I understand your viewpoint on this antitrust matter. However, you have to understand that the ideals you've presented are quite naive, at best, in the real world. Sure, you can argue that the "market" will always sort itself out, that the Redmond Beast will eventually collapse from its own doing (perhaps), but the real world rarely "sort out" neatly. What you've presented is a black and white case of this situation.
Antitrust laws are formed to "calibrate" the market. Yes, it's not perfect. Nobody said it is. But they're part of the forces that balances something that stepped over the line. True, the people who built the railroad and timber companies created jobs, created materials, transportation, wealth, etc., but that doesn't mean that they are allowed to unfairly monopolize the market and reduce "consumer surplus", if you have taken any basic microeconomic courses. That is, if something is not true, it doesn't mean the opposite is true. The truth lie anywhere in between. You can say that the glass is half-empty, but someone else may also be right to say that the glass is half-full: the Antitrust laws seek to modify the behavior of the company, not to put it out of business. It is necessary to have such laws to keep check the basic human trait that exists in everyone: greed. You know, that's what a "mixed economy" is all about.
Also, the view that consumers will resort to an alternate OS because M$ has a crap OS is extremely simplistic: you also have to consider the critical mass of applications problem (i.e.-Windows has many times more recognized products such as Dreamweaver, etc.), learning curve problem (hell, the people I teach how to use computers are very smart, but they're afraid and don't give a crap about how they work...they just want to use it), among other problems such as "you can't be fired for buying Windows." I've seen many people who are aware of Windows bugs, horrible stability level, and how Linux is more stable, how MacOS is stable, how Unix is much more powerful, etc., but they don't want to switch to those platforms for the reason that they want status quo. Most people want to follow, not lead. Your theory would work if most people were like Hank Rearden, but the sad truth is they are not. People interactions isn't a science; it's a study. Most people don't care to understand what the crap is consumer surplus on the supply/demand curves, and how much marginal benefit that they'll receive if they switch to one of the *nix systems. In short, they're locked by M$. By hammering M$ with Antitrust laws, M$ is forced to modify its behavior and force the lost consumer surplus to be given back to the consumers, and to speed up innovation that M$ has impeded for a long time.
Your attack on antitrust laws is not so much wrong as in logic, but it's wrong in that it doesn't change the upshot. You merely created a diversion and add confusion to this messy situation. I'm not trying to attack your viewpoint, but merely to point out another way to view this, another point of view that we as "educated" people of the society should consider before taking actions. Hell, we're all on the same side, most of us on./ anyway.
Besides this note, I'd like to suggest that we should DO something to help the case against M$. Despite the different viewpoints on M$, and this situation, we should put our efforts to create an independent M$ watchdog to educate the public about why M$ is doing harm to the economy and to consumers, etc. Much like people long ago became educated about the harm of tobacco and smoking, we should get a general MASS AWARENESS of this situation. Most people don't care, so we as a group on./, as a group that mostly share the same viewpoint (but differ in the details), should try something like setting up a web site that educates the public about this. Maybe raise an organization, put submissions into the newspaper; To show the public M$ is operating against our general well being, and why, and the alternatives, and how each individual can contribute to this.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand your viewpoint on this antitrust matter. However, you have to understand that the ideals you've presented are quite naive, at best, in the real world. Sure, you can argue that the "market" will always sort itself out, that the Redmond Beast will eventually collapse from its own doing (perhaps), but the real world rarely "sort out" neatly. What you've presented is a black and white case of this situation.
./ anyway.
./, as a group that mostly share the same viewpoint (but differ in the details), should try something like setting up a web site that educates the public about this. Maybe raise an organization, put submissions into the newspaper; To show the public M$ is operating against our general well being, and why, and the alternatives, and how each individual can contribute to this.
Antitrust laws are formed to "calibrate" the market. Yes, it's not perfect. Nobody said it is. But they're part of the forces that balances something that stepped over the line. True, the people who built the railroad and timber companies created jobs, created materials, transportation, wealth, etc., but that doesn't mean that they are allowed to unfairly monopolize the market and reduce "consumer surplus", if you have taken any basic microeconomic courses. That is, if something is not true, it doesn't mean the opposite is true. The truth lie anywhere in between. You can say that the glass is half-empty, but someone else may also be right to say that the glass is half-full: the Antitrust laws seek to modify the behavior of the company, not to put it out of business. It is necessary to have such laws to keep check the basic human trait that exists in everyone: greed. You know, that's what a "mixed economy" is all about.
Also, the view that consumers will resort to an alternate OS because M$ has a crap OS is extremely simplistic: you also have to consider the critical mass of applications problem (i.e.-Windows has many times more recognized products such as Dreamweaver, etc.), learning curve problem (hell, the people I teach how to use computers are very smart, but they're afraid and don't give a crap about how they work...they just want to use it), among other problems such as "you can't be fired for buying Windows." I've seen many people who are aware of Windows bugs, horrible stability level, and how Linux is more stable, how MacOS is stable, how Unix is much more powerful, etc., but they don't want to switch to those platforms for the reason that they want status quo. Most people want to follow, not lead. Your theory would work if most people were like Hank Rearden, but the sad truth is they are not. People interactions isn't a science; it's a study. Most people don't care to understand what the crap is consumer surplus on the supply/demand curves, and how much marginal benefit that they'll receive if they switch to one of the *nix systems. In short, they're locked by M$. By hammering M$ with Antitrust laws, M$ is forced to modify its behavior and force the lost consumer surplus to be given back to the consumers, and to speed up innovation that M$ has impeded for a long time.
Your attack on antitrust laws is not so much wrong as in logic, but it's wrong in that it doesn't change the upshot. You merely created a diversion and add confusion to this messy situation. I'm not trying to attack your viewpoint, but merely to point out another way to view this, another point of view that we as "educated" people of the society should consider before taking actions. Hell, we're all on the same side, most of us on
Besides this note, I'd like to suggest that we should DO something to help the case against M$. Despite the different viewpoints on M$, and this situation, we should put our efforts to create an independent M$ watchdog to educate the public about why M$ is doing harm to the economy and to consumers, etc. Much like people long ago became educated about the harm of tobacco and smoking, we should get a general MASS AWARENESS of this situation. Most people don't care, so we as a group on