articles

[Michael Iott]

The assumption is that commercial success is achieved through creating a quality
product. There are examples to numerous to detail of the fallacy of that
assumption. Marketing creates commercial success. Aggressive marketing usually
creates some kind of inequity and often results in monopoly or oligopoly. If you
repeat a lie often enough it begins to sound true.
medicinecrow

Bibbs, Christopher wrote:

> I doubt either author read the Jackson's writings.  They certainly don't
> seem to understand what a monopoly is according to the Sherman Act.  If they
> did read them, they decided not to refute the arguments there and instead
> made up new ones to refute.
>
> In any case, it makes no sense to argue with them point by point.  They've
> chosen points they can win and structured the argument to have one logical
> conclusion.  Really and excellent debate tactic and one which I'll employ
> below.
>
> 1) Microsoft is a monopoly by definition as written in the Sherman Act.  It
> doesn't matter if they got to that position naturally, illegally, or the
> will of God.  The point is in 1996 and today Microsoft holds monopoly power
> in the Intel-compatible PC operating system market.
>
> 2) Using said power they forced (through contracts and technical schemes)
> OEMs to distribute Internet Explorer.  Forced bundling of products by a
> monopoly is illegal.
>
> 3) Using economic advantages gained from their monopoly power, Microsoft
> dumped software on independent Internet access providers and contractually
> forced them to reduce shipments of Netscape.
>
> No further points need be made.  A crime was committed and needs to be
> punished.  You might argue that a break up is too severe, but that's not
> what the editorials are about, are they.
>
> Christopher Bibbs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcel Kunath [mailto:kunathma@pilot.msu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 2:12 PM
> To: pfaffben@msu.edu
> Cc: linux-user@egr.msu.edu
> Subject: Re: articles
>
> I have written about 5 letters to the editor so far. One got printed the
> others did not. Some were clearly too long.
>
> I do not want to write another because on this subject I clearly would lose
> my
> temper again. I would though suggest that if ten people send letters to the
> editor about this subject then most likely one or two will make it in.
>
> I myself found that there was 'air' in the opinions. There was no evidence
> supporting their claims or false evidence. Netscape got bought by AOL and
> the
> guy states that as healthy picture. Any economist would tell you that when a
> company gets bought it is most likely because of failure in their business
> scheme.
> Mergers can be acceptions to this. He also stated reliability as good point
> for
> Windows. I am not sure what reliability he meant. Being sure sooner or later
> it
> will crash?
>
> Ok to go through the article by Ballor.
>
> He says: Windows is a superior operating system. He never reasons his
> claims.
> He just states something but mentions no proof. reliability, functional use,
> overall cost etc.
>
> Netscape has thrived? It has lost market share from 90% down to less than
> 40%
> ever since IE got bundled. I don't call that thriving.
>
> You can install programs like Netscape easily? Yeah but does he think of all
> the programs that do not exist because of the way Microsoft handles business
> and forces others out or buys them up?
>
> He uses the innovation leads to success rule. If we remember then we know
> Microsoft started by buying others and reselling it. And it has been done
> and
> redone. See Java.
>
> How can he know Microsoft has done best for consumers if he doesn't put
> himself
> in the position of what other products may there be without MS?
>
> The antitrust actions have been brought up by other companies? Nobody but
> the
> Dept of Justice or the states is suing. This is ludicrious.
>
> AOL vs MS? I don't see where AOL comes into this?
>
> He says others like Apple and Sun have done well. He always forgets to ask
> how
> they would have done without MS fussing in others business and calling
> everything its own.
>
> His statistics. Where are the stats about 90% desktop ownership? Where are
> the
> facts that with owning the desktop OS they also own the office suites?
>
> Windows is user-friendly? Is every user the same? I love the command line. I
> think its powerful if you learned how to use it.
>
> MS Office allows easier use and integration of programs? Has this guy ever
> used
> other software? I doubt it. I couldn't name a separate program besides
> WordPerfect. How can he state such thing when there is nothing to compare it
> with.
>
> And for one not the interest of the consumer should rule. It's the law that
> matters. If they don't like it they should change the Sherman Act.
>
> The other article:
>
> ....the size don't make it a monopoly.....
>
> C'mon who said that the size would. Have they read Judge Jacksons
> findings????
>
> .....there are others who sell hardware and related programming....
>
> Yeah well 4 years ago there was almost nobody who gave you an option.
>
> Now they say that they illegally bought out others. But still its no
> monopoly
> but it is on its way there????
>
> ....Consumers are extremely dependent on MS.....
>
> I guess they don't see that that basically might be because of its illegal
> tactics.
>
> ........it might disattract others to purchase computers.....
>
> I wish there was less people on the net. Let's give everybody a gun just
> because they have enough money to buy one.
>
> ......there are other programs and operating systems as option......
>
> Yeah but before all of this uproar you didn't see them around.
>
> mk
>
>  > > "Marcel Kunath" <kunathma@pilot.msu.edu> writes: >
> > > I am sorry but I thought I can't keep this bad journalism for myself and
> hav
> e
> > > to share the articles with you.
> > >
> > > statenews from today:
> > >
> > > http://www.statenews.com/editions/040600/op_col1.html
> > >
> > > http://www.statenews.com/editions/040600/op_edit.html
> > >
> > > They got so many flaws it would take a book to analyze these. I mean did
> the
> y
> > > do any research before they wrote it? I doubt they have read a single
> line o
> f
> > > what Judge Jackson cited as evidence.
> >
> > I'm thinking about preparing a rebuttal and sending it in as a
> > letter to the editor.  Anyone out there want to contribute
> > suggestions?
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-user mailing list
> > linux-user@egr.msu.edu
> > http://www.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
> >
>
> --
> Marcel Kunath
>
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>  Montie House Network            Greater Lansing Linux Users Group
>   http://www.montiehouse.com      http://www.gllug.org
>
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-user mailing list
> linux-user@egr.msu.edu
> http://www.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-user mailing list
> linux-user@egr.msu.edu
> http://www.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user