A Monopoly is, by definition, control of the supply. Microsoft does not control the supply of software. Or operating systems. Or any application. To do so they would have to hire *every* programmer capable of producing those things. One thing it does have a lot of is customers. But that's really the customer's choice, isn't it? This judge is really saying that people are making the wrong choice and he intends to stop it. To call Microsoft a monopoly so that its rapacious behaviours can be called illegal is just trying to take advantage people's ignorance. The stock market's behavior today suggests that maybe people aren't that dumb.
I don't think the people are blind. In fact the stock market's behavior today has increased my opinion of people's perception. The fact of the matter is people want Microsoft to be giving its competitors a hard time. They want that competition to be fierce. They don't want a meddling government to interceed and try to make these companies play nice.
The problem with your suggestions is you are giving Judge Jackson arbitrary power. His job is not to make companies play nice. His job is to execute the law. If Microsoft has broken laws, they should be penalized according to those laws. If they crossed over some lines without breaking laws, you can think poorly of them, but to give the government the authority to punish for things that are not against the law creates totalitarianism.
Yet another attack on our freedom by Katz and Co.
on
The Post-Microsoft Era
·
· Score: 1
What we have here is left-wing judge attacking capitalism by attacking one of its success
stories, and predictably Katz is cheering him on. The definition of a monopoly is control of the supply. Monopolies are deemed bad because they can charge whatever they want. The consumer suffers because he has just two options, pay the price or do without.
Microsoft does not control the supply of software. It does not have the only operating system. It does not employ all of the programmers. On the contrary, Microsoft has lots of competition.
Microsoft has managed to attract the vast majority of consumers. This judge (and Katz) has decided that consumers are making the wrong choice and and is trying to "help" them by attacking their OS supplier of choice.
This attack is based on misusing the term monopoly, and panders to peoples fear of monopolies. This judge would have us believe that a large number of us picking one supplier is a monopoly.
This is an attack against freedom by elitist sobs who feel they know whats best for us and are going to force their solutions down our throat.
Even if Microsoft were a monopoly, the US government has a terrible record of dealing with them. The price of oil and gas skyrocketted after Standard Oil was broken up. The phone system's service level has not faired well since the breakup of AT&T.
Most monopolies form because of government protections, and the best way to fight them is for government to stop meddling.
Microsoft is extremely aggressive, and their goals are not always in line with their consumers. But consumers are capable of dealing with that. Many do by buying Apple, Linux, et. al.
I'm not saying that Microsoft has crossed lines it shouldn't have. If it broke laws, punish it as presribed by those laws. But if you give the government the power to punish Microsoft for crossing lines that are not against the law, then you are giving the government arbitrary authority, and no one will be safe. It is the keystone of totalitarianism.
For everyone posting their anecdotal MS horror stories, you're not alone. MS has disapponted me several times. But then so has car rental agencies, restaurants, numerous other companies, and even some friends. Get over it. Remember that you chose them, and you have the freedom to change that choice. If Katz and his ilk get their way, you wont get these choices anymore. They will have been made for you.
Yet another attack on our freedom by Katz and Co.
on
The Post-Microsoft Era
·
· Score: 1
What we have here is left-wing judge attacking capitalism by attacking one of its success
stories, and predictably Katz is cheering him on. The definition of a monopoly is control of the supply. Monopolies are deemed bad because they can charge whatever they want. The consumer suffers because he has just two options, pay the price or do without.
Microsoft does not control the supply of software. It does not have the only operating system. It does not employ all of the programmers. On the contrary, Microsoft has lots of competition.
Microsoft has managed to attract the vast majority of consumers. This judge (and Katz) has decided that consumers are making the wrong choice and and is trying to "help" them by attacking their OS supplier of choice.
This attack is based on misusing the term monopoly, and panders to peoples fear of monopolies. This judge would have us believe that a large number of us picking one supplier is a monopoly.
This is an attack against freedom by elitist sobs who feel they know whats best for us and are going to force their solutions down our throat.
Even if Microsoft were a monopoly, the US government has a terrible record of dealing with them. The price of oil and gas skyrocketted after Standard Oil was broken up. The phone system's service level has not faired well since the breakup of AT&T.
Most monopolies form because of government protections, and the best way to fight them is for government to stop meddling.
Microsoft is extremely aggressive, and their goals are not always in line with their consumers. But consumers are capable of dealing with that. Many do by buying Apple, Linux, et. al.
I'm not saying that Microsoft has crossed lines it shouldn't have. If it broke laws, punish it as presribed by those laws. But if you give the government the power to punish Microsoft for crossing lines that are not against the law, then you are giving the government arbitrary authority, and that is the keystone of totalitarianism.
For everyone posting their anecdotal MS horror stories, you're not alone. MS has disapponted me several times. But then so has car rental agencies, restaurants, numerous other companies, and even some friends. Get over it. Remember that you chose them, and you have the freedom to change that choice. If Katz and his ilk get their way, you wont get these choices anymore. They will have been made for you.
Yet another attack on our freedom by Katz and Co.
on
The Post-Microsoft Era
·
· Score: 1
What we have here is left-wing judge attacking capitalism by attacking one of its success stories, and predictably Katz is cheering him on.
The definition of a monopoly is control of the supply. Monopolies are deemed bad because they can charge whatever they want. The consumer suffers because he has just two options, pay the price or do without.
Microsoft does not control the supply of software. It does not have the only operating system. It does not employ all of the programmers. On the contrary, Microsoft has lots of competition.
Microsoft has managed to attact the vast majority of consumers. This judge (and Katz) has decided that consumers are making the wrong choice and and is trying to "help" them by attacking their OS supplier of choice.
This attack is based on misusing the term monopoly, and panders to peoples fear of monopolies. This judge would have us believe that a large number of us picking one supplier is a monopoly.
This is an attack against freedom by elitist sobs who feel they know whats best for us and are going to force their solutions down our throat.
Even if Microsoft were a monopoly, the US government has a terrible record of dealing with them. The price of oil and gas skyrocketted after Standard Oil was broken up. The phone system's service level has not faired well since the breakup of AT&T.
Most monopolies form because of government protections, and the best way to fight them is for government to stop meddling.
Microsoft is extremely aggressive, and their goals are not always in line with their consumers. But consumers are capable of dealing with that. Many do by buying Apple, Linux, et. al.
I'm not saying that Microsoft has crossed lines it shouldn't have. If it broke laws, punish it as presribed by those laws. But if you give the government the power to punish Microsoft for crossing lines that are not against the law, then you are giving the government arbitrary authority, and that is the keystone of totalitarianism.
For everyone posting their anecdotal MS horror stories, you're not alone. MS has disapponted me several times. But then so has car rental agencies, restaurants, numerous other companies, and even some friends. Get over it. Remember that you chose them, and you have the freedom to change that choice. If Katz and his ilk get their way, you wont get these choices anymore. They will have been made for you.
It seems that Jon is advocating that anybody be allowed to say anything, without any responsibilty for what they say, and that nobody should be allowed to criticize them for saying it.
Doesn't that imply censoring the critics?
They smartest thing my Dad ever said was "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." That should apply equally to Peter Singer as well as the "ideologues, educators, clergymen and dogmatic politicians". Even Dr. Laura.
I'm glad Jesse Ventura has the guts to speak his mind. I'm sure this Playboy thing won't intimidate him. However, the people in the Reform Party whom he has offended have just as much right to be heard. If they don't want to be represented by him any longer, they have the right to say so and to work to that end. Jon, you can't limit your libertarian ideals to one side of the story.
A side issue: Guiliani withholding taxpayer money does not equal censorship. The artist is still free to produce his/her art, but that doesn't mean that we, the taxpayers, have to pay for it. Forcing us to pay for art that we think is crap is elitism.
Another side issue: Jon is playing the threadbare "envy/hatred of the rich" card in describing the genetic engineering issue. Generalized to the whole medical industry: Would you rather have Canada's socialist medicine whose state of the art is effectivly stuck in the seventies? In a (reletively) free market, as new medical technologies become available, they are expensive and only available to the rich, but as the state of the art progresses, the costs come down. What you end up with is the rich subsidising the R&D.
Jon, are you suggesting that new technologies be denied from the rich because others cannot afford them? If we did that, progress would all but stop, and many of the low cost technologies that we enjoy today never would have matured, and the people hurt the most by this misguided altruism would be the poor.
JonKatz doesn't seem to realize that he is one of the Luddites that he refers to. The luddite mantra gets repeated endlessly, and its all the more pathetic when the current generation thinks its revelations are new. What JonKatz is really espousing is elitism. He thinks that he and a few other "serious minded people" are more qualified than us, the unwashed masses, to determine what technology we need or should be allowed to have. Witness: "One add blanketing commercial TV touts new wireless phone technology that will allow people to get their e-mail, weather and sports scores instantly from anywhere. Does anybody really need to be that wired?" The answer is, for many individuals, yes, or they wouldn't shell out their money for it and there wouldn't be a market.
Slashdot Mirror
But it is a good time to buy MS.
A Monopoly is, by definition, control of the supply. Microsoft does not control the supply of software. Or operating systems. Or any application. To do so they would have to hire *every* programmer capable of producing those things. One thing it does have a lot of is customers. But that's really the customer's choice, isn't it? This judge is really saying that people are making the wrong choice and he intends to stop it. To call Microsoft a monopoly so that its rapacious behaviours can be called illegal is just trying to take advantage people's ignorance. The stock market's behavior today suggests that maybe people aren't that dumb.
I don't think the people are blind. In fact the stock market's behavior today has increased my opinion of people's perception. The fact of the matter is people want Microsoft to be giving its competitors a hard time. They want that competition to be fierce. They don't want a meddling government to interceed and try to make these companies play nice.
The problem with your suggestions is you are giving Judge Jackson arbitrary power. His job is not to make companies play nice. His job is to execute the law. If Microsoft has broken laws, they should be penalized according to those laws. If they crossed over some lines without breaking laws, you can think poorly of them, but to give the government the authority to punish for things that are not against the law creates totalitarianism.
stories, and predictably Katz is cheering him on. The definition of a monopoly is control of the supply. Monopolies are deemed bad because they can charge whatever they want. The consumer suffers because he has just two options, pay the price or do without.
Microsoft does not control the supply of software. It does not have the only operating system. It does not employ all of the programmers. On the contrary, Microsoft has lots of competition.
Microsoft has managed to attract the vast majority of consumers. This judge (and Katz) has decided that consumers are making the wrong choice and and is trying to "help" them by attacking their OS supplier of choice.
This attack is based on misusing the term monopoly, and panders to peoples fear of monopolies. This judge would have us believe that a large number of us picking one supplier is a monopoly.
This is an attack against freedom by elitist sobs who feel they know whats best for us and are going to force their solutions down our throat.
Even if Microsoft were a monopoly, the US government has a terrible record of dealing with them. The price of oil and gas skyrocketted after Standard Oil was broken up. The phone system's service level has not faired well since the breakup of AT&T.
Most monopolies form because of government protections, and the best way to fight them is for government to stop meddling.
Microsoft is extremely aggressive, and their goals are not always in line with their consumers. But consumers are capable of dealing with that. Many do by buying Apple, Linux, et. al.
I'm not saying that Microsoft has crossed lines it shouldn't have. If it broke laws, punish it as presribed by those laws. But if you give the government the power to punish Microsoft for crossing lines that are not against the law, then you are giving the government arbitrary authority, and no one will be safe. It is the keystone of totalitarianism.
For everyone posting their anecdotal MS horror stories, you're not alone. MS has disapponted me several times. But then so has car rental agencies, restaurants, numerous other companies, and even some friends. Get over it. Remember that you chose them, and you have the freedom to change that choice. If Katz and his ilk get their way, you wont get these choices anymore. They will have been made for you.
stories, and predictably Katz is cheering him on. The definition of a monopoly is control of the supply. Monopolies are deemed bad because they can charge whatever they want. The consumer suffers because he has just two options, pay the price or do without.
Microsoft does not control the supply of software. It does not have the only operating system. It does not employ all of the programmers. On the contrary, Microsoft has lots of competition.
Microsoft has managed to attract the vast majority of consumers. This judge (and Katz) has decided that consumers are making the wrong choice and and is trying to "help" them by attacking their OS supplier of choice.
This attack is based on misusing the term monopoly, and panders to peoples fear of monopolies. This judge would have us believe that a large number of us picking one supplier is a monopoly.
This is an attack against freedom by elitist sobs who feel they know whats best for us and are going to force their solutions down our throat.
Even if Microsoft were a monopoly, the US government has a terrible record of dealing with them. The price of oil and gas skyrocketted after Standard Oil was broken up. The phone system's service level has not faired well since the breakup of AT&T.
Most monopolies form because of government protections, and the best way to fight them is for government to stop meddling.
Microsoft is extremely aggressive, and their goals are not always in line with their consumers. But consumers are capable of dealing with that. Many do by buying Apple, Linux, et. al.
I'm not saying that Microsoft has crossed lines it shouldn't have. If it broke laws, punish it as presribed by those laws. But if you give the government the power to punish Microsoft for crossing lines that are not against the law, then you are giving the government arbitrary authority, and that is the keystone of totalitarianism.
For everyone posting their anecdotal MS horror stories, you're not alone. MS has disapponted me several times. But then so has car rental agencies, restaurants, numerous other companies, and even some friends. Get over it. Remember that you chose them, and you have the freedom to change that choice. If Katz and his ilk get their way, you wont get these choices anymore. They will have been made for you.
The definition of a monopoly is control of the supply. Monopolies are deemed bad because they can charge whatever they want. The consumer suffers because he has just two options, pay the price or do without.
Microsoft does not control the supply of software. It does not have the only operating system. It does not employ all of the programmers. On the contrary, Microsoft has lots of competition.
Microsoft has managed to attact the vast majority of consumers. This judge (and Katz) has decided that consumers are making the wrong choice and and is trying to "help" them by attacking their OS supplier of choice.
This attack is based on misusing the term monopoly, and panders to peoples fear of monopolies. This judge would have us believe that a large number of us picking one supplier is a monopoly.
This is an attack against freedom by elitist sobs who feel they know whats best for us and are going to force their solutions down our throat.
Even if Microsoft were a monopoly, the US government has a terrible record of dealing with them. The price of oil and gas skyrocketted after Standard Oil was broken up. The phone system's service level has not faired well since the breakup of AT&T.
Most monopolies form because of government protections, and the best way to fight them is for government to stop meddling.
Microsoft is extremely aggressive, and their goals are not always in line with their consumers. But consumers are capable of dealing with that. Many do by buying Apple, Linux, et. al.
I'm not saying that Microsoft has crossed lines it shouldn't have. If it broke laws, punish it as presribed by those laws. But if you give the government the power to punish Microsoft for crossing lines that are not against the law, then you are giving the government arbitrary authority, and that is the keystone of totalitarianism.
For everyone posting their anecdotal MS horror stories, you're not alone. MS has disapponted me several times. But then so has car rental agencies, restaurants, numerous other companies, and even some friends. Get over it. Remember that you chose them, and you have the freedom to change that choice. If Katz and his ilk get their way, you wont get these choices anymore. They will have been made for you.
Doesn't that imply censoring the critics?
They smartest thing my Dad ever said was "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." That should apply equally to Peter Singer as well as the "ideologues, educators, clergymen and dogmatic politicians". Even Dr. Laura.
I'm glad Jesse Ventura has the guts to speak his mind. I'm sure this Playboy thing won't intimidate him. However, the people in the Reform Party whom he has offended have just as much right to be heard. If they don't want to be represented by him any longer, they have the right to say so and to work to that end. Jon, you can't limit your libertarian ideals to one side of the story.
A side issue: Guiliani withholding taxpayer money does not equal censorship. The artist is still free to produce his/her art, but that doesn't mean that we, the taxpayers, have to pay for it. Forcing us to pay for art that we think is crap is elitism.
Another side issue: Jon is playing the threadbare "envy/hatred of the rich" card in describing the genetic engineering issue. Generalized to the whole medical industry: Would you rather have Canada's socialist medicine whose state of the art is effectivly stuck in the seventies? In a (reletively) free market, as new medical technologies become available, they are expensive and only available to the rich, but as the state of the art progresses, the costs come down. What you end up with is the rich subsidising the R&D.
Jon, are you suggesting that new technologies be denied from the rich because others cannot afford them? If we did that, progress would all but stop, and many of the low cost technologies that we enjoy today never would have matured, and the people hurt the most by this misguided altruism would be the poor.
JonKatz doesn't seem to realize that he is one of the Luddites that he refers to. The luddite mantra gets repeated endlessly, and its all the more pathetic when the current generation thinks its revelations are new. What JonKatz is really espousing is elitism. He thinks that he and a few other "serious minded people" are more qualified than us, the unwashed masses, to determine what technology we need or should be allowed to have. Witness: "One add blanketing commercial TV touts new wireless phone technology that will allow people to get their e-mail, weather and sports scores instantly from anywhere. Does anybody really need to be that wired?" The answer is, for many individuals, yes, or they wouldn't shell out their money for it and there wouldn't be a market.