Good luck. Did you know that the new Chairman of the Republican Party is a lobbyist for the RIAA? I mean, at the same time he is the Chairman and a paid lobbyist. (Of course, his lobbying fees went up when he got the other job.)
This is a breathtaking new level of corruption - from the party that promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Surpassing even the time that Republican Tom Delay delivered envelopes full of cash from tobacco companies to members of Congress who had just voted for a pro-tobacco bill. he did this on the floor of the House of Representatives just after the vote.
The reason these guys get into office is because this cash buys thousands of campaign commercials telling us how honest they are and how corrupt the Democrats are. Yes, the same Democrats who are trying to make this sort of bribery illegal.
What would happen to Linux application development if major computer makers shipped computers that had Windows AND Linux on them? If developers knew that millions of mainstream people who PAY MONEY FOR STUFF have Linux available on their computers some would take a chance and develop great apps.
If the manufacturers were allowed to do this of course they would! Linux is a low-cost "differentiator." Computer makers all make the same thing - a box with a processor, hard drives, video card, etc... and they sell their brand by saying "you get more from me because..." but of course all you really get is another Wintel box. So if they could also say our computer also comes with Linux they would sell a few more boxes. A few is all it takes. Yes, they would put Linux on the computers. If they could.
However, they can't. Microsoft's illegal monopoly enforces that they can not sell a computer that has Windows and another OS. And even though the courts have said this has to stop, corrupt campaign contributions have allowed them to continue this illegal activity.
Microsoft illegally prevented computer makers from including BeOS on their computers. If any manufacturer had included BeOS there would have been plenty of apps, and of course no issues of drivers because the OS came on the computer, users wouldn't have to learn about partitioning, etc...
Computers are the only product where you do not get a choice. You CAN NOT buy a computer in a store that has anything but Windows and you CAN NOT buy a computer anywhere with Windows and another OS. And you CAN NOT buy a Windows computer with anything other than MS apps installed.
How dare MS actually allow a competing company to go out of business?
The CAUSED them to go out of business by ILLEGALLY PREVENTING computer manufacturers from shipping computers with BeOS on them. It happened. The compter manufacturers were told that they would pay more for or lkose their Windows licenses if they did this. That's why there is a whole section of the "settlement" about how they cannot do this any more.
I'm sorry to say this, but if you can't figure out how to acquire a computer without Windows on it, all it takes is a trip to your local library or to your local geek teenager's house to learn how to build a computer.
You have proven my point. The average consumer has no way to obtain a computer that has Windows and another OS on it. Only extremely tech-savvy geeks with access to the parts.
This is why Windows is now the largest single cost of a computer, and why MS Office is one of the larger expenses that a business faces.
It is the result of ILLEGAL activities, and Microsoft should compensate the businesses they destroyed or coerced, and the public.
I actually agree with a lot of what you said, but I suspect you have not had a lot of exposure at the top level of corporations if you think you would rather have them making decisions that affect your life. The problem we agree on here is that they have taken control of much of our government. The answer certainly is not to give them MORE control.
At least we still have the possibility of people controlling the decision proccess here. We have some semblance of it remaining.
"Those in government don't act in your best interests or mine, but rather in their own."
Not always. In the 30's laws were passed allowing unions to organize, for example, and this led to the development of a geat middle class that simply did not exist before that. And THAT led to the amazing growth in wealth and prosperity we all have experienced since then. Just a small example of government acting in the people's interest sometimes.
"That said, I am by no means interested in an authoritarian government. As I said, I want less government, not more."
Nice slogan. However "less government" in reality means more coprorate control of the decisions that affect your life. It's one or the other. Public control and accountability or serfdom. In theory what you say sounds nice, but what HAPPENS is public control and accountability or serfdom.
"I'd like to see you back your claim that the Nazi government came about for the purpose of maximizing corporate profit. I suppose you're going to tell me that Pol Pot was acting in the interests of corporate power as well, and that Stalin's massacres of his own people were done for financial gain."
Just study some history about what fascism means. Maybe even a dictionary. Stalin and Pol Pot have little to do with representative government. In fact, we have representative government here to PREVENT that sort of thing.
Your message illustrates why right-wingers are called "kooks."
Yes, I prefer authoritarian decision making, made by a few rich people, with effects which are limited to producing bad product and selling at a high price (corporations) to authoritarian decision making, made by a few rich people, with effects that result in wars, jail sentences and unjust laws (government).
Aside from the anti-American nature of this kind of remark you misrepresent the harm that the corruption of corporate power can do to people. You pretend to have studied history. But if you studied history you would know that fascism came about BECAUSE of corporations, not from the will of the people. The Nazis didn't even pretend to represent the people. The philosophy was one of authoritarian control for the profit of the comapnies. Which is what you are asking for here.
America is about the PEOPLE making decisions. Maybe you should be living somewhere with the authoritarianism you crave?
But I simply don't believe that Microsoft is unbeatable.
Of course they would be beatable, just like any other company. But not only does no one beat them, but no one can even get investment capital to enter any market they are in. Why do you think that is? because they're really, really good?.
Sure they can be beaten if there was a level playing field. That's why they use illegal monopoly leverage. Why do you THINK you cannot buy a computer with Windows and another operating system? Why can't you buy a Windows computer with another company's applications on it? Why won't any computer manufacturers even talk to the Justice Dept. about Microsoft? Why do you think that is?
"Cheaters may prosper for a while, but they always die sooner or later -- and while corrupt governments may also die, they take longer and cause more pain in doing so than similarly abusive commercial concerns."
And you know this is true because.... ???
"Thus, I will take a weak government and abusive companies over weak companies and an abusive government any day of the weak. Surely this is reasonable."
So you're saying you prefer authoritarian decision making, made by a few rich people, over decisions made by the people about their own future.
"The part many people refuse to see is that any government, given too much power, becomes abusive towards someone -- a concept better codified simply as "power corrupts".
So CORPORATE power, without any public oversight and none of the checks and balances we have built into our government, is something you find preferable, and LESS corrupting? I think you need to go back and think this over a little longer, Bush-man.
You libertarians actually think that in this whole world there isn't SOMEONE who can come up with products to compete with Microsoft? That this is the ONLY INDUSTRY in the whole world in which natural rules of competition seem to have just by some coincidence gone away?
Do you know HOWMS Word became the dominant word processor?
When Win 3.1 was released the ONLY company that knew the APIs as Microsoft. Word Perfect couldn't get their product working. That is how Word took over from Word Perfect, and Excel took over from Lotus 123.
Is that the "free market"? Or is that an ILLEGAL MONOPOLY excercising monopoly power to crush competition?
What really strikes me about the libertarians and Republicans is that they didn't have these philosophical arguments about the government picking on poor little Microsoft until Microsoft started spreading the influence cash around.
You wrote, "What I'd like best is if somebody could come up with something better than what Microsoft is pushing this week."
The POINT is that people who DID come up with something better were ILLEGALLY PREVENTED from selling it to computer manufacturers. What about that? Where does that fit into libertarian nonsense theory?
What other LAWS do you decide shouldn't be enforced? It's YOU, of course, that gets to decide this, right?
I just can't stand libertarians and their 5-year-old "MINE, MINE" arguments.
How does this settlement help Be's stockholders? Microsoft was FOUND GUILTY of ILLEGALLY controlling the market - resulting in Be going out of business and Microsoft having, is it $26 or $36, BILLION in the bank.
And the BIGGEST COST of some computers now is the cost of Windows. What about some penalty to be used to compensate all of us who have paid so much money to Microsoft because of this ILLEGAL monopoly?
And they used this ILLEGAL monopoly to force us all into using their desktop applications, which now cost about FOUR TIMES what the would cost if there was competition.
What about compensating everyone who has had to fork over extra cash to pay for their products?
And what about the companies that had competing products? What about compensating them?
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft has control of the industry primarily because people *buy* their products. and Give me a quantifiable set of criterion for a company to hold a monopoly and let me see if they fit the requirement.
You can not purchase a PC that has Windows and another operating system installed. You can not purchase a PC that has non-Microsoft productivity software installed. It can't be done. How's that for "quantifiable set of criterion for a company to hold a monopoly"?
The market cannot test whether consumers would CHOOSE to buy their products because they have used their monopoly position to PREVENT computer manufacturers from offering any other than their products. That is right, computer manuacturers ARE NOT ALLOWED to install software that competes with Microsoft.
Ralph Nader has long campaigned for the government to have monopoly control on all economic activity
This is just lying right-wing ideological crap. He has said that the public (government) has a right to limit the actions of corporations when those actions might harm the interests of the public.
The point of the Microsoft suit was to bring back competition. Innovation was stifled because no one could get investment $$ if they were in a market Microsoft was even thinking about entering.
So what is the effect on investment capital of the settlement?
The proof is in the pudding. Is Red hat stock up? Is Palm or Be stock up - or is anyone coming in with a bid that beats Palm's paltry $11 million? Is there venture capital available for companies to compete with productivity apps or streaming audio?
Re:Gobe's liscensing terms actually get it
on
Looking At Gobe
·
· Score: 1
When things are really low priced it's a pretty good sign that they might be crap or won't be in business long beause they are desparate. How can they pay programmers when they sell something for $45?
Re:Interesting Idea - Hard To Sell
on
Looking At Gobe
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I noticed on the website that you can pre-order Gobe Productive for only $39.95.
Re:Personally...
on
Looking At Gobe
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That seems to me to be conceding the don't-want-to-pay market
Ah yes, the valuable "dont-want-to-pay market." They are, of course, the real prize market that most companies shoot for.
Gobe's price is a THIRD of the Office UPGRADE price!
It is obvious that Microsoft paid off politicians. The Bush administration has proven over and over again to be little more than a clearinghouse for corporate criminals - give Bush enough cash and out pops a (huge) tax break, or a pesky environmental regulation is disposed of...
It's like the government is about who has the money. It isn't about US anymore. Like this war - we say,"How can we help?" They respond, "Shut up and buy stuff, this country isn't about YOU anymore."
What about our love of Saudi Arabia, and their oil?
Israel - right wing and racist as it has become - is the ONLY democracy in the area. That makes them the good guys.
The Arab dictatorships are blatantly anti-semetic, and are spreading Islamism. They hold us through payments to our politicians, through the oil companies. Hell, our President and Vice President are oil company executives! The Bush family is almost entirely finded by the Arab dictators!
So Israel is our friend there, they are the democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a breathtaking new level of corruption - from the party that promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Surpassing even the time that Republican Tom Delay delivered envelopes full of cash from tobacco companies to members of Congress who had just voted for a pro-tobacco bill. he did this on the floor of the House of Representatives just after the vote.
The reason these guys get into office is because this cash buys thousands of campaign commercials telling us how honest they are and how corrupt the Democrats are. Yes, the same Democrats who are trying to make this sort of bribery illegal.
If the manufacturers were allowed to do this of course they would! Linux is a low-cost "differentiator." Computer makers all make the same thing - a box with a processor, hard drives, video card, etc... and they sell their brand by saying "you get more from me because..." but of course all you really get is another Wintel box. So if they could also say our computer also comes with Linux they would sell a few more boxes. A few is all it takes. Yes, they would put Linux on the computers. If they could.
However, they can't. Microsoft's illegal monopoly enforces that they can not sell a computer that has Windows and another OS. And even though the courts have said this has to stop, corrupt campaign contributions have allowed them to continue this illegal activity.
Microsoft illegally prevented computer makers from including BeOS on their computers. If any manufacturer had included BeOS there would have been plenty of apps, and of course no issues of drivers because the OS came on the computer, users wouldn't have to learn about partitioning, etc...
Computers are the only product where you do not get a choice. You CAN NOT buy a computer in a store that has anything but Windows and you CAN NOT buy a computer anywhere with Windows and another OS. And you CAN NOT buy a Windows computer with anything other than MS apps installed.
Name another industry where you have no choices.
How dare MS actually allow a competing company to go out of business?
The CAUSED them to go out of business by ILLEGALLY PREVENTING computer manufacturers from shipping computers with BeOS on them. It happened. The compter manufacturers were told that they would pay more for or lkose their Windows licenses if they did this. That's why there is a whole section of the "settlement" about how they cannot do this any more.
I'm sorry to say this, but if you can't figure out how to acquire a computer without Windows on it, all it takes is a trip to your local library or to your local geek teenager's house to learn how to build a computer.
You have proven my point. The average consumer has no way to obtain a computer that has Windows and another OS on it. Only extremely tech-savvy geeks with access to the parts.
This is why Windows is now the largest single cost of a computer, and why MS Office is one of the larger expenses that a business faces.
It is the result of ILLEGAL activities, and Microsoft should compensate the businesses they destroyed or coerced, and the public.
At least we still have the possibility of people controlling the decision proccess here. We have some semblance of it remaining.
"Those in government don't act in your best interests or mine, but rather in their own."
Not always. In the 30's laws were passed allowing unions to organize, for example, and this led to the development of a geat middle class that simply did not exist before that. And THAT led to the amazing growth in wealth and prosperity we all have experienced since then. Just a small example of government acting in the people's interest sometimes.
"That said, I am by no means interested in an authoritarian government. As I said, I want less government, not more."
Nice slogan. However "less government" in reality means more coprorate control of the decisions that affect your life. It's one or the other. Public control and accountability or serfdom. In theory what you say sounds nice, but what HAPPENS is public control and accountability or serfdom.
"I'd like to see you back your claim that the Nazi government came about for the purpose of maximizing corporate profit. I suppose you're going to tell me that Pol Pot was acting in the interests of corporate power as well, and that Stalin's massacres of his own people were done for financial gain."
Just study some history about what fascism means. Maybe even a dictionary. Stalin and Pol Pot have little to do with representative government. In fact, we have representative government here to PREVENT that sort of thing.
Yes, I prefer authoritarian decision making, made by a few rich people, with effects which are limited to producing bad product and selling at a high price (corporations) to authoritarian decision making, made by a few rich people, with effects that result in wars, jail sentences and unjust laws (government).
Aside from the anti-American nature of this kind of remark you misrepresent the harm that the corruption of corporate power can do to people. You pretend to have studied history. But if you studied history you would know that fascism came about BECAUSE of corporations, not from the will of the people. The Nazis didn't even pretend to represent the people. The philosophy was one of authoritarian control for the profit of the comapnies. Which is what you are asking for here.
America is about the PEOPLE making decisions. Maybe you should be living somewhere with the authoritarianism you crave?
Of course they would be beatable, just like any other company. But not only does no one beat them, but no one can even get investment capital to enter any market they are in. Why do you think that is? because they're really, really good?.
Sure they can be beaten if there was a level playing field. That's why they use illegal monopoly leverage. Why do you THINK you cannot buy a computer with Windows and another operating system? Why can't you buy a Windows computer with another company's applications on it? Why won't any computer manufacturers even talk to the Justice Dept. about Microsoft? Why do you think that is?
You're saying it is OK to break the law UNLESS YOU GET CAUGHT. And until then you shoul ddo whatever you want.
That it doesn't matter if you are unethical, etc... UNTIL after a judge says stop.
Microsoft doesn't win on the merits of their products.
And you know this is true because
"Thus, I will take a weak government and abusive companies over weak companies and an abusive government any day of the weak. Surely this is reasonable."
So you're saying you prefer authoritarian decision making, made by a few rich people, over decisions made by the people about their own future.
"The part many people refuse to see is that any government, given too much power, becomes abusive towards someone -- a concept better codified simply as "power corrupts".
So CORPORATE power, without any public oversight and none of the checks and balances we have built into our government, is something you find preferable, and LESS corrupting? I think you need to go back and think this over a little longer, Bush-man.
Do you know HOWMS Word became the dominant word processor?
When Win 3.1 was released the ONLY company that knew the APIs as Microsoft. Word Perfect couldn't get their product working. That is how Word took over from Word Perfect, and Excel took over from Lotus 123.
Is that the "free market"? Or is that an ILLEGAL MONOPOLY excercising monopoly power to crush competition?
What really strikes me about the libertarians and Republicans is that they didn't have these philosophical arguments about the government picking on poor little Microsoft until Microsoft started spreading the influence cash around.
The POINT is that people who DID come up with something better were ILLEGALLY PREVENTED from selling it to computer manufacturers. What about that? Where does that fit into libertarian nonsense theory?
What other LAWS do you decide shouldn't be enforced? It's YOU, of course, that gets to decide this, right?
I just can't stand libertarians and their 5-year-old "MINE, MINE" arguments.
How does this settlement help Be's stockholders? Microsoft was FOUND GUILTY of ILLEGALLY controlling the market - resulting in Be going out of business and Microsoft having, is it $26 or $36, BILLION in the bank.
And the BIGGEST COST of some computers now is the cost of Windows. What about some penalty to be used to compensate all of us who have paid so much money to Microsoft because of this ILLEGAL monopoly?
And they used this ILLEGAL monopoly to force us all into using their desktop applications, which now cost about FOUR TIMES what the would cost if there was competition.
What about compensating everyone who has had to fork over extra cash to pay for their products?
And what about the companies that had competing products? What about compensating them?
The whole thing was ABOUT how Microsoft has stifled innovation in the computer industry, bonehead.
Wouldn't it be nice if people knew what they were talking about instead of just repeating what they hear on right-wing radio?
Actually you have pretty closely described the law as it is. Lawyers are fined if they bring frivolous lawsuits. The McDonald's suit had merit.
You can not purchase a PC that has Windows and another operating system installed. You can not purchase a PC that has non-Microsoft productivity software installed. It can't be done. How's that for "quantifiable set of criterion for a company to hold a monopoly"?
The market cannot test whether consumers would CHOOSE to buy their products because they have used their monopoly position to PREVENT computer manufacturers from offering any other than their products. That is right, computer manuacturers ARE NOT ALLOWED to install software that competes with Microsoft.
It strikes me how much we all seem to be recognizing that the courts now operate based on their political leanings instead of the foundation of law.
This is just lying right-wing ideological crap. He has said that the public (government) has a right to limit the actions of corporations when those actions might harm the interests of the public.
The point of the Microsoft suit was to bring back competition. Innovation was stifled because no one could get investment $$ if they were in a market Microsoft was even thinking about entering.
So what is the effect on investment capital of the settlement?
The proof is in the pudding. Is Red hat stock up? Is Palm or Be stock up - or is anyone coming in with a bid that beats Palm's paltry $11 million? Is there venture capital available for companies to compete with productivity apps or streaming audio?
When things are really low priced it's a pretty good sign that they might be crap or won't be in business long beause they are desparate. How can they pay programmers when they sell something for $45?
I noticed on the website that you can pre-order Gobe Productive for only $39.95.
Ah yes, the valuable "dont-want-to-pay market." They are, of course, the real prize market that most companies shoot for.
Gobe's price is a THIRD of the Office UPGRADE price!
This settlement undermines respect for the law.
,"How can we help?" They respond, "Shut up and buy stuff, this country isn't about YOU anymore."
It is obvious that Microsoft paid off politicians. The Bush administration has proven over and over again to be little more than a clearinghouse for corporate criminals - give Bush enough cash and out pops a (huge) tax break, or a pesky environmental regulation is disposed of...
It's like the government is about who has the money. It isn't about US anymore. Like this war - we say
What about our love of Saudi Arabia, and their oil?
Israel - right wing and racist as it has become - is the ONLY democracy in the area. That makes them the good guys.
The Arab dictatorships are blatantly anti-semetic, and are spreading Islamism. They hold us through payments to our politicians, through the oil companies. Hell, our President and Vice President are oil company executives! The Bush family is almost entirely finded by the Arab dictators!
So Israel is our friend there, they are the democracy.
This is crap. Macs cost 3 times what comparable PCs cost.