Yes, I am an Objectivist, or at least a student thereof. Objectivism does NOT make the assumption that businesses will act honorably. I don't know where you learned your Objectivism, but I've never heard of that. In fact, Objectivism anticipates the fact that some people are jerks who try and use force and fraud, lie, cheat (a very subjective term that is not only undefinable, but would be very hard to prove in court) and steal their way to the top, which is the ONLY time that the government should step in. If Microsoft were guilty of lying, stealing, fraud, or force, then the government would have a REAL case. Unfortunately, the government has to concentrate on cheating, because everyone knows you can't build a multi BILLION dollar corporation without cheating, right? Or can you? And, as mentioned before, the case for cheating is undefinable, the government is REACHING. They're hoping to make the case for Microsoft so expensive, plus with the subjective attitudes of the courts (not to mention the already mentioned "MultiBillion dollar industries have to be invented by fraud" mentality) that Microsoft will deal (and, unfortunately, they are). That's the government's ONLY goal. If Microsoft has to settle, then in the public's mind they are guilty. Of what? Who cares, they're guilty of SOMETHING, otherwise they wouldn't be settliing out of court. Microsoft has LIED to federal prosecutors, but I question the fact that they should even be prosecuted. It's analogous to the whole bill-monica thing. I don't care that he screwed some intern. That's between him and her and really is none of my business. I DO care that he accepts funding from a nation that relies upon SLAVE labor to supply your dollar stores everywhere with cheap, plastic goods. Bill lied under oath about sex. He never should have been asked that question, it's not anyone's business.
I have read The Fountainhead and find it extremely good. It becomes a chore to read at times, but it's better than 99.9% of the crap that passes off as "modern literature" today. The whole "anti-hero" worship of today's crap just gives me the heebie-jeebies. Gates & Co may very well be the competitors to Roark in analogy, but I've not seen them running to the government for special favors. Then again, I've not seen anyone who could compare to a Roark. I can see the point, though. Where Roark was all about innovation and changing the way things were done, using new tools to their fullest capacity, Microsoft is about.. well, probably not that. However, Microsoft HAS opened the doors for millions of people to new tools and technology (the world wide web and e-commerce, while the backends are in LINUX, the primary consumers are still on Windows 95). This is wonderful. Ever find it ironic that most people first hear of Linux via the WWW, on Internet Explorer in Windows 95? If you think that no business can operate without lying and stealing, then you become part of the problem. I wonder if Be steals and lies. What about Linus Torvalds? Have a great day!
Whoops! That was my mistake. That whole comment was misleading. You SHOULDN'T be forced to provide your employees with breaks & vacations, etc, however the law says otherwise.. I would like to point out that it is to a company's BENEFIT to do so, as it improves employee performance, morale, etc. There are various studies to confirm this, feel free to check out your local business college library (I'm sure Amazon.com has a nice selection as well).
In the second paragraph, your example is an example of outright fraud, which we already have laws for. And, if you haven't noticed, contracts are BINDING agreements (this is how Microsoft gets its leverage, as well), and violation of a contract is a usage of force. It is (and should be) illegal to initiate the use of force and fraud against the consumer. Microsoft does not FORCE anyone to do anything. Microsoft makes stipulations and conditions upon resellers of its products that the vendor is free to accept or reject. If the vendor perceives a competitive advantage by accepting the Microsoft terms and conditions, then so be it. Microsoft owns its software, plain and simple (I know I'm beating the dead horse here but for some reason this is so complicated for some people). Get over it.
And for the last point, it is currently illegal to discriminate against persons in a business (however vague it may be.. I wonder if I could sue Audi of America for discriminating against poor people by not offering their S4 Quattro at a price range (say, $20) that I could afford). I would like to see this law changed and remove AA/EOE from the books as "law." It is immoral to replace "volunteer" racism with a legislated racism. Racism ends through education, which is now controlled by little multiculturalist freaks who think race is THE defining characteristic of a person. Notice that I don't try and reduce an argument down to "you must be naive." That's not an argument. Give me points, valid arguments that are well thought out, or point out mistakes in my thinking and I will give it my best shot. If you can provide solid facts, or really good logical thinking that prove something otherwise, then I have no problem changing my position. It's called life. However, the arguments against Microsoft are shallow, at best, and most people are not concerned with what's REALLY at stake: the computer industry (which includes the internet, linux, operating systems, games, etc) has been relatively unregulated (as compared to other industries) and consequently is one of the fastest growing and most prosperous fields in the HISTORY OF MAN. I would assert that the fact that it is so "free" that makes it so prosperous, with a few big players, and THOUSANDS of small players who more than equal Microsoft. If you let the government crack down on Microsoft, who is next? Who becomes the next Microsoft to be batted down? Don't think it will happen to YOUR software? Think again, sir. It's bad enough that the tobacco industry backed down and chickened out, but it really comes home when they start mucking around in MY industry. Wake up and smell the Starbucks.
Okay, can you imagine the public backlash against Microsoft for doing such a thing? "Poor college student forbidden to use Microsoft by Bill Gates, list of victims grows." How many businesses do you think will remain on a platform that uses this kind of power? At the drop of a hat, they can be forbidden to use the software, do you think an IS manager will want to take this kind of risk? Heck, it could be the best thing for Linux and other OS's is for Bill Gates to DO something like this. The market rules and without consumers, you have no market.
Union Pacific, for starters. The first transcontinental railroads were generally heavily subsidized in the form of land grants. You say a railroad can not exist without government subsidy? Wrong. Ever heard of the B&O? That was privately funded. Ever heard of James J. Hill? He built the first transcontinental railroad WITHOUT government subsidies (I think it is better said that he built it IN SPITE of the government). And there are literally hundreds more like them. It was the "unfair" advantage that the government subsidies gave some companies that caused alot of the privately funded railroads to end up folding. Other reasons for folding was the maddening rush to expand into markets that didn't exist.
What about modern day railroads? Yes, it is true that they are now mostly government supported. Why? Because railroads cannot compete anymore against the "FREE" roads that the trucking companies use. It simply is not cost effective. Again, another market ruined by "government intervention." It may turn out that even had the government NOT built the public highway system that enterprising private industry would have, and the same fate would face the railroads. We'll never know.
The facts are: in a free market, companies are free to succeed. Companies are also free to fail. It happens.
If left to its own means, Microsoft could blunder (ala IBM) and fail miserably, but does this mean that we'd all be willing to buy MS products, just so Linux or whatever OS becomes dominant, will have some competition? A Linux "monopoly" is still a monopoly. The facts still remain: a monopoly will not exist unless a goverment mule is there to pull it and enforce it. Someone will always find a way to compete and God Bless America (metaphorically speaking) for the freedom for him to find that way.
>>Lets say the railroad decides to go into the grain business. If its competitors have strange problems transporting grain, the railroad has an unfair advantage and can drive its competitors out.
What do you think the grain producers think about this? All a grain producer wants is RELIABLE transportation of his product to the market. If a "strange" problem occurs to a company and is unable to ship a grain producer's grain, all the grain producer wants to hear is "I will ship your grain" and have it shipped. he doesn't care HOW you ship it, that's your problem. And if you are unable to do it to the satisfaction of the grain producer, but Company #2 does, who do you think is going to get the business? This isn't an "unfair" advantage. The other company had EVERY opportunity to exploit this market. Like IBM, it didn't. So, should you handcuff the railroad who can successfully move the product in the name of fairness? Should you force the grain producers to use the other railroad who can't move the grain, causing the grain producer to go out of business because his grain doesn't make it to market? Should you force people to install and utilize an alternative OS and hire a massive OS police to go around checking computers for compliance? Legislation breeds control.
>>Microsoft does not (quite) have a monopoly on Operating Systems or on applications. Microsoft does have a monopoly on the average consumer "Experience". When Microsoft leans on a pc manufacturer who distributes Corel Office Suite, it is over the line of acceptable practice.
I'm not sure what average consumer "Experience" is. It sounds vague. My average experience is that I started my computer "career" with a Commodore 64, went to an Amiga 500, then an Amiga 3000. Intel nor Windows had me in a lock (neither did motorola or CBM). I preferred the Amiga line and only reluctantly moved to the Wintel architecture (with the release of Win95, an MS Windows I could actually stand to use) when CBM folded and the rights for the technology went into limbo. I don't know if I'm an average user or not, but Microsoft certainly didn't lord over me when it came down to what system I run and why. Microsoft has EVERY right to lean on PC manufacturers that want to ship other products. It's THEIR products! They can determine who gets to sell it. Think of it as the various licensing schemes in the Linux world. MS just has a license that is extremely aggressive and it works for them. Please, don't mistake me for a Microsoft cheerleader. I like some MS products, others I could care less about. However, most of the anti-MS sentiment is nothing more than a hatred of the good for being good. If Linux were found on 95% of the machines on the planet, these same people would be running Windows 95 in defiance of Linus Torvalds and the Linux "community".
I submit that an owner of property who chooses to only rent to whites limits himself to only 50% of the population, thus limiting his income potential. However, to whom does the property belong to? If you decide that the owner cannot do with the property as he wishes, then he does not own the property, but merely controls it. The government owns the property and retains the right to take it away. So, we have to call a spade a spade.
Regardless of the representative government, there MUST be objective laws. You cannot have the "basic right to own property" and then undermine it by saying "you don't have the right to dispose of your property as you see fit". The two concepts are incompatible. If we had a truly 100% representative government (a total democracy), then I submit that 51% of the population will vote to enslave the other 49%.
There should not be any public schools. Privatize them all and let the schools compete for your children. They may have to start EDUCATING for a change.
I don't see any situation which would cause MIcrosoft from banning me specifically from their software.
As for me losing my job, you'd have to give me a damn good way to lose a job because of Microsoft, other than by getting bought out. Be realistic, man. You're really really stretching for a point.
But, if you need a basic answer, if MIcrosoft doesn't need my business,then I don't need Microsoft. Look at it as dating. If you want to go out with a woman and she says "No", either you get on with your life or you become one of those scary stalker people. I prefer the former.
I doubt a company would be able to survive in a cosmopolitan country such as the US. You are correct, a company that would not sell to blacks might not do so well, but then again, it may. I do not support racist organizations, although I do support someone's right to be a moron, as long as it does not imfringe upon another's right. For clarification, you do NOT have a right to a job, a house, an education, etc. You have the RIGHT to accept a position at someone else's company, if it is offered to you, to purchase a house from someone who is willing to sell you one, and to pursue an education. Happiness is not a right, the pursuit of happiness is.
You are correct, it IS a matter of freedom vs. force. But forcing an author to give up his right to his creation is NOT freedom. Forcing Microsoft to give up their source code is just that: force.
>>Now that's a novel idea. Anyone here interested?
that's precisely why I put that part in there. Linux is an example of this.
>>>>Microsoft got to where it is today because it provides a product that people want, or a product that people accept.
>>No, Microsoft got to where it is today because IBM fumbled their monopoly into MS's lap. The PC has had a virtual full nelson on the desktop since it first came out with IBM's name on it. MS got the advantage partly because of stupidity on the part of IBM and Intel, but once they did get the advantage they've done nothing but exploit it ruthlessly
So, you're saying that you can't take advantage of a competitor's mistakes? Shame on you. Look at the auto industry. For years, the Japanese tried to break into the US market, and the US consumers just wouldn't buy it. Then came the oil crisis and instead of heeding public demands for automobiles that got got at the very least, double digit gas mileage, they basically told consumers to go screw themselves. Unbenownst to them was the reaction to begin buying the little Japanese "gas mizers." Faced with a shrinking market, they turned to the government to curtail the Japanese invasion of innovation. Fortunately for us, the legislature did not ban imports or the like. The Japanese jumped all over the mistake the US automakers made and look where they are today. (this is not even mentioning quality control, etc, all ideas generally conceived of in the US, but were told "to go elsewhere").
>>That being the case, the only fair remedy is to either change the de facto standard to something else that doesn't give any small group a stranglehold on the nation's (or world's) economy, or else to level the playground around the existing one. In that context, forced licensing is probably the fairest solution around
Microsoft does not have a stranglehold on me or any of my computers. I can change operating systems at the drop of a hat. You can, too.
How can you level the playground? To what level? Your kind of thinking is the kind that that tells kids to say "Hey, quit making A's on the test, you're ruining the bell curve for the rest of us". You want to dumb the economic scale down to it's most basic level, you'd probably be happy foraging in the forest for grubs. As to forced licensing being fair, it most certainly is not fair to Microsoft. So much for being just and fair for all, eh?
>>I see it differently, but surely there's one fact we can agree on: the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is the law of the land in the USA, and MS is subject to it just like everyone else is.
Just because it is indeed the law doesn't mean it should be. By testing of the law, and by legislation, it can be changed. The biggest problem with these laws (besides being immoral), is that they are completely subjective. ANYONE who is moderately successful at business could be charged with violation of SOME part of Antitrust. The fact is, Microsoft violated nothing concrete. The merely exerted their "power" over THEIR software and the vendors either complied or went elsewhere. Just because that until recently there were no real viable alternatives (besides MacOS) is not their problem. They most certainly want everyone in the world to be running Windows. Apple most certainly wants everyone to be running MacOS, and BeOS the same. I propose that if Apple had Microsoft's share of the market, most of you would be whining about how Steve Jobs is nothing more than a Borg, assimilating us all, and how Bill Gates is a victim of Apple's monopolistic practices. The only thing the government has against Microsoft is a percieved notion of "unfairness" in the market. What is fairness? Rolling over and allowing your competitors to stomp you at will? Self Sacrifice? I certainly don't think so. Microsoft does what most businesses do: they compete. Compete means you can just buy your competition outright (it's their company/product to sell, remember), or you can produce a superior product with a lower price, etc etc (for marketing strategy, enroll in your local college and take some courses in marketing).
I don't deny that prostitution and drug dealing should be legal activities. If a persons wants to destroy himself, then by all means he should be left at it, as long as he does not endanger the lives of others (hence DUI laws). I propose that they would probably not be the ideal choices for a guest speaking appointment at your child's middle school career day.
As for smelly vegans comment, that was a snide comment that could (and should have) been left out of the discussion, as it was not pertinent to the discussion at hand. If you want to be a vegan, it's your choice. I'm occasionally unconsciously vegan (I love Indian food and you get quite a bit of vegan food there), but it's not a philosophical or lifestyle statement, but, rather, a result of my fondness for certain cuisine. I do dislike communists and socialists and collectivists in general, although I have acquaintances with whom I get along great with that fall into one or more of those categories. Yes, it is illegal to "discriminate" (except for california, you lucky bastards), but thisis an immoral law. Either you have the right to your property (and the disposal thereof), or you don't. There is no inbetween. So, it's your choice:, freedom or slavery.
And finally, why should I move when I live in the US of A? We have the basic structure to have a "right" country, just a mixed up philosophical premise. Either we are individuals with volition, willing to choose between a life that will promote peace, prosperity, and property, or we are cattle to be sacrificed to the first "needy" person that comes around (I need a job! I need a career! I need a free OS! I need an Audi S4 Quattro (don't we all?)).
And as for your bisexuality (or lack thereof), it's your personal business. If it doesn't affect your job performance, I don't see a real reason that your boss would fire you,unless he's a real ass. But then again, if a person is going to fire you just because of your sexual preferences, do you REALLY want to work for him?
Hmm.. that's odd. Considering I'm a History major, that's quite a profound leap in logic. Historians like to portray the Industrial Age as the most evil anti-human event to ever happen in the Age of Man. This is largely due to Marxist inspiration/infiltration and that's what we get taught in schools. However, I'm sure if YOU took a closer look as to what really was going on, you'd find a different story. It's the various unnecessary government rules, or unenforcement of the laws that ARE just (due to corruption by the unscrupulous few) that screws everything up.
Minimum wage is the reason why you can't go to taco bell and get food for 2 for $5 anymore.
I'm not a Randite (whatever that is) and I'm definately not in cohoots with a political party that glorifies drug dealers and prostitutes as "business models".
But, you are correct. From MY business strategy, anyone with money is a potential customer. However, I reserve the right to withhold my products and services to whomever I deem fit (communists, smelly vegan types). You should do the same.
Check your premises, just because you limit your market doesn't mean you can't make money.
You are correct. If you don't want to give your employees breaks, vacations, etc, you don't have to. I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that you'd also have a real hard time finding quality employees.
And if it's your property, you should be able to discriminate against whomever you wish. It's not smart business, but it's business nevertheless.
The thought of forcing Microsoft to release its Source Code to Windows is the most horrendous idea I've heard yet. Microsoft built it, it's theirs and if you don't like it, run X (or Be, or MacOS, or Workbench, etc) or write your own!
Microsoft got to where it is today because it provides a product that people want, or a product that people accept. If you truly believe in a competitive environment, then you have to accept the fact that Microsoft, Sun, or anyone else reserves the right to refuse to sell their products to anyone they deem fit, for any reason. If Microsoft refuses to sell it's OS to manufacturers because it sells systems with other OS's, it's their decision, it's their product. If you question the viability to survive without Microsoft, ask VA Research how many of their boxes shipped with Windows 95 last year. In fact, it seems that there is an ENTIRE subculture emerging around non-Microsoft operating systems (Linux, Be, and the ever present Amiga).
Just as an aside, for people who hate Microsoft, why do most of these same people quiver with glee when rumors of Microsoft porting Office to Linux appear? This "fence" straddling perplexes me.
And finally, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and its allied bills, laws, etc, is nothing more than a wordy repeal of the right to own property, ideas, etc. A monopoly (control of 100% of the market) will never be created without a government mule to create and control the market.
When man first decided to stick a seed in the ground and nurture it to maturity and then eat the grain that resulted, property rights, both physical (in the ground that he worked and in the produce that his diligent effort produced) and intellectual (the knowledge that he gained from doing so) took a vast turn of departure from his hunter-gatherer past. It was then left up to that man (for the PC crowd, OR WOMAN) to distribute his new found knowledge amongst his peers or to keep it to himself. Fortunately for all of us in the First World who are content to not wallow around in our own filth, but to progress towards an even higher standard of living (and an Audi S4 Quattro), he decided to share his discovery. Millions of ideas and improvements later, we have our modern, Industrial agriculture that is capable of feeding everyone in the world, 5 times over, if they have the cash to carry.:)
However, it MUST be noted that, regardless of the benefit to himself or to the survival of his family, that man was under absolutely obligation to share his findings. He could attempt to hide them from others, he could have simply walked away and never returned to his new found method (although others would surely discover the principle, as many cultures did indeed "simultaneously" discover and implement agriculture independently of one another).
What disturbs me is that, besides the marxist crowd, most people would not deny the fact that the man has a right to eat what he has sown. The premise of the Free Software (not necessarily the FSF or any other organization) people is that he did not have the right to withhold his discovery, his knowledge, from others. Now, in the times that agriculture emerged from the receding glaciers of the Pleistocene, he was sure to have been seen by others, and then imitated if he were to prove successful (actually, agriculture was a gradual adaptation process, but that's really beyond the scope of this post). This premise is flawed.
You have the right to what you produce. Period. If you produce software, using the tools that you've acquired, the knowledge that you've learned and discovered for yourself (learning is not an osmotic process, try sleeping with a K&R under your pillow at night and see for youself), the skills that you've honed through years of diligent practice, it's yours. Period. If you want to give it away, then fine. Do it. If you want to sell it, fine, do it. If you want to erase it from your harddrive forever, no one can stop you. The article wants to pretend that you don't have the right to what's inside your head. Rubbish.
The Open Source movement is a wonderful example of what can happen when you do like that wonderful man 12000 years ago did: he shared his knowledge and allowed people to take a crack at improving his methods. Some people were merely content to use what was there, others made the effort to improve. This is very much like the Open Source community today.
Yet, you have to remember, a product of the mind is the same as the product of your hands, as if you could differentiate the two. And if you choose to give away your products, free of monetary attachments, it's your choice. But don't let ANYONE tell you it's not your right.
Slashdot Mirror
begin real_content
Yes, I am an Objectivist, or at least a student thereof. Objectivism does NOT make the assumption that businesses will act honorably. I don't know where you learned your Objectivism, but I've never heard of that. In fact, Objectivism anticipates the fact that some people are jerks who try and use force and fraud, lie, cheat (a very subjective term that is not only undefinable, but would be very hard to prove in court) and steal their way to the top, which is the ONLY time that the government should step in. If Microsoft were guilty of lying, stealing, fraud, or force, then the government would have a REAL case. Unfortunately, the government has to concentrate on cheating, because everyone knows you can't build a multi BILLION dollar corporation without cheating, right? Or can you? And, as mentioned before, the case for cheating is undefinable, the government is REACHING. They're hoping to make the case for Microsoft so expensive, plus with the subjective attitudes of the courts (not to mention the already mentioned "MultiBillion dollar industries have to be invented by fraud" mentality) that Microsoft will deal (and, unfortunately, they are). That's the government's ONLY goal. If Microsoft has to settle, then in the public's mind they are guilty. Of what? Who cares, they're guilty of SOMETHING, otherwise they wouldn't be settliing out of court. Microsoft has LIED to federal prosecutors, but I question the fact that they should even be prosecuted. It's analogous to the whole bill-monica thing. I don't care that he screwed some intern. That's between him and her and really is none of my business. I DO care that he accepts funding from a nation that relies upon SLAVE labor to supply your dollar stores everywhere with cheap, plastic goods. Bill lied under oath about sex. He never should have been asked that question, it's not anyone's business.
I have read The Fountainhead and find it extremely good. It becomes a chore to read at times, but it's better than 99.9% of the crap that passes off as "modern literature" today. The whole "anti-hero" worship of today's crap just gives me the heebie-jeebies. Gates & Co may very well be the competitors to Roark in analogy, but I've not seen them running to the government for special favors. Then again, I've not seen anyone who could compare to a Roark. I can see the point, though. Where Roark was all about innovation and changing the way things were done, using new tools to their fullest capacity, Microsoft is about.. well, probably not that. However, Microsoft HAS opened the doors for millions of people to new tools and technology (the world wide web and e-commerce, while the backends are in LINUX, the primary consumers are still on Windows 95). This is wonderful. Ever find it ironic that most people first hear of Linux via the WWW, on Internet Explorer in Windows 95? If you think that no business can operate without lying and stealing, then you become part of the problem. I wonder if Be steals and lies.
What about Linus Torvalds?
Have a great day!
Whoops! That was my mistake. That whole comment was misleading. You SHOULDN'T be forced to provide your employees with breaks & vacations, etc, however the law says otherwise.. I would like to point out that it is to a company's BENEFIT to do so, as it improves employee performance, morale, etc. There are various studies to confirm this, feel free to check out your local business college library (I'm sure Amazon.com has a nice selection as well).
In the second paragraph, your example is an example of outright fraud, which we already have laws for. And, if you haven't noticed, contracts are BINDING agreements (this is how Microsoft gets its leverage, as well), and violation of a contract is a usage of force. It is (and should be) illegal to initiate the use of force and fraud against the consumer. Microsoft does not FORCE anyone to do anything. Microsoft makes stipulations and conditions upon resellers of its products that the vendor is free to accept or reject. If the vendor perceives a competitive advantage by accepting the Microsoft terms and conditions, then so be it. Microsoft owns its software, plain and simple (I know I'm beating the dead horse here but for some reason this is so complicated for some people). Get over it.
And for the last point, it is currently illegal to discriminate against persons in a business (however vague it may be.. I wonder if I could sue Audi of America for discriminating against poor people by not offering their S4 Quattro at a price range (say, $20) that I could afford). I would like to see this law changed and remove AA/EOE from the books as "law." It is immoral to replace "volunteer" racism with a legislated racism. Racism ends through education, which is now controlled by little multiculturalist freaks who think race is THE defining characteristic of a person.
Notice that I don't try and reduce an argument down to "you must be naive." That's not an argument. Give me points, valid arguments that are well thought out, or point out mistakes in my thinking and I will give it my best shot. If you can provide solid facts, or really good logical thinking that prove something otherwise, then I have no problem changing my position. It's called life. However, the arguments against Microsoft are shallow, at best, and most people are not concerned with what's REALLY at stake: the computer industry (which includes the internet, linux, operating systems, games, etc) has been relatively unregulated (as compared to other industries) and consequently is one of the fastest growing and most prosperous fields in the HISTORY OF MAN. I would assert that the fact that it is so "free" that makes it so prosperous, with a few big players, and THOUSANDS of small players who more than equal Microsoft. If you let the government crack down on Microsoft, who is next? Who becomes the next Microsoft to be batted down? Don't think it will happen to YOUR software? Think again, sir. It's bad enough that the tobacco industry backed down and chickened out, but it really comes home when they start mucking around in MY industry. Wake up and smell the Starbucks.
Okay, can you imagine the public backlash against Microsoft for doing such a thing? "Poor college student forbidden to use Microsoft by Bill Gates, list of victims grows." How many businesses do you think will remain on a platform that uses this kind of power? At the drop of a hat, they can be forbidden to use the software, do you think an IS manager will want to take this kind of risk? Heck, it could be the best thing for Linux and other OS's is for Bill Gates to DO something like this. The market rules and without consumers, you have no market.
>>Which railroad are you referring to?
Union Pacific, for starters. The first transcontinental railroads were generally heavily subsidized in the form of land grants. You say a railroad can not exist without government subsidy? Wrong. Ever heard of the B&O? That was privately funded. Ever heard of James J. Hill? He built the first transcontinental railroad WITHOUT government subsidies (I think it is better said that he built it IN SPITE of the government). And there are literally hundreds more like them. It was the "unfair" advantage that the government subsidies gave some companies that caused alot of the privately funded railroads to end up folding. Other reasons for folding was the maddening rush to expand into markets that didn't exist.
What about modern day railroads? Yes, it is true that they are now mostly government supported. Why? Because railroads cannot compete anymore against the "FREE" roads that the trucking companies use. It simply is not cost effective. Again, another market ruined by "government intervention." It may turn out that even had the government NOT built the public highway system that enterprising private industry would have, and the same fate would face the railroads. We'll never know.
The facts are: in a free market, companies are free to succeed. Companies are also free to fail. It happens.
If left to its own means, Microsoft could blunder (ala IBM) and fail miserably, but does this mean that we'd all be willing to buy MS products, just so Linux or whatever OS becomes dominant, will have some competition? A Linux "monopoly" is still a monopoly. The facts still remain: a monopoly will not exist unless a goverment mule is there to pull it and enforce it. Someone will always find a way to compete and God Bless America (metaphorically speaking) for the freedom for him to find that way.
>>Lets say the railroad decides to go into the grain business. If its competitors have strange problems transporting grain, the railroad has an unfair advantage and can drive its competitors out.
What do you think the grain producers think about this? All a grain producer wants is RELIABLE transportation of his product to the market. If a "strange" problem occurs to a company and is unable to ship a grain producer's grain, all the grain producer wants to hear is "I will ship your grain" and have it shipped. he doesn't care HOW you ship it, that's your problem. And if you are unable to do it to the satisfaction of the grain producer, but Company #2 does, who do you think is going to get the business? This isn't an "unfair" advantage. The other company had EVERY opportunity to exploit this market. Like IBM, it didn't. So, should you handcuff the railroad who can successfully move the product in the name of fairness? Should you force the grain producers to use the other railroad who can't move the grain, causing the grain producer to go out of business because his grain doesn't make it to market? Should you force people to install and utilize an alternative OS and hire a massive OS police to go around checking computers for compliance? Legislation breeds control.
>>Microsoft does not (quite) have a monopoly on Operating Systems or on applications. Microsoft does have a monopoly on the average consumer "Experience". When Microsoft leans on a pc manufacturer who distributes Corel Office Suite, it is over the line of acceptable practice.
I'm not sure what average consumer "Experience" is. It sounds vague. My average experience is that I started my computer "career" with a Commodore 64, went to an Amiga 500, then an Amiga 3000. Intel nor Windows had me in a lock (neither did motorola or CBM). I preferred the Amiga line and only reluctantly moved to the Wintel architecture (with the release of Win95, an MS Windows I could actually stand to use) when CBM folded and the rights for the technology went into limbo. I don't know if I'm an average user or not, but Microsoft certainly didn't lord over me when it came down to what system I run and why. Microsoft has EVERY right to lean on PC manufacturers that want to ship other products. It's THEIR products! They can determine who gets to sell it. Think of it as the various licensing schemes in the Linux world. MS just has a license that is extremely aggressive and it works for them. Please, don't mistake me for a Microsoft cheerleader. I like some MS products, others I could care less about. However, most of the anti-MS sentiment is nothing more than a hatred of the good for being good. If Linux were found on 95% of the machines on the planet, these same people would be running Windows 95 in defiance of Linus Torvalds and the Linux "community".
I submit that an owner of property who chooses to only rent to whites limits himself to only 50% of the population, thus limiting his income potential. However, to whom does the property belong to? If you decide that the owner cannot do with the property as he wishes, then he does not own the property, but merely controls it. The government owns the property and retains the right to take it away. So, we have to call a spade a spade.
Regardless of the representative government, there MUST be objective laws. You cannot have the "basic right to own property" and then undermine it by saying "you don't have the right to dispose of your property as you see fit". The two concepts are incompatible. If we had a truly 100% representative government (a total democracy), then I submit that 51% of the population will vote to enslave the other 49%.
There should not be any public schools. Privatize them all and let the schools compete for your children. They may have to start EDUCATING for a change.
I am NOT a libertarian. Nuff said.
I don't see any situation which would cause MIcrosoft from banning me specifically from their software.
As for me losing my job, you'd have to give me a damn good way to lose a job because of Microsoft, other than by getting bought out. Be realistic, man. You're really really stretching for a point.
But, if you need a basic answer, if MIcrosoft doesn't need my business,then I don't need Microsoft. Look at it as dating. If you want to go out with a woman and she says "No", either you get on with your life or you become one of those scary stalker people. I prefer the former.
Have a great day!
I doubt a company would be able to survive in a cosmopolitan country such as the US. You are correct, a company that would not sell to blacks might not do so well, but then again, it may. I do not support racist organizations, although I do support someone's right to be a moron, as long as it does not imfringe upon another's right. For clarification, you do NOT have a right to a job, a house, an education, etc. You have the RIGHT to accept a position at someone else's company, if it is offered to you, to purchase a house from someone who is willing to sell you one, and to pursue an education. Happiness is not a right, the pursuit of happiness is.
You are correct, it IS a matter of freedom vs. force. But forcing an author to give up his right to his creation is NOT freedom. Forcing Microsoft to give up their source code is just that: force.
>>>>if you don't like it ... write your own!
>>Now that's a novel idea. Anyone here interested?
that's precisely why I put that part in there. Linux is an example of this.
>>>>Microsoft got to where it is today because it provides a product that people want, or a product that people accept.
>>No, Microsoft got to where it is today because IBM fumbled their monopoly into MS's lap. The PC has had a virtual full nelson on the desktop since it first came out with IBM's name on it. MS got the advantage partly because of stupidity on the part of IBM and Intel, but once they did get the advantage they've done nothing but exploit it ruthlessly
So, you're saying that you can't take advantage of a competitor's mistakes? Shame on you. Look at the auto industry. For years, the Japanese tried to break into the US market, and the US consumers just wouldn't buy it. Then came the oil crisis and instead of heeding public demands for automobiles that got got at the very least, double digit gas mileage, they basically told consumers to go screw themselves. Unbenownst to them was the reaction to begin buying the little Japanese "gas mizers." Faced with a shrinking market, they turned to the government to curtail the Japanese invasion of innovation. Fortunately for us, the legislature did not ban imports or the like. The Japanese jumped all over the mistake the US automakers made and look where they are today. (this is not even mentioning quality control, etc, all ideas generally conceived of in the US, but were told "to go elsewhere").
>>That being the case, the only fair remedy is to either change the de facto standard to something else that doesn't give any small group a stranglehold on the nation's (or world's) economy, or else to level the playground around the existing one. In that context, forced licensing is probably the fairest solution around
Microsoft does not have a stranglehold on me or any of my computers. I can change operating systems at the drop of a hat. You can, too.
How can you level the playground? To what level? Your kind of thinking is the kind that that tells kids to say "Hey, quit making A's on the test, you're ruining the bell curve for the rest of us". You want to dumb the economic scale down to it's most basic level, you'd probably be happy foraging in the forest for grubs.
As to forced licensing being fair, it most certainly is not fair to Microsoft. So much for being just and fair for all, eh?
>>I see it differently, but surely there's one fact we can agree on: the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is the law of the land in the USA, and MS is subject to it just like everyone else is.
Just because it is indeed the law doesn't mean it should be. By testing of the law, and by legislation, it can be changed. The biggest problem with these laws (besides being immoral), is that they are completely subjective. ANYONE who is moderately successful at business could be charged with violation of SOME part of Antitrust. The fact is, Microsoft violated nothing concrete. The merely exerted their "power" over THEIR software and the vendors either complied or went elsewhere. Just because that until recently there were no real viable alternatives (besides MacOS) is not their problem. They most certainly want everyone in the world to be running Windows. Apple most certainly wants everyone to be running MacOS, and BeOS the same. I propose that if Apple had Microsoft's share of the market, most of you would be whining about how Steve Jobs is nothing more than a Borg, assimilating us all, and how Bill Gates is a victim of Apple's monopolistic practices. The only thing the government has against Microsoft is a percieved notion of "unfairness" in the market. What is fairness? Rolling over and allowing your competitors to stomp you at will? Self Sacrifice? I certainly don't think so. Microsoft does what most businesses do: they compete. Compete means you can just buy your competition outright (it's their company/product to sell, remember), or you can produce a superior product with a lower price, etc etc (for marketing strategy, enroll in your local college and take some courses in marketing).
I don't deny that prostitution and drug dealing should be legal activities. If a persons wants to destroy himself, then by all means he should be left at it, as long as he does not endanger the lives of others (hence DUI laws). I propose that they would probably not be the ideal choices for a guest speaking appointment at your child's middle school career day.
As for smelly vegans comment, that was a snide comment that could (and should have) been left out of the discussion, as it was not pertinent to the discussion at hand. If you want to be a vegan, it's your choice. I'm occasionally unconsciously vegan (I love Indian food and you get quite a bit of vegan food there), but it's not a philosophical or lifestyle statement, but, rather, a result of my fondness for certain cuisine. I do dislike communists and socialists and collectivists in general, although I have acquaintances with whom I get along great with that fall into one or more of those categories. Yes, it is illegal to "discriminate" (except for california, you lucky bastards), but thisis an immoral law. Either you have the right to your property (and the disposal thereof), or you don't. There is no inbetween. So, it's your choice:, freedom or slavery.
And finally, why should I move when I live in the US of A? We have the basic structure to have a "right" country, just a mixed up philosophical premise. Either we are individuals with volition, willing to choose between a life that will promote peace, prosperity, and property, or we are cattle to be sacrificed to the first "needy" person that comes around (I need a job! I need a career! I need a free OS! I need an Audi S4 Quattro (don't we all?)).
And as for your bisexuality (or lack thereof), it's your personal business. If it doesn't affect your job performance, I don't see a real reason that your boss would fire you,unless he's a real ass. But then again, if a person is going to fire you just because of your sexual preferences, do you REALLY want to work for him?
-Shane Essary
Hmm.. that's odd. Considering I'm a History major, that's quite a profound leap in logic. Historians like to portray the Industrial Age as the most evil anti-human event to ever happen in the Age of Man. This is largely due to Marxist inspiration/infiltration and that's what we get taught in schools. However, I'm sure if YOU took a closer look as to what really was going on, you'd find a different story. It's the various unnecessary government rules, or unenforcement of the laws that ARE just (due to corruption by the unscrupulous few) that screws everything up.
Minimum wage is the reason why you can't go to taco bell and get food for 2 for $5 anymore.
I'm not a Randite (whatever that is) and I'm definately not in cohoots with a political party that glorifies drug dealers and prostitutes as "business models".
But, you are correct. From MY business strategy, anyone with money is a potential customer. However, I reserve the right to withhold my products and services to whomever I deem fit (communists, smelly vegan types). You should do the same.
Check your premises, just because you limit your market doesn't mean you can't make money.
You are correct. If you don't want to give your employees breaks, vacations, etc, you don't have to. I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that you'd also have a real hard time finding quality employees.
And if it's your property, you should be able to discriminate against whomever you wish. It's not smart business, but it's business nevertheless.
The thought of forcing Microsoft to release its Source Code to Windows is the most horrendous idea I've heard yet. Microsoft built it, it's theirs and if you don't like it, run X (or Be, or MacOS, or Workbench, etc) or write your own!
Microsoft got to where it is today because it provides a product that people want, or a product that people accept. If you truly believe in a competitive environment, then you have to accept the fact that Microsoft, Sun, or anyone else reserves the right to refuse to sell their products to anyone they deem fit, for any reason. If Microsoft refuses to sell it's OS to manufacturers because it sells systems with other OS's, it's their decision, it's their product. If you question the viability to survive without Microsoft, ask VA Research how many of their boxes shipped with Windows 95 last year. In fact, it seems that there is an ENTIRE subculture emerging around non-Microsoft operating systems (Linux, Be, and the ever present Amiga).
Just as an aside, for people who hate Microsoft, why do most of these same people quiver with glee when rumors of Microsoft porting Office to Linux appear? This "fence" straddling perplexes me.
And finally, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and its allied bills, laws, etc, is nothing more than a wordy repeal of the right to own property, ideas, etc. A monopoly (control of 100% of the market) will never be created without a government mule to create and control the market.
I need to clarify sentence 1, paragraph two. Man is under NO obligation. The NO there is imperative. Thank you
When man first decided to stick a seed in the ground and nurture it to maturity and then eat the grain that resulted, property rights, both physical (in the ground that he worked and in the produce that his diligent effort produced) and intellectual (the knowledge that he gained from doing so) took a vast turn of departure from his hunter-gatherer past. It was then left up to that man (for the PC crowd, OR WOMAN) to distribute his new found knowledge amongst his peers or to keep it to himself. Fortunately for all of us in the First World who are content to not wallow around in our own filth, but to progress towards an even higher standard of living (and an Audi S4 Quattro), he decided to share his discovery. Millions of ideas and improvements later, we have our modern, Industrial agriculture that is capable of feeding everyone in the world, 5 times over, if they have the cash to carry. :)
However, it MUST be noted that, regardless of the benefit to himself or to the survival of his family, that man was under absolutely obligation to share his findings. He could attempt to hide them from others, he could have simply walked away and never returned to his new found method (although others would surely discover the principle, as many cultures did indeed "simultaneously" discover and implement agriculture independently of one another).
What disturbs me is that, besides the marxist crowd, most people would not deny the fact that the man has a right to eat what he has sown. The premise of the Free Software (not necessarily the FSF or any other organization) people is that he did not have the right to withhold his discovery, his knowledge, from others. Now, in the times that agriculture emerged from the receding glaciers of the Pleistocene, he was sure to have been seen by others, and then imitated if he were to prove successful (actually, agriculture was a gradual adaptation process, but that's really beyond the scope of this post). This premise is flawed.
You have the right to what you produce. Period. If you produce software, using the tools that you've acquired, the knowledge that you've learned and discovered for yourself (learning is not an osmotic process, try sleeping with a K&R under your pillow at night and see for youself), the skills that you've honed through years of diligent practice, it's yours. Period. If you want to give it away, then fine. Do it. If you want to sell it, fine, do it. If you want to erase it from your harddrive forever, no one can stop you. The article wants to pretend that you don't have the right to what's inside your head. Rubbish.
The Open Source movement is a wonderful example of what can happen when you do like that wonderful man 12000 years ago did: he shared his knowledge and allowed people to take a crack at improving his methods. Some people were merely content to use what was there, others made the effort to improve. This is very much like the Open Source community today.
Yet, you have to remember, a product of the mind is the same as the product of your hands, as if you could differentiate the two. And if you choose to give away your products, free of monetary attachments, it's your choice. But don't let ANYONE tell you it's not your right.