Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

David Schwartz wrote:

Yes, and that's not what Microsoft has ever done. There have always
been lots of shops selling Microsoft merchandise without being a
Microsoft franchise in the sense Burger King shops are.

Right, Microsoft imposed a lesser restriction. They allowed you to sell
competing products, but charged you a fee.

That's why I still say your comparison is a bad one.

It shows that Microsoft's purportedly draconian restrictions are much
less than restrictions that people don't even bat an eye at.

DS

 

[Roger Blake]

Of course it did.

Before MS-DOS their most well-known product was Microsoft BASIC.
I have an old "Interact" 8080-based microcomputer that came with
a cassette tape of MS BASIC copyrighted 1977.

 

[Paul Rubin]

I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice illegal for a
company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they did, I'm going after
Doctor's Associates and Kenmore.

Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think
Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not.

 

[David Schwartz]

Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think
Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not.

What is an "illegal monopoly"?

DS

 

[Paul Rubin]

What is an "illegal monopoly"?

It's what Microsoft still stands convicted of having.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/msdoj/

 

[Espen Myrland]

What is an "illegal monopoly"?

The opposite of a "legal monopoly". For example, in Norway we have
"Vinmonopolet", a monopoly which are the only one allowed to sell
wine and spirits to the public.

 

[David Schwartz]

It's what Microsoft still stands convicted of having.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/msdoj/

I don't see anything there about what an "illegal monopoly" is or might
be. Perhaps you could clarify. What do you think you mean when you say
"illegal monopoly"?

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

The opposite of a "legal monopoly". For example, in Norway we have
"Vinmonopolet", a monopoly which are the only one allowed to sell
wine and spirits to the public.

Seriously, I have no idea what you he means by "illegal monopoly". I
understand that one can be granted a monopoly by law, however not being
granted a monopoly by law does not make the monopoly illegal. Is he claiming
the monopoly itself violated some law?

For example, I know what "illegal monopoly maintenance" is. It's
illegally maintaining a monopoly. But it's not maintaining an illegal
monopoly. As the appeals court put it, "the monopoly in this case was not
found to have been illegally acquired, but only to have been illegally
maintained." Both the district and appellate courts characterized
Microsoft's monopoly as "lawfully-acquired".

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no court
ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to characterize
the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous.

DS

 

[John Gordon]

What is an "illegal monopoly"?

A monopoly that acts in certain ways, abusing its monopoly power. There's
nothing inherently illegal about having a monopoly; it only becomes illegal
when you abuse the power.

 

[David Schwartz]

In <[email protected]> "David Schwartz"

A monopoly that acts in certain ways, abusing its monopoly power. There's
nothing inherently illegal about having a monopoly; it only becomes
illegal
when you abuse the power.

That's just not true. When you abuse the power, the abuse itself is
illegal, but it doesn't make the monopoly itself illegal. This is like
saying a person who uses his bat to hit people has an "illegal bat".

When you say "it only become illegal", you are just being vague. Nothing
becomes illegal. The abuse is illegal, but it never was legal.

DS

 

[John Gordon]

When you say "it only become illegal", you are just being vague. Nothing
becomes illegal. The abuse is illegal, but it never was legal.

You're splitting hairs. But hey, what's usenet for?

 

[Paul Rubin]

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no court
ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to characterize
the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous.

Who is paying you to tell these ridiculous crap? The monopoly is illegal
if maintained by anticompetitive means regardless of how it was acquired.
From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/conclusions-l.html:

Section 2 of the Sherman Act declares that it is unlawful for a person
or firm to "monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among
the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ." 15 U.S.C. § 2.
This language operates to limit the means by which a firm may lawfully
either acquire or perpetuate monopoly power. Specifically, a firm
violates sec. 2 if it attains or preserves monopoly power through
anticompetitive acts.

The threshold element of a sec 2 monopolization offense being "the
possession of monopoly power in the relevant market...

David Schwartz, I have a direct question for you: are you on
Microsoft's payroll?

 

[Mike Meyer]

Who is paying you to tell these ridiculous crap? The monopoly is illegal
if maintained by anticompetitive means regardless of how it was acquired.
From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/conclusions-l.html:

Section 2 of the Sherman Act declares that it is unlawful for a person
or firm to "monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among
the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ." 15 U.S.C. § 2.
This language operates to limit the means by which a firm may lawfully
either acquire or perpetuate monopoly power. Specifically, a firm
violates sec. 2 if it attains or preserves monopoly power through
anticompetitive acts.

The threshold element of a sec 2 monopolization offense being "the
possession of monopoly power in the relevant market...

Which means that the successful exercise of monopoly power is
sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a monopoly. A claim that
David Schwartz has never bothered to answer.

David Schwartz, I have a direct question for you: are you on
Microsoft's payroll?

I've noticed something strange that makes me wonder the same
thing. Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with that of any other
criminals, he responds about MS's activity being "equated to that of
criminals with guns", and refuses to discuss the issue. Ironically,
while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with guns -
after all, they're white collar criminals - David Schwartz called the
DOJ official who were investigating MS "criminals with guns pointed
out [MS officers] heads".

It seems like he's trying to avoid (further) tarnishing MS's
reputation by avoiding having MS associated with other criminals. You
have to wonder what could caause that kinnd of behavior.

<mike

 

[David Schwartz]

Who is paying you to tell these ridiculous crap? The monopoly is illegal
if maintained by anticompetitive means regardless of how it was acquired.
From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/conclusions-l.html:

Is it your position that Micorosoft's monopoly was illegal when they
first acquired it?

The threshold element of a sec 2 monopolization offense being "the
possession of monopoly power in the relevant market...

If that were true, how could a person ever legally acquire a monopoly,
which is exactly what the courts held with respect to Microsoft?

David Schwartz, I have a direct question for you: are you on
Microsoft's payroll?

No. I have never received a dime from Microsoft, either directly or
indirectly. I am one of those people who believes that conduct that's
perfectly legal, moral and ethical before you can be said to have a monopoly
does not suddenly become immoral or unethical the day you acquire 51% of
what someone calls a market. I am not the only person with this view.

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945999623?v=glance
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=31
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=344&org_name=NTUF

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

I've noticed something strange that makes me wonder the same
thing. Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with that of any other
criminals, he responds about MS's activity being "equated to that of
criminals with guns", and refuses to discuss the issue. Ironically,
while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with guns -
after all, they're white collar criminals - David Schwartz called the
DOJ official who were investigating MS "criminals with guns pointed
out [MS officers] heads".

I can't understand why you would post an outright lie like this.
"Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with
guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior is
equated to the actual use of force where that is not in fact done in
precisely the thread I'm replying to.

In the present thread, for example, I was responding to:

"We are talking junior Mafia style enforcement."

and

"Try the same thing to deal with a Mafia extortion racket."

and his response to my question if he was specifically saying that
Microsoft ever used or threatened force was:

"YES . Have you not read a word I said."

and

"It will be very hard to prosecute MS for their crimes because they commit
them much the way the Mafia does. ... Everyone was terrified of MS and would
never dream of going public. I have talked about this publicly many times
because it always looked as if I were going to die in a few years anyway."

DS

 

[Mike Meyer]

I've noticed something strange that makes me wonder the same
thing. Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with that of any other
criminals, he responds about MS's activity being "equated to that of
criminals with guns", and refuses to discuss the issue. Ironically,
while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with guns -
after all, they're white collar criminals - David Schwartz called the
DOJ official who were investigating MS "criminals with guns pointed
out [MS officers] heads".

I can't understand why you would post an outright lie like this.

I, on the other hand, understand why you accuse me of lying. You don't
have an answer to the claim, so you call the claim false. SOP for you.

"Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with
guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior is
equated to the actual use of force where that is not in fact done in
precisely the thread I'm replying to.

The first one is at:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/8422f41c9fe137b0?dmode=source&hl=en

The original comment was:

Note that no mention is made of guns or force - just a definition of
theft. Unless you're so narrowminded that nothing short of pointing a
gun at someone and demanding money from them is stealing from them,
there is no way that this can be equated to the actual use of
force. And if you do believe that definition of stealing, I'll do your
bookkeeping for free - and I won't steal from you.

Your reply:

It is not theft if you can simply say "no" to the deal and all that
happens is that you don't get the product. Your argument is preposterous. If
you accept arguments that equate guns with arguments, the next step is that
using a gun is a rational response to an argument one doesn't like. Oh wait,
you're already there.

Wherein you accuse me of equating MS's actions with using guns, which
is *exactly* what I said you do.

There are lots more examples of you doing this kind of thing. Like I
said, everytime someone compares MS's behavior with some less
controversial criminal behavior, you act like they accused MS of
holding people up at gunpoint.

<mike

 

[Mike Schilling]

Is that really true? I mean, I remember distributions of Linux that you
could just stick in the CD, boot from CD, and you were up in minutes.
Installing was as simple as pushing the 'install to hard drive' button.

If all of the hardware is known to Linux, that can work, and Linux has
gotten much better at being able to recognize and auto-configure lots of
devices.

But picture that, when this was less true, you wanted to buy a machine with
the newest-whizbang graphics card or disk controller. For Windows, the
manufacturer would make sure the proper drivers are installed and
configured. For Linux, you the consumer had to find a driver, install it,
configure it (the phrase "drive geometry" sticks in my head) and deal with
the lack of useful feedback if anything goes wrong.

I haven't tried to install Windows since Windows 95 was current. I recall
that as being pretty horrible, but for different reasons. There was a step
where, after the basic OS had been installed onto the hard drive, and it was
time to sense other devices. Half the time, this would simply hang the
computer, and you'd have to start over from scratch. Most of the rest of
the time, it would find most of the devices and make really awful guesses
about the rest, like thinking the sound card was a CD player. I suspect
this works better these days too.

 

[David Schwartz]

The first one is at:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/8422f41c9fe137b0?dmode=source&hl=en

The original comment was:


Note that no mention is made of guns or force - just a definition of
theft. Unless you're so narrowminded that nothing short of pointing a
gun at someone and demanding money from them is stealing from them,
there is no way that this can be equated to the actual use of
force. And if you do believe that definition of stealing, I'll do your
bookkeeping for free - and I won't steal from you.

Your reply:


Wherein you accuse me of equating MS's actions with using guns, which
is *exactly* what I said you do.

This thread is large and complex, and I can't always know exactly what's
a reply to what reply to what. So what's said in what part of a thread may
carry over to another part of that same thread.

There are lots more examples of you doing this kind of thing. Like I
said, everytime someone compares MS's behavior with some less
controversial criminal behavior, you act like they accused MS of
holding people up at gunpoint.

They are. Read the quotes. Here they are again:

"We are talking junior Mafia style enforcement."

Did Microsoft ever use or threaten force?

"YES . Have you not read a word I said."

"It will be very hard to prosecute MS for their crimes because they commit
them much the way the Mafia does. ... Everyone was terrified of MS and would
never dream of going public. I have talked about this publicly many times
because it always looked as if I were going to die in a few years anyway."

There are many more.

Unless you're so narrowminded that nothing short of pointing a
gun at someone and demanding money from them is stealing from them,
there is no way that this can be equated to the actual use of
force. And if you do believe that definition of stealing, I'll do your
bookkeeping for free - and I won't steal from you.

You are seriously saying that people in this thread have not
consistently described Microsoft's actions as analogous to an actual use of
force? Have you read any of the thread? Do I need to dig out more quotes?

These are all from early in the thread, long before the posts you are
complaining about:

"The choice was go along with MS arm twisting or go out of business."

and

"To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine
wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under
the table or pay full retail for all magazines."

However, you may be right that some of my replies to you may not have
been justified as responses to just what you said. It'd take a lot of
digging through the thread to figure that out.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

Is that really true? I mean, I remember distributions of Linux that you
could just stick in the CD, boot from CD, and you were up in minutes.
Installing was as simple as pushing the 'install to hard drive' button.

[snip]
But picture that, when this was less true, you wanted to buy a machine
with the newest-whizbang graphics card or disk controller. For Windows,
the manufacturer would make sure the proper drivers are installed and
configured. For Linux, you the consumer had to find a driver, install it,
configure it (the phrase "drive geometry" sticks in my head) and deal with
the lack of useful feedback if anything goes wrong.

[snip]

That's a really good point.

DS

 

[Mike Meyer]

This thread is large and complex, and I can't always know exactly what's
a reply to what reply to what. So what's said in what part of a thread may
carry over to another part of that same thread.

So follow the link and read it. I quoted the comment and reply
directly to make life easier on the readers. I quoted them exactly in
context. That you try and deny they illustrate you doing exactly what
I said you do is only to be expected.

They are. Read the quotes. Here they are again:

So what? That doesn't change the essential truth of my statement -
that you react to *every* comparison of MS's activities with less
controversial criminal activity with the "You're comparing them to
criminals with guns. I won't discuss that." It really does make me
think that you're more interested in protecting MS's reputation than
in any discussinon.

You are seriously saying that people in this thread have not
consistently described Microsoft's actions as analogous to an actual use of
force? Have you read any of the thread? Do I need to dig out more quotes?

Yes, I've read the thread. It's full of you creating straw men,
calling those who disagree with you liars, calling the government
crooks, and the like. I'd be interested in seeing *one* quote that
compare MS's actions to the "actual use of force." And I want what I
gave you - the link to the google groups page the quote came from, and
enough context to find it.

The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use
of force". It compares MS to people who are willing to use force to
get their ends. But there is no "actual use of force."

These are all from early in the thread, long before the posts you are
complaining about:
"The choice was go along with MS arm twisting or go out of business."

No, this wasn't "long before" the post I quoted; it occured well after
it. And while this really does refer to the "actual use of force",
anyone even vaguely familiar with common english usage will recognize
the phrase "arm twisting" as an idiomatic usage for a being extremely
persuasive, with no "actual use of force" taking place. If that's the
best you can do, you really haven't got an argument.

"To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine
wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under
the table or pay full retail for all magazines."

No "actual use of force" in this one, either. This is a *very* apt
comparison. The only real difference between this and what MS did is
that it replaces something mildly objectionable - charging people for
something they aren't getting - with something very objectionable -
selling kiddie porn.

However, you may be right that some of my replies to you may not have
been justified as responses to just what you said. It'd take a lot of
digging through the thread to figure that out.

Your replies to *everyone* who compares MS's criminal activities to
more obviously criminal activities have been that accues them of
equating MS's actions to using a gun - much nastier than simply "the
actual use of force" and then refusing to discuss the comparison. The
only explanation I can think of is that you are trying to prevent
people from realizing that MS is a criminal organization. That you
deny doing this is only to be expected, and I'll bet you deny it
again.

<mike