I think you need to go back and reread the Findings of Facts.
The discussion of over charging is purely speculative in nature in support of the monopoly charge. There is a great deal of suggestion that Microsoft could overcharge if they wanted to. This speculation was part of the proof that Microsoft was a monopoly.
However, Point #65 makes the claim that they could be undercharging in order to maximize sales of Intel machines. He also uses this as evidence that they are a monopoly.
The point being that whether or not Microsoft did charge more than they would have in a competitive market is not addressed. Just that they could have if they wanted to and that was proof they were a monopoly.
I'm afraid you are either highly uninformed about the law(even moreso than myself) or are just overly optimistic. (maybe a bit of both?)
The plaintiffs in this case have a lot to prove in court.
In that case you must add the cost of whichever version of MacOS was on the Mac (MacOS 8) to the cost of Mac OS X.
But how do you arrive at that price considering it's only available as part of a hardware purchase from Apple. Especially given Apple Macintoshes are 30-50% more expensive than equivalent PCs.
#1. With new hardware.
#2. As an upgrade on the retail shelf.
Therefore comparing the full price of WinXP to the upgrade price of Mac OS X is being deceptive. More reasonably you could have used the WinXP Pro license price of $199.
RedHat Linux is an interesting situation because they do not have near the R&D costs of either Apple or Microsoft because they rely upon the free labor of volunteers.
A few years ago I was involved in an accident. Some woman tried to pass me in an intersection while I was making a left turn.
It resulted in $6k damage to my car, and totalled her car worth only about $1k.
I felt she was clearly at fault, and told my insurance agent so. She didn't have insurance and so instead hired a $50 ambulance chaser to send a letter to my insurance company.
Long story short, my insurance company paid her $1500 to settle and not go to court.
The point being it would have cost a lot more than $1500 to take the case to court, so it was worth it.
I'm not certain if the retail prices amount to overcharging, because it is common practice in all industries for a vendor to give OEMs signifigant pricing discounts over what they charge Retail customers.
As far as corporate sales, I don't see someone who has made a choice as being a victim. You need to clarify that argument.
The goal of any business is to get billions in the bank. I don't see how you can make a comparison between Enron and Microsoft. Enron clearly had bad management and was not disclosing all of their liabilities and partnerships appropriately to investors.
Nobody is quite clear on that. The Retail price of Windows is substantially higher thant the OEM price. (i.e. compare $100 to $15) In a sense Microsoft keeps the retail high to actually encourage people to buy new PCs bundled with software. They do this to benefit their OEM partners.
But the case is oddly about OEM sales for the most part. Since the lawyers(not consumers mind you) who have brought these cases wish to make them as all consuming as possible, the OEM market is a better client because it accounts for some 90% of Microsoft sales.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence they bring in the trial. I think they'll have a tough time proving their case, however.
This case has more to do with ambulance chasing lawyers, or in this case law firms with a "sue microsoft" business plan.:)
This was a pre-trial settlement. Microsoft has not been found guilty of the allegations of over charging consumers.
These cases will now go to court.
But it's up to the claimants to prove that in a more competitive market the price would have actually declined. That was the allegation that Judge Jackson made in his court that spawned these lawsuits, but it was more of an assumption of the nature of monoply than really supported by facts.
It's highly unlikely that Microsoft will lose these cases, they simply tried to get a pre-trial settlement because it would have been cheaper than the legal costs of fighting in court, as well as derailing the negative publicity a court case causes.
That is why the proposed settlement cost seemed so low. It was a hedge, not a punishment.
I don't think you fully appreciate the size and scope of the "commercial software" market.
If you are talking software available on the CompUSA shelves, you may be correct.
But if you are talking all software for sale, you need to reverse you numbers as the market is much much larger with far more players than 10-15 years ago.
Then again you could just download the free Word Viewer from Microsoft. Then you wouldn't need to inconvenience yourself or the sender of the document.
Your example really has more to do with your anti-establishment viewpoint than anything else. That's rather the point.
"Oh, and ideology is such a horrible thing. Ideology is what prompted colonists to buck taxation without representation too. I guess you think that's horrible as well. "
It's always so funny to see people with such simple problems trying to compare them to matters of great import.
Word is very all encompassing. Yes, if you embed an Excel spreadsheet into a Word document you will have problems trying to convert that on another platform.
That functionality is not used all that often, however. Most people just use Word to write documents with pretty fonts and layout which can be easily converted.
First, I realize that this article is probably fictional as I doubt RMS actually receives email with Word attachments.
But I don't think he understands his audience. For when RMS tells someone, "You sent the attachment in Microsoft Word format, a secret proprietary format, so it is hard for me to read."
That person is going to say "Well then buy a real computer, you bone head."
Like I said, I was too lazy to enter more info on the paranoid myths, so I'm glad you were able to provide some first hand experience from a linux luser perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
OSX.1 is only available for computers already purchased from Apple Computer.
Since Apple does not allow for clones, and you cannot purchase an Apple computer without an OS...
Every version of MacOS sold is an "upgrade."
I don't understand why this confusion continues to come up. Thinking differently should not mean throwing logic to the wind.
Maybe you should quote one of these oem contracts so you can prove your point.
You can buy a full copy of either Windows XP Home for around $90, or Windows XP Pro for $140.
The only stipulation is it's OEM and you have to buy it with hardware. But since we are discussing building a new computer here, that is not an issue.
I think you need to go back and reread the Findings of Facts.
The discussion of over charging is purely speculative in nature in support of the monopoly charge. There is a great deal of suggestion that Microsoft could overcharge if they wanted to. This speculation was part of the proof that Microsoft was a monopoly.
However, Point #65 makes the claim that they could be undercharging in order to maximize sales of Intel machines. He also uses this as evidence that they are a monopoly.
The point being that whether or not Microsoft did charge more than they would have in a competitive market is not addressed. Just that they could have if they wanted to and that was proof they were a monopoly.
I'm afraid you are either highly uninformed about the law(even moreso than myself) or are just overly optimistic. (maybe a bit of both?)
The plaintiffs in this case have a lot to prove in court.
In that case you must add the cost of whichever version of MacOS was on the Mac (MacOS 8) to the cost of Mac OS X.
But how do you arrive at that price considering it's only available as part of a hardware purchase from Apple. Especially given Apple Macintoshes are 30-50% more expensive than equivalent PCs.
Mac OS X is only available two ways:
#1. With new hardware.
#2. As an upgrade on the retail shelf.
Therefore comparing the full price of WinXP to the upgrade price of Mac OS X is being deceptive. More reasonably you could have used the WinXP Pro license price of $199.
RedHat Linux is an interesting situation because they do not have near the R&D costs of either Apple or Microsoft because they rely upon the free labor of volunteers.
I can't imagine anybody still buys OS/2.
Your statement is a myth.
A few years ago I was involved in an accident. Some woman tried to pass me in an intersection while I was making a left turn.
It resulted in $6k damage to my car, and totalled her car worth only about $1k.
I felt she was clearly at fault, and told my insurance agent so. She didn't have insurance and so instead hired a $50 ambulance chaser to send a letter to my insurance company.
Long story short, my insurance company paid her $1500 to settle and not go to court.
The point being it would have cost a lot more than $1500 to take the case to court, so it was worth it.
I believe you misunderstood.
I'm not certain if the retail prices amount to overcharging, because it is common practice in all industries for a vendor to give OEMs signifigant pricing discounts over what they charge Retail customers.
As far as corporate sales, I don't see someone who has made a choice as being a victim. You need to clarify that argument.
The goal of any business is to get billions in the bank. I don't see how you can make a comparison between Enron and Microsoft. Enron clearly had bad management and was not disclosing all of their liabilities and partnerships appropriately to investors.
Nobody is quite clear on that. The Retail price of Windows is substantially higher thant the OEM price. (i.e. compare $100 to $15) In a sense Microsoft keeps the retail high to actually encourage people to buy new PCs bundled with software. They do this to benefit their OEM partners.
:)
But the case is oddly about OEM sales for the most part. Since the lawyers(not consumers mind you) who have brought these cases wish to make them as all consuming as possible, the OEM market is a better client because it accounts for some 90% of Microsoft sales.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence they bring in the trial. I think they'll have a tough time proving their case, however.
This case has more to do with ambulance chasing lawyers, or in this case law firms with a "sue microsoft" business plan.
I can't believe you seriously misunderstand the court case that badly.
This was a pre-trial settlement. Microsoft has not been found guilty of the allegations of over charging consumers.
These cases will now go to court.
But it's up to the claimants to prove that in a more competitive market the price would have actually declined. That was the allegation that Judge Jackson made in his court that spawned these lawsuits, but it was more of an assumption of the nature of monoply than really supported by facts.
It's highly unlikely that Microsoft will lose these cases, they simply tried to get a pre-trial settlement because it would have been cheaper than the legal costs of fighting in court, as well as derailing the negative publicity a court case causes.
That is why the proposed settlement cost seemed so low. It was a hedge, not a punishment.
I don't think you fully appreciate the size and scope of the "commercial software" market.
If you are talking software available on the CompUSA shelves, you may be correct.
But if you are talking all software for sale, you need to reverse you numbers as the market is much much larger with far more players than 10-15 years ago.
The correct term is 'de facto standard' as was used by the original poster in the subect.
Most things that we take for common in our daily lives are simply that, de facto standards.
Congratulations, you win my Most Clueless Comment of the Day award. Please send an email to collect your shiny penny so you can buy a clue.
v wr 32.aspx
Free Microsoft Word viewer:
http://office.microsoft.com/downloads/2000/wd97
Then again you could just download the free Word Viewer from Microsoft. Then you wouldn't need to inconvenience yourself or the sender of the document.
Your example really has more to do with your anti-establishment viewpoint than anything else. That's rather the point.
"I'm not saying that they're the same, just saying that ideology isn't always a bad thing. "
But by using the analogy, you are saying they are the same.
BTW, I have a dictionary... if you read your quoted definition you'll see quite clearly how applicable it is to your situation.
"Oh, and ideology is such a horrible thing. Ideology is what prompted colonists to buck taxation without representation too. I guess you think that's horrible as well. "
It's always so funny to see people with such simple problems trying to compare them to matters of great import.
That is the very definition of a fanatic.
Word is very all encompassing. Yes, if you embed an Excel spreadsheet into a Word document you will have problems trying to convert that on another platform.
That functionality is not used all that often, however. Most people just use Word to write documents with pretty fonts and layout which can be easily converted.
Did you ever stop and think that your gross exagerrations might be why people don't take you seriously?
First, I realize that this article is probably fictional as I doubt RMS actually receives email with Word attachments.
But I don't think he understands his audience. For when RMS tells someone, "You sent the attachment in Microsoft Word format, a secret proprietary format, so it is hard for me to read."
That person is going to say "Well then buy a real computer, you bone head."
Well obviously you won't be one of them hackers since you apparently have no clue what .Net is.
Hey, thanks for following up!
Like I said, I was too lazy to enter more info on the paranoid myths, so I'm glad you were able to provide some first hand experience from a linux luser perspective.
Let me guess, you always vote for that Cowboy Neal character?
"What kind of Enterprise or large business consults Internet Polls for business decision-making? "
:)
None.
One of the things that identifies the really clueless Linux supporter is that they all believe:
#1. IT departments are run by PHB who only listen to Gartner surveys, ZDNet Polls and sales weasels.
#2. IT departments will only buy a product if they have a vendor they can sue if it don't work.
Oh and a bunch of other myths that I am too lazy to type out. It's always so much fun listening to them justify their paranoia.