Re: Typical Troll responses... - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Typical Troll responses... - Linux ; * DFS fired off this tart reply: > [H]omer wrote: >> See if you can spot the pattern. >> >> COLA: Microsoft has a monopoly. > TRUTH: Microsoft never was, is or can be a monopoly. Goddam it ya got ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Re: Typical Troll responses...

  1. Re: Typical Troll responses...

    * DFS fired off this tart reply:

    > [H]omer wrote:
    >> See if you can spot the pattern.
    >>
    >> COLA: Microsoft has a monopoly.

    > TRUTH: Microsoft never was, is or can be a monopoly.




    Goddam it ya got me coughin' up a lung here, I'm laughin' so hard.

    Can't read any further.

    Ohmigod, my sputum has flecks of red in it!

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

  2. Re: Typical Troll responses...

    Linonut writes:

    > * DFS fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> [H]omer wrote:
    >>> See if you can spot the pattern.
    >>>
    >>> COLA: Microsoft has a monopoly.

    >> TRUTH: Microsoft never was, is or can be a monopoly.

    >
    >
    >
    > Goddam it ya got me coughin' up a lung here, I'm laughin' so hard.
    >
    > Can't read any further.
    >
    > Ohmigod, my sputum has flecks of red in it!



    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.

    I can not recall a single moment where MS had no competition. There have
    always been alternatives to MS Operating Systems and Application SW.

  3. Re: Typical Troll responses...

    On 2007-12-01, Hadron wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    > I can not recall a single moment where MS had no competition. There have
    > always been alternatives to MS Operating Systems and Application SW.


    I'm curious why you think the dictionary definition of monopoly has any
    relevance to the legal definition (which is the one that is relevant as
    far as the law goes).

  4. Re: Typical Troll responses...

    Tim Smith writes:

    > On 2007-12-01, Hadron wrote:
    >> 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.
    >>
    >> I can not recall a single moment where MS had no competition. There have
    >> always been alternatives to MS Operating Systems and Application SW.

    >
    > I'm curious why you think the dictionary definition of monopoly has any
    > relevance to the legal definition (which is the one that is relevant as
    > far as the law goes).


    Primarily because I wasn't aware of different meanings!

    --
    El que reclama igualdad de oportunidades acaba exigiendo que se penalice
    al bien dotado.
    -- Nicolás Gomez Dávila. Colombian.

  5. Re: Typical Troll responses...

    Hadron wrote:

    > Tim Smith writes:
    >
    >> On 2007-12-01, Hadron wrote:
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> I can not recall a single moment where MS had no competition. There have
    >>> always been alternatives to MS Operating Systems and Application SW.

    >>
    >> I'm curious why you think the dictionary definition of monopoly has any
    >> relevance to the legal definition (which is the one that is relevant as
    >> far as the law goes).

    >
    > Primarily because I wasn't aware of different meanings!
    >


    Naturally not.
    It is not as if they haven't been mentioned about a gazillion times alone
    here in COLA
    --
    Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a way of life.


  6. Re: Typical Troll responses...

    Peter Khlmann wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Tim Smith writes:
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>> I can not recall a single moment where MS had no
    >>>> competition. There have always been alternatives to MS
    >>>> Operating Systems and Application SW.
    >>>
    >>> I'm curious why you think the dictionary definition of
    >>> monopoly has any relevance to the legal definition (which
    >>> is the one that is relevant as far as the law goes).

    >>
    >> Primarily because I wasn't aware of different meanings!

    >
    > Naturally not. It is not as if they haven't been mentioned
    > about a gazillion times alone here in COLA


    True, however, since a case of amnesia or state of denial
    continues, a learning lesson is in order.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0709-09.htm

    How Microsoft Lost Big at the Appeals Court
    Antitrust and Software Standards in the Internet Era
    by Nathan Newman

    It's worth being clear: the Appeals Court affirmed almost every
    finding of fact by the lower court that Microsoft used coercion,
    intimidation, lying and other anti-competitive actions to prevent
    any challenge to its Windows operating system monopoly. The
    remedy of breaking up Microsoft was overturned largely because of
    the district judge's procedural failure to hold a separate
    hearing on the best remedy and for his un-judicial comments about
    Microsoft made to the press.
    Lack of consumer choice limits competition, incurs greater cost
    than necessary.

    http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...dows_bundling/

    or http://tinyurl.com/35ks33

    Free-market think tank urges EU to unbundle Windows
    By Austin Modine in Mountain View
    24 Sep 2007 06:36
    'No natural monopoly'

    The institute argues while that PC vendors and component
    manufacturers must compete on styling and brand reputation, none
    are the sole choice for consumers. Intel battles with AMD, hard
    drives come from Seagate, Hitachi and Western Digital, various
    memory makers scuffle amongst themselves, etc.

    "But on the software side, the general customer, who walks into a
    PC World or PC City, is not able to purchase a commodity PC
    without automatically paying for Windows," said Singleton. "The
    result is that consumers who, given the choice, would opt for a
    cheaper operating system, find themselves automatically buying
    the market leader."
    I found this portion of the article particularly interesting. It
    illustrates a case of misapplied "laissez-faire", a stance that
    has been oddly maintained, but in truth it is a failed strategy,
    hurting consumers.

    "Misguided laissez-faire"

    Windows dominance translates into extra cost for almost every EU
    business, The institute argues. In addition to the price of
    purchase, companies also pay hiked support costs to patch
    vulnerabilities that "have plagued Windows systems".

    "In America, misguided supporters of pure laissez-faire try to
    claim that Microsoft's monopoly is good for consumers." Singleton
    told El Reg It's a proposition that only a blinded ideologue
    could support. Laissez-faire, unlike the free market, is an
    ideology that doesn't work if you want to see it in action, you
    just have to look at the disaster that is Somalia."

    Singleton said Microsoft's dominance has meant higher prices,
    less innovation and more computer crashes. "How can someone who
    supports free and open markets defend that?"
    And of course, as stated by the US Department of Justice:

    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf

    It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not found
    to have been illegally acquired, see United States v. Microsoft,
    56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have been
    illegally maintained.
    --
    HPT

+ Reply to Thread