringing on each other? No. Just because they have names that could logically be associated with the company I'm looking for doesn't mean they are infringing any more than she is by using her domain.
America Online is a name. AOL is just an acronym to represent that name. Trademarking an acronym is just plain stupid. Those letters could mean anything. Just because your company decides that they mean one thing doesn't mean someone else shouldn't be able to use those letters to mean something else. This is all getting really ridiculous. I think AOL should be slapped down for this. If they want her domain they should pay for it. I don't care how well known they were. Three letters in a row does not mean a damn thing except what the company says it means in relation to them. If you take that acronym in relation to something else, it means something totally different.
Was "AOLsearch" trademarked? AOL is just a three letter acronym. Are we not allowed to use those three letters to stand for anything else anymore? Her organization had a legit reason for using the letters and for registering that domain. She didn't want to give it up. It should have remained hers and AOL should have come up with another domain name to register. If they were determined to take it from her whether she liked it or not, then they could have at least had the decency to compensate her for it.
Well, maybe that didn't sound right to her. Maybe she though AAOL sounded like "Alcoholics Anonymous OnLine" or some such thing. I just saw that www.aaol.com is already registered as well. The fact is that she used an acronym that is perfectly legit for the name of her organization. It doesn't stand for the same thing as America Online's acronym does, and I'm quite certain that nobody could confuse her site with America Online. That should have been the end of the story. Unfortunately, get enough money and lawyers together and any hope of justice is right out the window.
There is a difference between registering something as blatant as Burger King and registering an acronym that America OnLine uses as a substitute for their name. Her organization happens to have the word OnLine in it as well which is not surprising these days. Hence we have the O and the L. Now from the first part of the organization's name, we could either use the A or a double-A. I think that either way, AOL was going to be ticked off. From the name of her organization, I could come up with two.. well four different options.
www.aolsearch.com
www.aaolsearch.com
www.aols.com
www.aaols.com
The first three are quite likely to annoy America OnLine. The last one is just not very appealing. She could have simply used the last one, but I don't see why she should have to. An acronym is an acronym. The letters will be the same, but the meaning is different. Is there any way someone visiting her site would confuse it with America OnLine's site? I doubt it. So where is the consumer confusion? I think AOL was out of line, plain and simple. You shouldn't be able to take someone's domain just because they use the same acronym as you.
What does the Internet have to do with anything? Are you saying that it's ok for all those companies to have the same name in the phone book, but not to have the domains www.metropolitanauto.com, www.metropolitaninsurance.com, www.metropolitanopera.com, and www.metropolitancatering.com registered because they would cause confusion online? I think that is ridiculous. How is that different from www.aol.com and www.aolsearch.com?
This person registered the domain and can do with it as she pleases. She did not want to sell it, so it can't be considered cybersquatting. AOL should just pick another domain like everyone else has to do. I seriously doubt anyone can confuse the site with AOL's site. Who goes to AOL's site other than AOL users anyway? They don't even have to enter the url. I don't see the problem here.
You can export source code in book form, but not in electronic form.
Not sure how Linux is more accessible to such people. I would think it would be the other way around. I don't entirely buy the whole 10 to 1 ratio either. One unscientific test does nothing to prove anything either way. I think there are just a lot of nuts out there. They hitch their wagon to whatever strikes them as being cool. Windows isn't cool to many of these people, so they flame anyone who seems favorable toward it rather than Linux, which is obviously cool. ;) I don't think you can fault the Linux community in general for the actions of a small, but vocal minority who most likely have nothing to do with the OS itself, other than the fact that they may screw around with it because they think it's cool.
I think you assume too much. I don't think that the majority of responses they got were like this. They posted what... 5 or 6 emails? If that was the worst they got, and we can safely assume that this provoked quite a few responses, then they are being manipulative by only posting a few bad emails as being representative of the replies from the Linux community. This is highly misleading, since I know that I and many others sent in rational replies to their tests. These, of course, were never posted. If they aren't going to post the good as well as the bad, then they are being misleading, plain and simple.
You're overlooking the fact that just about every community has loonies like these. Post something positive about Linux and you'll get a bunch of MS loonies flaming you. It isn't representative of the community as a whole though. They conveniently ignored this and posted the childish responses in an effort to sway people's opinion in their favor for having to deal with a bunch of kooks like the Linux community. I think they are trying to divert attention from the real issues, and they chose a very unprofessional way of doing it. It says a lot about their company.
So? He hasn't actually given the money away... it's just earmarked for charity. What's he going to do with it? Buy Windows PCs for children in poor countries? When he starts using significant amounts of his money to benefit people in ways that do not also directly benefit him, then maybe I'll believe that he's being charitable. 'Til then, I don't buy it.
If everyone is voting on moves each day, any kind of planned strategy is out the window. I doubt he'll lose.
The way I see it, as long as the Feds are paying for this stuff, they have every right to dictate how the money is spent.
'Scuse me. Where do you think the Feds got the money in the first place? That's right... TAXES. Who pays those taxes? You and me and everyone else with a job. They don't have any right to try to end-run around the Constitution and use the money that US citizens gave them to impose their morals on our local libraries. Our libraries are controlled by our communities, just like they should be.
Everything that exists in society or on the Internet is not appropriate for kids, especially at the high school level where maturity is in short supply.
That's what parents are for. I'm sick of seeing the government try to raise everyone's kids for them. I don't want my tax money going to libraries where I have to have the content filtered for me. If they are concerned about children, try spending more on education rather than making it more difficult to access information. Maybe if parents were better educated, they could actually take care of their children. Maybe if children were better educated they would be less inclined to do stupid things. Unfortunately, I suppose that they don't want to do that because it isn't what the nuts have been screaming about lately and it costs money that they would rather squander on something that will have much less effect on the country. There's also the problem that education produces people who can't be herded like sheep. That must scare the hell out of politicians.
There's also the practicality issue. I haven't seen a filter yet that actually worked properly. They don't exist. There are plenty out there that can be customized, but you can't customize them to the point where they only block out the "bad stuff" and not other stuff as well. Then there's the problem of the software makers providing defaults that block out sites that they simply don't like because they criticize their company or filtering software in general, among other things.
This bill is idiotic. It will do nothing but force libraries to censor all sorts of things that should not be censored. Why do adults need filtering software anyway? Are we not mature enough to decide for ourselves what we should or should not see or read? Congress is trying to (once again) end-run around the Constitution by using this kind of extortion to beat libraries into submission. I don't want my tax dollars used like this. I don't see how anyone else could either.
First, just because Netscape still exists and is owned by another company it does not necessarily follow that they are doing well. If they were doing so well, they might still have a profitable browser business. Unfortunately, Microsoft feared Netscape becoming a platform unto itself, so they did everything they could to sink Netscape's browser. They did pretty well until the browser went open source. They can't touch it directly now. All they can do is hope to proprietize as many protocols and whatnot as possible so that nobody else has access to them. This was all laid out in the Halloween memos.
Secondly, cut-throat tactics can be very illegal if you have a monopoly.
They do not have a monopoly, they just have a succesful company. (...) A monopoly is when you can hike the prices and people -must- pay
Once again, Windows is proprietary. Businesses have to standardize in order to keep their support costs as low as possible. If you want to exchange documents with 90% of the computer-using world, you need to have Microsoft Office. MS Office is only available on Windows and Mac platforms. The Mac platform is too risky because Microsoft can take Office away from them at any time and has threatened to do so in the past if Apple didn't do what they wanted. Businesses can't take that risk if it's not absolutely necessary.
I think the ruling in the DOJ case will confirm that Microsoft has a monopoly. It is due to network effects. They are real. They do exist, no matter what Microsoft's pet economist says. If they didn't have a monopoly, they wouldn't be able to threaten OEMs with higher prices. They wouldn't be able to keep competitors from gaining access to the OEMs, or at least limit their access. They can and do raise prices at will, just not on the retail shelves where it is highly noticeable. They raise the prices to OEMs using secret contracts that nobody else knows any details of.
There are massive barriers to entry for any new OS. The only thing that makes any competition possible at all is people DONATING their time, money, and effort into creating an alternative. That is not a sign of a healthy market. Be actually offered to let OEMs ship BeOS for free if they would just give customers the option of purchasing a machine preinstalled with it. Unfortunately, OEMs are still rather afraid of Microsoft. They can have their prices jacked through the roof if they don't behave. The only reason we see any Linux machines being offered now is because Microsoft can't do anything with the DOJ breathing down its neck. If they (by some miracle) win their case or if the result is another weak agreement, all hell will break loose and Microsoft will once again crack down on everyone who was not kissing their butt the entire time.
The bottom line is that the average computer user really doesn't have much choice since they can't buy preloaded machines from the top ten OEMs out there (only one of which is offering anything other than Windows on a desktop machine). As long as Microsoft is able to keep the OEMs from offering anything else, it will remain this way. Perhaps their grip will be broken when the trial is over. One can only hope. Businesses have virtually no choice, depending on what business they're in. They may be able to run various types of servers, but on the desktop, it's nearly always Microsoft. There is no other option for them because Office is THE standard. Trying to get businesses to switch from one standard to a new one will cause alot of chaos. That's why Microsoft is sitting pretty. People are locked in. It would take a huge influence to move them. Unless Microsoft raises its prices above what the market will bear (which is quite alot due to the costs of switching), their monopoly will stay intact.