Wait a minute. It's not because of Britain's imperialism.
It's because a) The navy (and army) backing british imperialsim was better than its competitors b) Britain left the Common Law all over the place in its wake, and the Common Law is more suited to the emergence of commerce than the alternatives.
>So-called "dialects" of English are unintelligible to other English speakers.s
Boy, that's a tough standard . ..
My weak spanish (and the fragments of ecclesiastical latin that a Catholic picks up) are enough that I can usaually follow at least the general gist of Italian and Portugese. This would mean that Italian and Spanish aren't separate dialects . . . or am I not reading this right? And I'm not going to touch whether Portugese and Castillian (the primary [but not exclusive; there's also Catalan and maybe more] Spanish in Spain) are dialects of the same language or separate languages . ..
Are you trolling, or are you really that misinformed.
Felons can most certainly own property, including real property. A blanket prohibition on property would include money . .. They can also own real property; as an attorney, I have met several (including in california) who do.
Disney didn't own Disneyland becuase it was owned by the Disney Corporation, not because of any criminal history (I have no idea whether or not he was courtmartialed.)
Guess again. We had multiple phones which we owned long before that.
The fiber optics networks were well on their way, too. The breakup certainly leveled the playing field for the long distance competitors, but it was neither necessary to their existence, nor did it precede them.
And unless you get your internet history from Al Gore, the internet preceded the breakup by a very long time.
> So instead of having just one dirty handed, predatory, monopolizing > business, we're going to have two! What a great solution!
That's (at least) three companies too few. I'm in the minority here, but I also have a lot more backround on both the legal and economic end of it than most of those getting paid to talk about it (so someone hire me:).
Splitting into two companies is only a start. It is part of the solution, because the os and office monopolies are both taking losses to benefit each other--to the detriment of the consumer. Better information on API's than the competitors, for example. The windows monopoly would have *no* incentive to give this information to the office folks and not to competitors of office after a breakup.
Putting office by itself, separated from windows, solves part of the problem (particularly, the preferential treatment and the leveraging of the OS monopoly to create the office monopoly).
However, it *doesn't* solve the windows monopoly. It takes away some of the things ms has abused to create the monopoly, but not all of them. Windows should be split into at least three pieces, either formed from microsoft, or by auction of source code rights to other parties. This creates three different entities that can sell windows.
That's four companies, and I'd put the miscellaneous (hardware, msn, etc.) into another company.
> The feds are going about this entirely the wrong way, they're thinking >that software is somehow like oil, when infact it isn't anything like it. >The product has different properties which make breaking up the company >ineffective.
>1. It costs virtually nothing to copy data
This makes some changes in the economics, but doesn't change the fundamental result. Monopolies overcharge whether they have a marginal cost or not. Consumers are harmed by this monopoly either way. No marginal cost is just the extreme form of the situation which creates monopolies in the first place.
> 2. Source between these two companies can be shared in such a way that >they can basically keep operating as one company
No, your economics is *completely* off base here. Aside from the fact that that would be illegal, they would be sued by the *shareholders* of each of the companies. As a single company, it makes sense for the os division to give up $20 to make $50 in the office division. As separate companies, it would not.
> 3. The two companies would have different products (OS / Everything >Else) and therefore don't have to compete against eachother unlike the >oil and phone company breakups!
Competing against each other has nothing to do with this. The problem is that the monopolies are used to prevent *other* companies from competing, which increases price and decreases quality. There is *no* need for the units to compete against each other (unless we make multiple versions of windows).
> It's just a bad decision, I've said it from the start, and I'll say it
You can say it as often as you want, but it would require a fundamental change in antitrust law to reach another decision. Argue for the change if you want, but arging that this decision is wrong is to simply ignore the facts and law. ANd for the record, consumers would be worse off under the change, while monopolists would be better off.
I am a lawyer; this isn't legal advice. See an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.
>Interesting theory, except how do you explain Microsoft Office for the >Macintosh?
He wrote, "Oliver Stone voice." That means there's no need to be consistent, or pay any attention to the facts:) Remember, Stone is the one who claimed to be entitled to "artistic license" *in a documentary* when he was called on his fabrications . . . (specifically, _Born on the Fourth of July)_)
>Everyone seems to forget about that one.
Noone has forgotten that, not even Judge Jackson. The Findings of Fact were quite clear about the use of the mac version to maintain windows dominance. Microsoft threatened not to ship the *completed* next version of Office as a means of leveraging Apple to make IE the "default" browser for Mac. This was to undercut Netscape, thereby lessening the general threat of Netscape applications.
This wasn't a forfeiture action; thus they can't be deprived of the underlying property (the programs). In fact, it would be tough to make a forfeiture type case out of this--you'd really have to claim that microsoft was a criminal enterprise, rather than just making criminally crummy software:)
I don't know if I'd go as far as calling it a claim; it seems to me to be a smaller step than that.
I'm just saying that someone who is already likely to blow real people away probably has yet one more reason to play games where he pretends to do so . ..
Nothing in there suggests a causal relation *from* the game to a real shooting.
However, diverting them in this way makes esnese (but so does handing out 9mm ammunition to street gangs, figuring that by killing more of them this way, you save more lives than you lose in innocent bystanders during the fihte . ..)
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
One more time. Everyone take a deep breath. Now repeat after me:
"Open sourcing windows and office is not an option."
OK, now say it again three times slowly.
The court lacks the power to do this. It would be a taking of private property, banned by the Bill of Rights. The *only* way for the court to release the code without microsoft's agreement is for someone to pay the fair market value. I'm reasonably certain that that court does not have tens of billions of dollars in discretionaryfunds, so it would have to go to congress. And Congress is unlikely to allocate that many billion dollars to pay to a monopolist . ..
Recall that one of the things leading to the break between the U.S. and England was when the crown started paying the salaries of the royal governors.
He who payeth the fiddler, calleth the tune
Even if there is a lump payment from MS to the govt for the supervision costs, the supervision still must be done. IT's intrusive, and will hinder innovation and product--MS would be stuck playing "MOther May I?" every time it wanted to make a change.
> As a separate company, it would be impossible for the OS company to > tell OEMs that they had to install apps from the MS-apps company and > *not* from any other company.
Not only that, but they'd have no *reason* to make such a demand . . .
In this case, fascdot is right about the game theory outcome. If you write the thing out as a game, the rational outcomes all involve defection between former branches of micrsoft.
It's not a two player repeated game, where there are various ways to get cooperation.
To get results *as bad* as the current results, office and windows must cooperate *exclusively* with each other, and defect from all other players atr all times. However, once split, office gains from cooperating with redhat, solaris, apple, be, qnx, caldera, and just about everyone else outthere.
Similarly, windows has gains from cooperating with correll, lyx, stardivision, etc.
To get ongoing ms cooperation, it is necessary that the gains to office from cooperating with windows while defecting from everyone else exceed the gains from cooperating with everyone (or everyone but windows if there's an ultimatum from windows), and for the gains to office from cooperating exclusively with windows exceed that from cooperating with everyone.
While the first possibility is remote at best, the second *could* happen if windows maintains a large enough market share, which is why I'm part of the minority that prefer a horizontal split (competing versions of windows). But there's too many lawyers who aren't also economists around for that to happen:) [But if someone wants to pay my hourly, I'll join in:) ]
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Separate colluding companies is *not* worse, but substantially better than just one.
The current cross-behavior makes sense only because the bottom line profits go into the same pocket. Thus it makes sense for windows to take a $30 hit for office to gain $50, and vice versa.
With office and Windows owned separately, it would be necessary for office to *pay* windows at least the $30 to get them to take the hit. There's illegal behavior, and then there's illegal behavior that's easy to spot. This is the latter. It's reall hard to hide payments of 100's of millions between separate companies in these circumstances.
BUt the bottom line is that separate companies are at worst a cartel (they wouldn't be here, due to the different products), and the absolute worst case with a cartel is the monopoly result. However, cartels are unstable, and actual results are better than monopoly.
Until a few years ago, actually. Until they really started screwing up (as in, bad even by Apple's standards), they were consistently in the top 5 when each quarter's sales results were announced. They were usually in the top 3, and sometimes #1.
Apple's unmatched ability to shoot itself in the foot, combined with consolidation in the industry, removed them from this tier. However, they're within shooting distance, but even reaching #1 will make them small enough that they're still a niche . . .
You have teh most important point, that correllation != causation.
And when one thinks about it, we really do expect those who are violent and prone to such behavior to be more interested in such games (and the same goes for rapists and violent pornography).
However, they do have a scrap, at least, in one of the studies. They found that the link is stronger for those who fit an aggressive profile to start with. I'd have to look *very* closely at their definitions before accepting this--as a Ph.D. statistician, psychologists playing with statistics are the second most suspect group (behind sociologists).
However, the match does not have to be exact for them to come up with a valid correllation--even a mild correllation (such as between a general agressive profile) and a different result (stronger correllation) *could* be evidence of causation, but I'd really need a closer look before being certain.
A hyperlinked manual is certainly useful. But I will continue to want paper. I even print long man pages when I need them. The better print quality of a manual is easier on the eyes, and just plain more comfortable to hold. It's also easier to browse; you just can't "flip thorugh" a computer screen.
Digital displays won't make serious inroads into printed products until DPI reaches *at least* 300, and there will be a serious demand for paper just on visual quality alone until at least 600dpi. ANd even then, there will be a market for paper.
hawk, who will give up printed manuals when you pry them from his cold dead fingers
Re:Shouldn't we consider this a "good" thing?
on
Athlons Sold Out
·
· Score: 3
>If they are unable to keep up with demand then they are having >production problems. Take some business classes before you go spouting off.
You might want to take your own advice . ..
You plan your business and your capacity based on your resources and what you think you can sell.
Finding that demand is higher than your most optimistic scenario is *not* a problem--it also means that price is higher, and you are more profitable than your best-case estimate.
Yes, an even larger capacity than you have would be nice, but a better market than you dreamed of is not a problem.
But then again, I ran a succesful business before becoming a professor of economics. . ..
>The next generation after the 4.77 MHz 8088 was the 8 MHz model, nearly as >50% increase.
Excuse me? This is utter nonsense. At release, the 8086 was available as an 8mhz part, including the 8-bit bus version, the 8088. IBM chose to run it at 4.77, which was slower than the rated speed for the version they were using (6mhz? It's been a while . ..
Furthermore, arpa wasn't the only game in town. Federal funding certainly let it grow into what is now the internet, but the seeds had also been planted elswehere. Had it not been for federal funding, fidonet (or possibly something else) could have grown into what we now know as the internet.
It was going to happen; the question is merely when and from what roots.
Hmm, and I'd bet spam would be significantly less of an issue had it grown from fidonet, but that's a completely different issue . . .
And let us not forget microsoft, who put the . in.borg . ..
:()
[I hope this doesn't appear twice; it looked like the message that flashed as I was killing the box said somehtin like slashdot requrires 70 seconds between comments . ..]
Then again, I still have a stash of the pre-cube single little blue bulbs, a handful of flashcubes (not magicubes; they needed a battery), and even some #5 bulbs (or are mine 25s? I forget)--the ones nearly the size of a golfball.
And I have the cameras to go with them. What I *don't* have is the 120 and 620 film (but you can still get at least the 120) that the cameras take . . . ooh, and one that takes 127 . . .
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a minute. It's not because of Britain's imperialism.
It's because
a) The navy (and army) backing british imperialsim was better than its competitors
b) Britain left the Common Law all over the place in its wake, and the Common Law is more suited to the emergence of commerce than the alternatives.
hawk, esq.
> Hm, I'm a French Canadian . . .
Uh, oh. Now you're in trouble. You posted this in only one language.
THe language police are coming to get you.
\sing_song_voice{You're going to language jail; you're going to language jail}
:)
don't worry; we'll start the legal defense fund right awy . . .
>So-called "dialects" of English are unintelligible to other English speakers.s
.
.
Boy, that's a tough standard . .
My weak spanish (and the fragments of ecclesiastical latin that a Catholic picks up) are enough that I can usaually follow at least the general gist of Italian and Portugese. This would mean that Italian and Spanish aren't separate dialects . . . or am I not reading this right? And I'm not going to touch whether Portugese and Castillian (the primary [but not exclusive; there's also Catalan and maybe more] Spanish in Spain) are dialects of the same language or separate languages . .
hawk
Chinese is *not* #1 by the number of speakers, although it is #1 by the number of native speakers.
When you count second and third languages, english is #1 by head count
Are you trolling, or are you really that misinformed.
.
Felons can most certainly own property, including real property. A blanket prohibition on property would include money . .
They can also own real property; as an attorney, I have met several (including in california) who do.
Disney didn't own Disneyland becuase it was owned by the Disney Corporation, not because of any criminal history (I have no idea whether or not he was courtmartialed.)
hawk, esq.
Guess again. We had multiple phones which we owned long before that.
The fiber optics networks were well on their way, too. The breakup certainly leveled the playing field for the long distance competitors, but it was neither necessary to their existence, nor did it precede them.
And unless you get your internet history from Al Gore, the internet preceded the breakup by a very long time.
> So instead of having just one dirty handed, predatory, monopolizing
:).
> business, we're going to have two! What a great solution!
That's (at least) three companies too few. I'm in the minority here, but I also have a lot more backround on both the legal and economic end of it than most of those getting paid to talk about it (so someone hire me
Splitting into two companies is only a start. It is part of the solution, because the os and office monopolies are both taking losses to benefit each other--to the detriment of the consumer. Better information on API's than the competitors, for example. The windows monopoly would have *no* incentive to give this information to the office folks and not to competitors of office after a breakup.
Putting office by itself, separated from windows, solves part of the problem (particularly, the preferential treatment and the leveraging of the OS monopoly to create the office monopoly).
However, it *doesn't* solve the windows monopoly. It takes away some of the things ms has abused to create the monopoly, but not all of them. Windows should be split into at least three pieces, either formed from microsoft, or by auction of source code rights to other parties. This creates three different entities that can sell windows.
That's four companies, and I'd put the miscellaneous (hardware, msn, etc.)
into another company.
> The feds are going about this entirely the wrong way, they're thinking
>that software is somehow like oil, when infact it isn't anything like it.
>The product has different properties which make breaking up the company
>ineffective.
>1. It costs virtually nothing to copy data
This makes some changes in the economics, but doesn't change the
fundamental result. Monopolies overcharge whether they have a
marginal cost or not. Consumers are harmed by this monopoly either
way. No marginal cost is just the extreme form of the situation which
creates monopolies in the first place.
> 2. Source between these two companies can be shared in such a way that
>they can basically keep operating as one company
No, your economics is *completely* off base here. Aside from the fact
that that would be illegal, they would be sued by the *shareholders*
of each of the companies. As a single company, it makes sense for
the os division to give up $20 to make $50 in the office division.
As separate companies, it would not.
> 3. The two companies would have different products (OS / Everything
>Else) and therefore don't have to compete against eachother unlike the
>oil and phone company breakups!
Competing against each other has nothing to do with this. The problem
is that the monopolies are used to prevent *other* companies from
competing, which increases price and decreases quality. There is *no*
need for the units to compete against each other (unless we make multiple
versions of windows).
> It's just a bad decision, I've said it from the start, and I'll say it
You can say it as often as you want, but it would require a fundamental
change in antitrust law to reach another decision. Argue for the
change if you want, but arging that this decision is wrong is to
simply ignore the facts and law. ANd for the record, consumers
would be worse off under the change, while monopolists would be
better off.
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer; this isn't legal advice. See an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.
:) Remember, Stone is the one who claimed to be entitled to "artistic license" *in a documentary* when he was called on his fabrications . . . (specifically, _Born on the Fourth of July)_)
>Interesting theory, except how do you explain Microsoft Office for the
>Macintosh?
He wrote, "Oliver Stone voice." That means there's no need to be consistent, or pay any attention to the facts
>Everyone seems to forget about that one.
Noone has forgotten that, not even Judge Jackson. The Findings of Fact were quite clear about the use of the mac version to maintain windows dominance. Microsoft threatened not to ship the *completed* next version of Office as a means of leveraging Apple to make IE the "default" browser for Mac. This was to undercut Netscape, thereby lessening the general threat of Netscape applications.
hawk, esq.
Those are all inappropriate to the crime. Instead, they :)
should be subjected to the blue screen of death
This wasn't a forfeiture action; thus they can't be deprived of the underlying property (the programs). In fact, it would be tough to make a forfeiture type case out of this--you'd really have to claim that microsoft was a criminal enterprise, rather than just making criminally crummy software :)
I don't know if I'd go as far as calling it a claim; it seems to me to be a smaller step than that.
.
.)
I'm just saying that someone who is already likely to blow real people away probably has yet one more reason to play games where he pretends to do so . .
Nothing in there suggests a causal relation *from* the game to a real shooting.
However, diverting them in this way makes esnese (but so does handing out 9mm ammunition to street gangs, figuring that by killing more of them this way, you save more lives than you lose in innocent bystanders during the fihte . .
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
.
One more time. Everyone take a deep breath. Now repeat after me:
"Open sourcing windows and office is not an option."
OK, now say it again three times slowly.
The court lacks the power to do this. It would be a taking of private property, banned by the Bill of Rights. The *only* way for the court to release the code without microsoft's agreement is for someone to pay the fair market value. I'm reasonably certain that that court does not have tens of billions of dollars in discretionaryfunds, so it would have to go to congress. And Congress is unlikely to allocate that many billion dollars to pay to a monopolist . .
hawk, esq.
Recall that one of the things leading to the break between the U.S. and England was when the crown started paying the salaries of the royal governors.
He who payeth the fiddler, calleth the tune
Even if there is a lump payment from MS to the govt for the supervision costs, the supervision still must be done. IT's intrusive, and will hinder innovation and product--MS would be stuck playing "MOther May I?" every time it wanted to make a change.
> As a separate company, it would be impossible for the OS company to
> tell OEMs that they had to install apps from the MS-apps company and
> *not* from any other company.
Not only that, but they'd have no *reason* to make such a demand . . .
In this case, fascdot is right about the game theory outcome. If you write the thing out as a game, the rational outcomes all involve defection between former branches of micrsoft.
It's not a two player repeated game, where there are various ways to get cooperation.
To get results *as bad* as the current results, office and windows must cooperate *exclusively* with each other, and defect from all other players atr all times. However, once split, office gains from cooperating with redhat, solaris, apple, be, qnx, caldera, and just about everyone else outthere.
Similarly, windows has gains from cooperating with correll, lyx, stardivision, etc.
To get ongoing ms cooperation, it is necessary that the gains to office from cooperating with windows while defecting from everyone else exceed the gains from cooperating with everyone (or everyone but windows if there's an ultimatum from windows), and for the gains to office from cooperating exclusively with windows exceed that from cooperating with everyone.
While the first possibility is remote at best, the second *could* happen if windows maintains a large enough market share, which is why I'm part of the minority that prefer a horizontal split (competing versions of windows). But there's too many lawyers who aren't also economists around for that to happen
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Separate colluding companies is *not* worse, but substantially better than just one.
The current cross-behavior makes sense only because the bottom line profits go into the same pocket. Thus it makes sense for windows to take a $30 hit for office to gain $50, and vice versa.
With office and Windows owned separately, it would be necessary for office to *pay* windows at least the $30 to get them to take the hit. There's illegal behavior, and then there's illegal behavior that's easy to spot. This is the latter. It's reall hard to hide payments of 100's of millions between separate companies in these circumstances.
BUt the bottom line is that separate companies are at worst a cartel (they wouldn't be here, due to the different products), and the absolute worst case with a cartel is the monopoly result. However, cartels are unstable, and actual results are better than monopoly.
hawk
Until a few years ago, actually. Until they really started screwing up (as in, bad even by Apple's standards), they were consistently in the top 5 when each quarter's sales results were announced. They were usually in the top 3, and sometimes #1.
Apple's unmatched ability to shoot itself in the foot, combined with consolidation in the industry, removed them from this tier. However, they're within shooting distance, but even reaching #1 will make them small enough that they're still a niche . . .
You have teh most important point, that correllation != causation.
And when one thinks about it, we really do expect those who are violent and prone to such behavior to be more interested in such games (and the same goes for rapists and violent pornography).
However, they do have a scrap, at least, in one of the studies. They found that the link is stronger for those who fit an aggressive profile to start with. I'd have to look *very* closely at their definitions before accepting this--as a Ph.D. statistician, psychologists playing with statistics are the second most suspect group (behind sociologists).
However, the match does not have to be exact for them to come up with a valid correllation--even a mild correllation (such as between a general agressive profile) and a different result (stronger correllation) *could* be evidence of causation, but I'd really need a closer look before being certain.
hawk
A hyperlinked manual is certainly useful. But I will continue to want paper. I even print long man pages when I need them. The better print quality of a manual is easier on the eyes, and just plain more comfortable to hold. It's also easier to browse; you just can't "flip thorugh" a computer screen.
Digital displays won't make serious inroads into printed products until DPI reaches *at least* 300, and there will be a serious demand for paper just on visual quality alone until at least 600dpi. ANd even then, there will be a market for paper.
hawk, who will give up printed manuals when you pry them from his cold dead fingers
>If they are unable to keep up with demand then they are having
.
.
>production problems. Take some business classes before you go spouting off.
You might want to take your own advice . .
You plan your business and your capacity based on your resources and
what you think you can sell.
Finding that demand is higher than your most optimistic scenario is *not*
a problem--it also means that price is higher, and you are more
profitable than your best-case estimate.
Yes, an even larger capacity than you have would be nice, but a better
market than you dreamed of is not a problem.
But then again, I ran a succesful business before becoming a professor
of economics. . .
hawk, j.d.., ph.d,, esq.
>The next generation after the 4.77 MHz 8088 was the 8 MHz model, nearly as
.
>50% increase.
Excuse me? This is utter nonsense. At release, the 8086 was available as
an 8mhz part, including the 8-bit bus version, the 8088. IBM chose to
run it at 4.77, which was slower than the rated speed for the version
they were using (6mhz? It's been a while . .
hawk
)
Furthermore, arpa wasn't the only game in town. Federal funding certainly let it grow into what is now the internet, but the seeds had also been planted elswehere. Had it not been for federal funding, fidonet (or possibly something else) could have grown into what we now know as the internet.
It was going to happen; the question is merely when and from what roots.
Hmm, and I'd bet spam would be significantly less of an issue had it grown from fidonet, but that's a completely different issue . . .
And let us not forget microsoft, who put the . in .borg . . .
.]
:()
[I hope this doesn't appear twice; it looked like the message that flashed as I was killing the box said somehtin like slashdot requrires 70 seconds between comments . .
ANd all of what, six, that they sold last year?
Then again, I still have a stash of the pre-cube
single little blue bulbs, a handful of flashcubes (not magicubes; they needed a battery),
and even some #5 bulbs (or are mine 25s? I forget)--the ones nearly the size of a golfball.
And I have the cameras to go with them. What I *don't* have is the 120 and 620 film (but you can still get at least the 120) that the cameras take . . . ooh, and one that takes 127 . . .
> He's got a little belt holder to stick it in.z
:)
well, with no sliderule, I suppose he has to hang *something* from his belt.