MS have been found guilty of violating anti-trust law, however that simply isn't the same thing as being found guilty of being a monopoly. AND even if, it still wouldn't change the reality of what monopoly means and any child can see that. If someone was found guilty of murder eventhough he just parked at the wrong spot you wouldn't argue as fiercly for the legal definition, I'd hope.
To answer your question in your previous post. YES, Microsoft SHOULD have to take OEMs terms into account. The very fact that they didn't HAVE to is why they were found to be a monopoly. When you go to the grocery store, you don't have to buy Milk and Cap'n Crunch JUST from them.
Why? It's their product, they should be able to do whatever they please with it. Of course you are free to disagree with me but be aware that abolishing the principles and protection of 'private property' and 'freedom of association' could easily deliver you into slavery. Consider this: Monoploy means sole supplier. What would be the need for a contract forbidding OEMs to ship alternate OSes or no OSes with their machines if MS really was the sole supplier?
When the customer has no choice, such as with an OS that the average moron can actually USE, you have a monopoly situation. That's what this was.
No no and again no. We can talk about abuse of market domination (an argument that can not be dismissed with semantics, you know) or some such but saying MS is a monopoly is crap and neither yours nor the DoJ fairytale redefinitions of the word will make it any different.
On a different note, dismissing the 'average joe' like you did or hugely disrespecting the general public like it is so common to do on this boards really upsets me. That quoted sentence is the essence of moronic. Not only did you come up with the ridiculos idea of 'a word can mean whatever I say it does' but you also implied that business A is responsible for businesses B product to be 'competitive', useable and useful, quality-wise and including the pricing. Think about the ramifications. BMW suddenly couldn't build better cars because, you know, they'd need to pull up even the crappiest competitor to their level. Try that for idiotic. As a dwarf, don't attempt to look down on people.
Naturally you can withdraw from argument anytime you like. Do it with grace though. There really is no reason to continually insult me. My opinion is certainly not mainstream but that does not imply trolling on my part.
Is it just me who can't question a courts decision because I'm a thick troll or everybody?
So what you are saying is that MS should've sold OEMS windows licenses on the OEMS terms? I really want to see you working on your employers terms, it'd be the same thing.
Re:Gaming is good for girls too!
on
Girls Got Game
·
· Score: 1
I'm certaintly not usually in the political-correctness crowd but I'd think that female avatars in games go a long way. Personaly I don't mind playing a female night-elven rogue but I know guys that wouldn't. Ever. Because they want to be a mans mans man or whatever. I'd imagine that the same holds true for women. I don't know Delta Force, so can you play a female char there? Is this important to your GF?
I don't know what your 'coercing' means but I'm certain it can't apply to 'if we can't reach an agreement, we'll withdraw our cooperation'. I'm sad it needs pointing out but MS owners and agents are not exempt from basic civil rights like freedom of association, freedom of speech and property rights. In other words if you go to your employer and say '5$ more per hour or I'll quit' there is no force involved. It can't be considered coercion.
Competition in the OS market exists, thats a fact. It just isn't any good, simple as that. There is inovation and pricing pressures and all the other features of competitive markets. What you miss about the market is that people make their own decisions and if yours are a niche you might be inconvinienced. The market choose windows, end of story.
Simply not true. Windows 3.11/95 on actually affordable computers combined with what would be office was the 'killer app'. The internet got a jump start from the incredible amount of desktops in use, not the other way around. They don't know better? Look, I'm not going to argue with people form the ' cattle must be protected from its own choices'-school.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, seriously. But words, semantics, are important. Take 'rape' in example. It's pretty tightly defined and people commiting it are rightly despised and punished. What if that term was redefined as 'one regrets the act after it happend'. If there was consent, the no one did anything wrong but the word 'rape' alone will set puplic opinion on fire.
so they applied force to get people to install windows? I haven't seen any MS hitmans at my local software store... maybe I'm not up-to-date, I trust you'll show me the light.
well, maybe the difference doesn't matter to you *but* 'monopoly' is a hard concept associated with guilt and wrong doing (forcibly keeping competitors out, coercing customers and workers etc.). Market dominant can be easily shown to be a non-issue. Once it is conceeded that there are actually alternatives to Windows the question becomes why consumers didn't choose it. The burden of proof is not on MS anymore (as it would be if their monopoly status was accepted as fact in an argument).
yeah, it is 'market dominating' (eventhough I'm not sure why 'Most choosen by consumers' shouldn't be used). However monopoly does not mean market dominating. It doesn't translate to german als market dominating either. Those are two different concepts. You'll never get around the 'mono' part when using the word.
I understand why they aren't doing it ( revenue). Just saying, them showing a little bit of pride would make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. It would hurt the euro zone though, because windows is the best choice for those companies using it. 'Forcing' them to use the second best surely would have an negative influence on productivity and workflow i.e.
I agree to some extend to the inevitability theory that is basically a gut feeling expressing: It will happen when the time has come. At the same time one can not take the people making it actually happen out of the equation. Sure, some other company would have brought the PC to the masses but would it have been as good? No way to say for sure. Would it have happenend at the same time or 10 years later? Again, no way to say for sure. Would personal computers be as useful if there wasn't a large, homogeneus user base? Probably not. So one gotta ask: the company playing the leading role in the "internet revolution", could it have been 'better' than MS and if, why aren't they in fact at the point where MS is. Or maybe I'm just confused.
okay, maybe my english is not perfect. I apologize. But rather that than being ignorant and arguing at the same time. The Microsoft case was decided by a commision, not the courts. One man (Mario Monti) called the shots , saying WinXP might not be the best to futher competition. There is no EU law that prohibits bundeling a mediaplayer with the OS. The 'ruling' is an outcome of shady legal standards (like, you can be punished retroactivly for doing something a EU commisioner doesn't approve of but didn't bother to tell you before) and huge lobbying effords on the part of RealPlayer and spiced up with a healthy amount of anti-american sentiment. Don't tell me about how my continent is run, please.
You really think Bill Gates doesn't feel a sense of accomplishment? Microsoft brought the PC in most peoples lifes, wether you like that or not, you'll have a hard time arguing with that. Of course it's someones life achievement and you would be really mad as well if, I repeat myself, corrupt buerocrats pissed all over it and had the guts to tell you how to run your business.
It's a case of the emperor not having any cloths on. If authority spouts nonsense it should reflect on the authority, not on reality.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: Monopoly \Mo*nop"o*ly\, n.; pl. Monopolies. [L. monopolium, Gr. ?, ?; mo`nos alone + ? to sell.] 1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity; the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in some article, or of trading in some market; sole command of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a particular product. Raleigh held a monopoly of cards, Essex a monopoly of sweet wines.--Macaulay. 2. Exclusive possession; as, a monopoly of land. If I had a monopoly out, they would have part on 't.--Shak. 3. The commodity or other material thing to which the monopoly relates; as, tobacco is a monopoly in France. [Colloq.]
Just count the times 'exclusive' is used. Monopoly means one suplier of a given commodity and no one will change that.
But be that as it may, cluttering up the word-space with redefinitions that draw on the bad undertones of the original meaning is a cheap tactic anyways and should be avoided by prudent debaters.
In what way is MS a monopoly? Are they the sole supplier of operating systems? I don't care if the court say the sky is green, it still *is* blue. In the same way MS still *isn't* a monopoly.
yeah, they do. It's called the market. If no one is going to buy it, nothing will be importet. Also, I'd like to see a system where people vote via their actions. I.e if you held a vote among computer users on which OS is best suited for their needs, I think you'll find its windows. Considering that I can't begin to understand the utter hostility that MS is facing.
I wish MS would behave like a person and not a business in this instance. I'd want to see them say: well, fuck you europe. Make your own OS.
The frantic back-paddeling of the european government would certainly be fun to watch.
lets see what you do when your life-work gets messed with by utterly corrupt and lazy eurocrats. It wasn't a court decision by the way. We have strong mens for that over here.
You don't know what censorship is. Here a definition: if the law keeps you from expressing your viewpoint. It's not someone lying or not disclosing all information. It's uniformed men burning books, in its most extrem form.
When was the last time a corperation declared war? Droped a bomb? Made illegal the consumption of certain substances? Levied a tax? Required military service? Fined an other corperation for showing boobies on the air?
Go ahead, rail against Corps, they are just the provider of everything that keeps you alive and happy, its what the powers that *are* want you to do. An enemy always unites a people under a flag.
Yeah, its still their fault if their kid screws up in the remaining 2% of the time. It's called 'upbringing' and makes sure that the kid respects certain rules all the time. Some should try it.
No, maybe I'm a liberty loving chinese, just got my job with a WM supplier and thats working out so well that I can finally afford a computer to confont protecionists like yourself. Liberty is not just for you. The owners of companies have the same liberties as you, free association, free speech, free travel. No one has the right to job, a certain wage or certain labour conditions, though. Think about it and stop high jacking key concepts.
They do it *all* the time because power is the real fix for a politician and that he'll get through votes. That is the agenda of any socia-democratic party: We are the little guy, lets take the 'big guys' (coperations) down a notch or two. Vote for us, we'll do it.
Classification is a precursor to censorship. It gives more power to the most single powerful entity in the nation: the state. Advertisment bans will follow, after this comes no 'no public display' laws, in effect 'banning' a medium from stores. Think that can't be abused? You are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
MS have been found guilty of violating anti-trust law, however that simply isn't the same thing as being found guilty of being a monopoly. AND even if, it still wouldn't change the reality of what monopoly means and any child can see that. If someone was found guilty of murder eventhough he just parked at the wrong spot you wouldn't argue as fiercly for the legal definition, I'd hope.
To answer your question in your previous post. YES, Microsoft SHOULD have to take OEMs terms into account. The very fact that they didn't HAVE to is why they were found to be a monopoly. When you go to the grocery store, you don't have to buy Milk and Cap'n Crunch JUST from them.
Why? It's their product, they should be able to do whatever they please with it. Of course you are free to disagree with me but be aware that abolishing the principles and protection of 'private property' and 'freedom of association' could easily deliver you into slavery. Consider this: Monoploy means sole supplier. What would be the need for a contract forbidding OEMs to ship alternate OSes or no OSes with their machines if MS really was the sole supplier?
When the customer has no choice, such as with an OS that the average moron can actually USE, you have a monopoly situation. That's what this was.
No no and again no. We can talk about abuse of market domination (an argument that can not be dismissed with semantics, you know) or some such but saying MS is a monopoly is crap and neither yours nor the DoJ fairytale redefinitions of the word will make it any different.
On a different note, dismissing the 'average joe' like you did or hugely disrespecting the general public like it is so common to do on this boards really upsets me. That quoted sentence is the essence of moronic. Not only did you come up with the ridiculos idea of 'a word can mean whatever I say it does' but you also implied that business A is responsible for businesses B product to be 'competitive', useable and useful, quality-wise and including the pricing. Think about the ramifications. BMW suddenly couldn't build better cars because, you know, they'd need to pull up even the crappiest competitor to their level. Try that for idiotic. As a dwarf, don't attempt to look down on people.
Naturally you can withdraw from argument anytime you like. Do it with grace though. There really is no reason to continually insult me. My opinion is certainly not mainstream but that does not imply trolling on my part.
Is it just me who can't question a courts decision because I'm a thick troll or everybody?
actually, given the choice (in the past) between my father taking apart the house or the horse, I'd pick the horse ;) ... it rains a lot where I live ^^
So what you are saying is that MS should've sold OEMS windows licenses on the OEMS terms? I really want to see you working on your employers terms, it'd be the same thing.
I'm certaintly not usually in the political-correctness crowd but I'd think that female avatars in games go a long way. Personaly I don't mind playing a female night-elven rogue but I know guys that wouldn't. Ever. Because they want to be a mans mans man or whatever. I'd imagine that the same holds true for women. I don't know Delta Force, so can you play a female char there? Is this important to your GF?
go register yourself. Also I'm shocked what supposedly qualifies as force these days.
I don't know what your 'coercing' means but I'm certain it can't apply to 'if we can't reach an agreement, we'll withdraw our cooperation'. I'm sad it needs pointing out but MS owners and agents are not exempt from basic civil rights like freedom of association, freedom of speech and property rights. In other words if you go to your employer and say '5$ more per hour or I'll quit' there is no force involved. It can't be considered coercion.
Competition in the OS market exists, thats a fact. It just isn't any good, simple as that. There is inovation and pricing pressures and all the other features of competitive markets. What you miss about the market is that people make their own decisions and if yours are a niche you might be inconvinienced. The market choose windows, end of story.
Gosh, the PC is stagnant? Where have you been?
Simply not true. Windows 3.11/95 on actually affordable computers combined with what would be office was the 'killer app'. The internet got a jump start from the incredible amount of desktops in use, not the other way around. They don't know better? Look, I'm not going to argue with people form the ' cattle must be protected from its own choices'-school.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, seriously. But words, semantics, are important. Take 'rape' in example. It's pretty tightly defined and people commiting it are rightly despised and punished. What if that term was redefined as 'one regrets the act after it happend'. If there was consent, the no one did anything wrong but the word 'rape' alone will set puplic opinion on fire.
so they applied force to get people to install windows? I haven't seen any MS hitmans at my local software store ... maybe I'm not up-to-date, I trust you'll show me the light.
well, maybe the difference doesn't matter to you *but* 'monopoly' is a hard concept associated with guilt and wrong doing (forcibly keeping competitors out, coercing customers and workers etc.). Market dominant can be easily shown to be a non-issue. Once it is conceeded that there are actually alternatives to Windows the question becomes why consumers didn't choose it. The burden of proof is not on MS anymore (as it would be if their monopoly status was accepted as fact in an argument).
yeah, it is 'market dominating' (eventhough I'm not sure why 'Most choosen by consumers' shouldn't be used). However monopoly does not mean market dominating. It doesn't translate to german als market dominating either. Those are two different concepts. You'll never get around the 'mono' part when using the word.
I understand why they aren't doing it ( revenue). Just saying, them showing a little bit of pride would make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. It would hurt the euro zone though, because windows is the best choice for those companies using it. 'Forcing' them to use the second best surely would have an negative influence on productivity and workflow i.e.
I agree to some extend to the inevitability theory that is basically a gut feeling expressing: It will happen when the time has come. At the same time one can not take the people making it actually happen out of the equation. Sure, some other company would have brought the PC to the masses but would it have been as good? No way to say for sure. Would it have happenend at the same time or 10 years later? Again, no way to say for sure. Would personal computers be as useful if there wasn't a large, homogeneus user base? Probably not. So one gotta ask: the company playing the leading role in the "internet revolution", could it have been 'better' than MS and if, why aren't they in fact at the point where MS is. Or maybe I'm just confused.
okay, maybe my english is not perfect. I apologize. But rather that than being ignorant and arguing at the same time. The Microsoft case was decided by a commision, not the courts. One man (Mario Monti) called the shots , saying WinXP might not be the best to futher competition. There is no EU law that prohibits bundeling a mediaplayer with the OS. The 'ruling' is an outcome of shady legal standards (like, you can be punished retroactivly for doing something a EU commisioner doesn't approve of but didn't bother to tell you before) and huge lobbying effords on the part of RealPlayer and spiced up with a healthy amount of anti-american sentiment. Don't tell me about how my continent is run, please.
You really think Bill Gates doesn't feel a sense of accomplishment? Microsoft brought the PC in most peoples lifes, wether you like that or not, you'll have a hard time arguing with that. Of course it's someones life achievement and you would be really mad as well if, I repeat myself, corrupt buerocrats pissed all over it and had the guts to tell you how to run your business.
Just count the times 'exclusive' is used. Monopoly means one suplier of a given commodity and no one will change that.
But be that as it may, cluttering up the word-space with redefinitions that draw on the bad undertones of the original meaning is a cheap tactic anyways and should be avoided by prudent debaters.
In what way is MS a monopoly? Are they the sole supplier of operating systems? I don't care if the court say the sky is green, it still *is* blue. In the same way MS still *isn't* a monopoly.
yeah, they do. It's called the market. If no one is going to buy it, nothing will be importet. Also, I'd like to see a system where people vote via their actions. I.e if you held a vote among computer users on which OS is best suited for their needs, I think you'll find its windows. Considering that I can't begin to understand the utter hostility that MS is facing.
I wish MS would behave like a person and not a business in this instance. I'd want to see them say: well, fuck you europe. Make your own OS.
The frantic back-paddeling of the european government would certainly be fun to watch.
lets see what you do when your life-work gets messed with by utterly corrupt and lazy eurocrats. It wasn't a court decision by the way. We have strong mens for that over here.
You don't know what censorship is. Here a definition: if the law keeps you from expressing your viewpoint. It's not someone lying or not disclosing all information. It's uniformed men burning books, in its most extrem form. When was the last time a corperation declared war? Droped a bomb? Made illegal the consumption of certain substances? Levied a tax? Required military service? Fined an other corperation for showing boobies on the air? Go ahead, rail against Corps, they are just the provider of everything that keeps you alive and happy, its what the powers that *are* want you to do. An enemy always unites a people under a flag.
Yeah, its still their fault if their kid screws up in the remaining 2% of the time. It's called 'upbringing' and makes sure that the kid respects certain rules all the time. Some should try it.
No, maybe I'm a liberty loving chinese, just got my job with a WM supplier and thats working out so well that I can finally afford a computer to confont protecionists like yourself. Liberty is not just for you. The owners of companies have the same liberties as you, free association, free speech, free travel. No one has the right to job, a certain wage or certain labour conditions, though. Think about it and stop high jacking key concepts.
They do it *all* the time because power is the real fix for a politician and that he'll get through votes. That is the agenda of any socia-democratic party: We are the little guy, lets take the 'big guys' (coperations) down a notch or two. Vote for us, we'll do it.
Classification is a precursor to censorship. It gives more power to the most single powerful entity in the nation: the state. Advertisment bans will follow, after this comes no 'no public display' laws, in effect 'banning' a medium from stores. Think that can't be abused? You are wrong.