[News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tech giants form group to buy patents ,----[ Quote ] | To join the group, each company will pay about $250,000 put about $5 million | into escrow for future patent purchases, the newspaper ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying

  1. [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Tech giants form group to buy patents

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | To join the group, each company will pay about $250,000 put about $5 million
    | into escrow for future patent purchases, the newspaper reported, citing
    | people familiar with the matter
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | A sweeping patent law rewrite backed by seemingly every prominent hardware
    | and software maker was part of that effort, but it stalled in the Senate last
    | month. The so-called Patent Reform Act of 2007 would have curbed the ability
    | of patent holders to obtain what the companies consider disproportionate
    | damage awards, spurring the rise of so-called patent trolls who exist only to
    | extort large payments out of deep-pocketed companies. Microsoft, Google,
    | Cisco, Adobe Systems, Apple, Intel, Symantec, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, eBay,
    | Oracle, and Red Hat were among the high-profile signatories that signed on in
    | support of passage of the bill.
    `----

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-99...=2547-1_3-0-20


    Recent:

    A Czar for the Digital Peasants

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | One sure sign of a lack of political vision is a rise in the number of pieces
    | of acronymic legislation. After September 11, the US Congress passed the
    | euphoniously named “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
    | Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act” the
    | initials of which spell out “USA – Patriot.” The Patriot Act is a pretty bad
    | piece of legislation, but at least its drafters worked hard on the acronyms
    | so that opponents could be labelled “anti-patriot” – a perfect level of
    | analysis for Fox News. Admittedly, in this administration, having public
    | officials torturing acronyms rather than detainees might be counted as a
    | plus, but I still find the whole practice distasteful. I'd suggest that
    | politicians vow to vote against any piece of legislation with its own
    | normatively loaded acronym, no matter how otherwise appealing. It might make
    | them focus a little more on the content.
    |
    | In any event, Congress has been at it again. The House just passed, and the
    | Senate is considering, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for
    | Intellectual Property Act of 2008 – or “Pro-IP” Act. (If it passes, a version
    | is sure to be urged on Europe as a matter of “harmonisation.”) Are you
    | pro-intellectual property? Then surely you must be for this piece of
    | legislation! The name says it all.
    `----

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14aacbc8-4...0779fd2ac.html


    European Patent Office issued fewer patents in 2007

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Nonetheless, the EPO staff's morale seems to have never been lower. A survey
    | conducted among several thousand staff members found that only 4 per cent
    | have faith in the management board. Only 6 per cent said they were satisfied
    | with their direct superiors and the president. The auditors have also long
    | been complaining that they are chronically overworked.
    `----

    http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/E...-2007--/110993


    Campaign4Creativity is back in software patents lobbying

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Simon Gentry is back in software patents lobbying. Now his role is to push
    | for legalisation of software patents via the creation of central patent court
    | in Europe.
    `----

    http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum...tents-lobbying


    Term Extension “will damage Commission’s reputation”, top legal advisers tell
    Barroso

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Today, the leading European centres for intellectual property research have
    | released a joint letter to EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso,
    | enclosing an impact assessment detailing the far reaching and negative
    | effects of the proposal to extend the term of copyright in sound recordings.
    | [...] “This Copyright Extension Directive, proposed by Commissioner Mccreevy,
    | is likely to damage seriously the reputation of the Commission..."
    `----

    http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/...-tell-barroso/


    [ffii] McCreevy wants to legalise Software Patents via a US-EU patent treaty

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Brussels, 13 May 2008 -- European Commissioner McCreevy is pushing for a
    | bilateral patent treaty with the United States. This Tuesday 13 May in
    | Brussels, White House and European representatives will try to adopt a
    | tight roadmap for the signature of a EU-US patent treaty by the end of
    | the year. Parts of the proposed treaty will contain provision on
    | software patents, and could legalise them on both sides of the Atlantic.
    |
    | "TEC talks are the current push for software patents. The US want to
    | eliminate the higher standards of the European Patent Convention. The
    | bilateral agenda is dictated by multinationals gathered in the
    | Transatlantic Economic Business Dialogue (TABD). When you have a look
    | who is in the Executive Board of the TABD, you find not a single
    | European SME in there", says Benjamin Henrion, a Brussels based patent
    | policy specialist.
    |
    | The Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) which comprises EU and US high
    | level representatives put a substantive harmonisation of patent law on
    | its agenda. Substantive patent law covers what is patentable or not. The
    | attempt to impose the low US standards on Europe via the Substantive
    | Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) process utterly failed at the World
    | Intellectual Property Organisation. Also progress in the WIPO B+
    | subgroup (without development nations) could not be reached.
    `----

    http://lwn.net/Articles/282000/


    Nokia does not get it

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | You better start playing by the rules because else the other companies might
    | do it faster than Nokia and you will lose the opportunity. Oh: And just as a
    | remind: when you go open source, you *must* play by the rules by honoring the
    | license of the software.
    |
    | Really, it’s sad to listen to things like this from someone controlling the
    | company who owns Trolltech *I am sure that the vice-president of companies
    | like Red Hat wouldn’t say nonsense like the above. But it’s no surprise
    | coming from someone in a company that seems to be absolutely in favor of
    | software patents in Europe according to FFII.
    `----

    http://edulix.wordpress.com/2008/06/...es-not-get-it/


    Ideas Are Everywhere... So Why Do We Limit Them?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Gladwell uses this to talk up what Myhrvold is doing, suggesting that
    | Intellectual Ventures is really about continuing that process, getting those
    | ideas out there -- but he misses the much bigger point: if these ideas are
    | the natural progression, almost guaranteed to be discovered by someone sooner
    | or later, why do we give a monopoly on these ideas to a single discoverer?
    | Myhrvold's whole business model is about monopolizing all of these ideas and
    | charging others (who may have discovered them totally independently) to
    | actually do something with them. Yet, if Gladwell's premise is correct (and
    | there's plenty of evidence included in the article), then Myhrvold's efforts
    | shouldn't be seen as a big deal. After all, if it wasn't Myhrvold and his
    | friends doing it, others would very likely come up with the same thing sooner
    | or later.
    |
    | This is especially highlighted in one anecdote in the article, of Myhrvold
    | holding a dinner with a bunch of smart people... and an attorney. The group
    | spent dinner talking about a bunch of different random ideas, with no real
    | goal or purpose -- just "chewing the rag" as one participant put it. But the
    | next day the attorney approached them with a typewritten description of 36
    | different inventions that were potentially patentable out of the dinner. When
    | a random "chewing the rag" conversation turns up 36 monopolies, something is
    | wrong. Those aren't inventions that deserve a monopoly.
    `----

    http://techdirt.com/articles/20080507/0114581051.shtml
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIaLKVU4xAY3RXLo4RApv3AJ9eWqR++Do5Gs5XQuECLs tqf/+0ugCePQa8
    lyZdx9Mih/dPJpqsiQcgTaY=
    =X2rD
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying


    "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    message news4ednapHWLO8UfXVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
    >
    > Which once again highlights the absolute ****wittery of software patents.
    > The big boys are protected against each other, but the little guy is
    > ****ed. So what if he manages to get himself a patent or two (ignoring for
    > the moment the time it takes to get the application through) the big boys
    > can swat him like a fly with their encyclopedias of IP ****wittery.
    >
    >

    Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little guy, eh?


  3. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies-- by Paying

    amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    > message news4ednapHWLO8UfXVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
    >>
    >> Which once again highlights the absolute ****wittery of software
    >> patents. The big boys are protected against each other, but the little
    >> guy is ****ed. So what if he manages to get himself a patent or two
    >> (ignoring for the moment the time it takes to get the application
    >> through) the big boys can swat him like a fly with their encyclopedias
    >> of IP ****wittery.
    >>
    >>

    > Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little guy, eh?


    No, the obvious lesson is to ablosih software patenting and make the big
    boys compete for their "revenue streams" on product merit, and not
    reliance on monopoly.


  4. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Phil Da Lick! on Monday 30 June 2008 13:05 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> Tech giants form group to buy patents
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | To join the group, each company will pay about $250,000 put about $5
    >> | million into escrow for future patent purchases, the newspaper reported,
    >> | citing people familiar with the matter
    >> |
    >> | [...]
    >> |
    >> | A sweeping patent law rewrite backed by seemingly every prominent hardware
    >> | and software maker was part of that effort, but it stalled in the Senate
    >> | last month. The so-called Patent Reform Act of 2007 would have curbed the
    >> | ability of patent holders to obtain what the companies consider
    >> | disproportionate damage awards, spurring the rise of so-called patent
    >> | trolls who exist only to extort large payments out of deep-pocketed
    >> | companies. Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Adobe Systems, Apple, Intel,
    >> | Symantec, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, eBay, Oracle, and Red Hat were among the
    >> | high-profile signatories that signed on in support of passage of the bill.
    >> `----
    >>
    >>

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-99...=2547-1_3-0-20
    >
    >
    > Which once again highlights the absolute ****wittery of software
    > patents. The big boys are protected against each other, but the little
    > guy is ****ed. So what if he manages to get himself a patent or two
    > (ignoring for the moment the time it takes to get the application
    > through) the big boys can swat him like a fly with their encyclopedias
    > of IP ****wittery.
    >
    > When you consider the nature of computer science whereby sweeping
    > changes come very quickly from small ideas (eg web etc) this is absolute
    > madness.


    Microsoft too has admitted this in court. There needs to be a device, they
    said.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Useful fact: close elevator button = Express Mode
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Cpu(s): 24.2%us, 3.6%sy, 1.0%ni, 66.3%id, 4.6%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
    http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIaOseU4xAY3RXLo4RAleGAKCUuQCJpbjwIEPc88ouFz sw3QS3+ACgmvJm
    F+sjTXkCm+5cKw26WOj7mWo=
    =G/MU
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  5. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Homer on Monday 30 June 2008 14:49 : \____

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
    >> amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    >>> Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little
    >>> guy, eh?

    >
    > What a bloody stupid statement. *Every* company /starts/ out small. The
    > creation of "IP" protection rackets only serves to inhibit entry to what
    > is supposed to be a free market by creating impenetrable barriers.
    >
    > It's all very well gloating about protectionist thugs like Microsoft
    > being the "big boys", but the fact is that if the "IP" landscape in the
    > 70's had looked like it does today, then Microsoft would never have even
    > existed. Essentially you are hypocritically and unethically endorsing
    > the concept of racketeers profiting from (what should be) a crime that
    > would have destroyed those same racketeers when they were starting out.
    >
    > You might just as well justify punching a baby in the face by claiming
    > that "it's his own fault for being so small and helpless".
    >
    > You really are one of the most vile and evil bastards on Usenet.
    >
    >> No, the obvious lesson is to [abolish] software patenting and make
    >> the big boys compete for their "revenue streams" on product merit,
    >> and not reliance on monopoly.

    >
    > An even more important lesson to learn is that monopolists are criminals
    > who should be dealt with no more leniently than any other type of
    > gangster, regardless of how highly such gangsters are revered by morally
    > depraved goons like amicus_unscrupulous.


    A Patent Lie

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft sang a very different tune in 1991. In a memo to his
    | senior executives, Bill Gates wrote, "If people had understood how
    | patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented,
    | and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete
    | standstill today." Mr. Gates worried that "some large company will
    | patent some obvious thing" and use the patent to "take as much of
    | our profits as they want."
    `----

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html


    Bill Gates and other communists

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | ...Thanks to Mr. Gates, we now know that an open Internet with protocols
    | anyone can implement is communism...
    |
    | ...Mr. Gates' secret is out now--he too was a "communist;" he, too,
    | recognized that software patents were harmful-until Microsoft
    | became one of these giants...
    `----

    http://news.com.com/Bill+Gates+and+o...j=news.1071.20


    Uber-troll Gates is doing it again (
    http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowa...00/PX03020.pdf )


    CEOs neglect patent portfolios, says M'soft exec

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "Other than Bill Gates, I don't know of any high tech CEO that sits down to
    | review the company's IP portfolio," said Phelps, who ran IBM's IP business
    | before joining Microsoft four years ago. *
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Microsoft has struck six deals with open source companies, the biggest a
    | recent deal with Novell, and more such deals are yet to come. In the past 18
    | months, Microsoft has spent a whopping $1.4 billion acquiring intellectual
    | property of various sorts, Phelps said. *
    |
    | "The great ideas in technology will increasingly come from outside corporate
    | labs," he said. "To me it doesn't make a difference if you got your portfolio
    | through R&D or through buying it," he added. *
    `----

    http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=202403071

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder"
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    15:20:01 up 76 days, 13:32, 6 users, load average: 0.83, 0.61, 0.73
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIaOvtU4xAY3RXLo4RAgf1AJ9onCaIzCsAwMEw+tUKdW 2MCfqz9gCgtQGF
    O2C7sYahDxNthcUx7rE4c5k=
    =hg1n
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  6. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying

    * Phil Da Lick! peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    >> message news4ednapHWLO8UfXVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
    >>>
    >>> Which once again highlights the absolute ****wittery of software
    >>> patents. The big boys are protected against each other, but the little
    >>> guy is ****ed. So what if he manages to get himself a patent or two
    >>> (ignoring for the moment the time it takes to get the application
    >>> through) the big boys can swat him like a fly with their encyclopedias
    >>> of IP ****wittery.
    >>>

    >> Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little guy, eh?

    >
    > No, the obvious lesson is to ablosih software patenting and make the big
    > boys compete for their "revenue streams" on product merit, and not
    > reliance on monopoly.


    Scamicus_curious would have us fight Communism by joining the Party!
    LOL!

    --
    Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know that?

  7. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying

    * Homer peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
    >> amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    >>> Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little
    >>> guy, eh?

    >
    > What a bloody stupid statement. *Every* company /starts/ out small. The
    > creation of "IP" protection rackets only serves to inhibit entry to what
    > is supposed to be a free market by creating impenetrable barriers.
    >
    > It's all very well gloating about protectionist thugs like Microsoft
    > being the "big boys", but the fact is that if the "IP" landscape in the
    > 70's had looked like it does today, then Microsoft would never have even
    > existed. Essentially you are hypocritically and unethically endorsing
    > the concept of racketeers profiting from (what should be) a crime that
    > would have destroyed those same racketeers when they were starting out.
    >
    > You might just as well justify punching a baby in the face by claiming
    > that "it's his own fault for being so small and helpless".
    >
    > You really are one of the most vile and evil bastards on Usenet.


    And scumicus is awful smug about it, too.

    --
    We don't believe in rheumatism and true love until after the first attack.
    -- Marie Ebner von Eschenbach

  8. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies-- by Paying

    Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
    >> amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    >>> Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little
    >>> guy, eh?

    >
    > What a bloody stupid statement. *Every* company /starts/ out small. The
    > creation of "IP" protection rackets only serves to inhibit entry to what
    > is supposed to be a free market by creating impenetrable barriers.
    >
    > It's all very well gloating about protectionist thugs like Microsoft
    > being the "big boys", but the fact is that if the "IP" landscape in the
    > 70's had looked like it does today, then Microsoft would never have even
    > existed. Essentially you are hypocritically and unethically endorsing
    > the concept of racketeers profiting from (what should be) a crime that
    > would have destroyed those same racketeers when they were starting out.
    >
    > You might just as well justify punching a baby in the face by claiming
    > that "it's his own fault for being so small and helpless".


    Good sumup.

  9. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying


    "Homer" wrote in message
    news:2t4nj5-m5t.ln1@sky.matrix...
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
    >> amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    >>> Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little
    >>> guy, eh?

    >
    > What a bloody stupid statement. *Every* company /starts/ out small. The
    > creation of "IP" protection rackets only serves to inhibit entry to what
    > is supposed to be a free market by creating impenetrable barriers.
    >

    That is a foolish attitude, Homer. It is easy to see where fortunes are
    being made once someone pioneers the market, but there is no reason to
    allows the latecomers to gain easy entry. The nature of the mass market
    software business is to require substantial size of both customer base and
    corporation in order to address the critical mass needed to succeed. A
    small guy coming to a mass market is in the wrong place and there is no good
    reason to encourage the practice.

    > It's all very well gloating about protectionist thugs like Microsoft
    > being the "big boys", but the fact is that if the "IP" landscape in the
    > 70's had looked like it does today, then Microsoft would never have even
    > existed. Essentially you are hypocritically and unethically endorsing
    > the concept of racketeers profiting from (what should be) a crime that
    > would have destroyed those same racketeers when they were starting out.
    >

    You stupidly ignore the facts of the matter. When Microsoft started, they
    were a big guy regardless of their small size. The business environment
    itself was miniscule. Microsoft is not a racketeer and was one of the key
    companies to develop the almost non-existent PC market in 1980 into the
    massive activity that it is today. A bunch of latecomer amateurs is never
    going to achieve such success.

    > You might just as well justify punching a baby in the face by claiming
    > that "it's his own fault for being so small and helpless".
    >
    > You really are one of the most vile and evil bastards on Usenet.
    >

    You are stupid clod who cannot see the forest for the trees. You will never
    amount to much.



  10. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:Bn6ak.17290$Xe.5508@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
    >* Phil Da Lick! peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    >>> message news4ednapHWLO8UfXVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
    >>>>
    >>>> Which once again highlights the absolute ****wittery of software
    >>>> patents. The big boys are protected against each other, but the little
    >>>> guy is ****ed. So what if he manages to get himself a patent or two
    >>>> (ignoring for the moment the time it takes to get the application
    >>>> through) the big boys can swat him like a fly with their encyclopedias
    >>>> of IP ****wittery.
    >>>>
    >>> Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little guy,
    >>> eh?

    >>
    >> No, the obvious lesson is to ablosih software patenting and make the big
    >> boys compete for their "revenue streams" on product merit, and not
    >> reliance on monopoly.

    >
    > Scamicus_curious would have us fight Communism by joining the Party!
    > LOL!
    >

    And just who is "fighting communism" at all today, silly?


  11. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying

    On 2008-06-30, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Homer" wrote in message
    > news:2t4nj5-m5t.ln1@sky.matrix...
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little
    >>>> guy, eh?

    >>
    >> What a bloody stupid statement. *Every* company /starts/ out small. The
    >> creation of "IP" protection rackets only serves to inhibit entry to what
    >> is supposed to be a free market by creating impenetrable barriers.
    >>

    > That is a foolish attitude, Homer. It is easy to see where fortunes are
    > being made once someone pioneers the market, but there is no reason to
    > allows the latecomers to gain easy entry. The nature of the mass market


    Sure there is. This is capitalism. In capitalism, new and small players
    are allowed to enter the market because they can help the market achieve
    it's full potential in terms of economic efficiency. They (Apple, Atari,
    Commodore) can bring to market things that the dinosaurs (HP, IBM, AT&T)
    would otherwise not bother with. They can serve different needs and drive
    older companies to be more efficient.

    > software business is to require substantial size of both customer base and
    > corporation in order to address the critical mass needed to succeed. A


    Outside of artificial entry barriers, this is pure nonsense.

    Without some artificial entry barrier for vendors or artificial
    exit barriers for customers, there's no good reason that companies
    can't be "2 guys in a garage" at any point in the business cycle.

    The fact that this cannot be so just means that the market is
    broken and has become prone to monopoly.

    > small guy coming to a mass market is in the wrong place and there is no good
    > reason to encourage the practice.
    >
    >> It's all very well gloating about protectionist thugs like Microsoft
    >> being the "big boys", but the fact is that if the "IP" landscape in the
    >> 70's had looked like it does today, then Microsoft would never have even
    >> existed. Essentially you are hypocritically and unethically endorsing
    >> the concept of racketeers profiting from (what should be) a crime that
    >> would have destroyed those same racketeers when they were starting out.
    >>

    > You stupidly ignore the facts of the matter. When Microsoft started, they
    > were a big guy regardless of their small size. The business environment
    > itself was miniscule. Microsoft is not a racketeer and was one of the key
    > companies to develop the almost non-existent PC market in 1980 into the


    The business environment for computing was by no means miniscule.
    Microsoft benefited from this directly. What IBM and others developed
    for them is what they exploited. Microsoft essentially traded on the IBM
    name until they were big enough not to be squashed like a bug by all of
    the business computing companies that existed in 1980.

    Redefining the market by arbitrarily narrowing it doesn't really
    change this.

    > massive activity that it is today. A bunch of latecomer amateurs is never
    > going to achieve such success.


    You mean like the amateurs that knocked Sun off it's perch as the leading
    platform for expensive enterprise applications like Oracle?

    [deletia]

    --
    Nothing quite gives you an understanding of mysql's |||
    popularity as does an attempt to do some simple date / | \
    manipulations in postgres.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  12. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying


    "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    news:slrng6ifu3.vol.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    > On 2008-06-30, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> "Homer" wrote in message
    >> news:2t4nj5-m5t.ln1@sky.matrix...
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
    >>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Well the obvious lesson you can learn here is to not be a little
    >>>>> guy, eh?
    >>>
    >>> What a bloody stupid statement. *Every* company /starts/ out small. The
    >>> creation of "IP" protection rackets only serves to inhibit entry to what
    >>> is supposed to be a free market by creating impenetrable barriers.
    >>>

    >> That is a foolish attitude, Homer. It is easy to see where fortunes are
    >> being made once someone pioneers the market, but there is no reason to
    >> allows the latecomers to gain easy entry. The nature of the mass market

    >
    > Sure there is. This is capitalism. In capitalism, new and small players
    > are allowed to enter the market because they can help the market achieve
    > it's full potential in terms of economic efficiency. They (Apple, Atari,
    > Commodore) can bring to market things that the dinosaurs (HP, IBM, AT&T)
    > would otherwise not bother with. They can serve different needs and drive
    > older companies to be more efficient.
    >

    Where has that ever happened in a large, mature market?

    >> software business is to require substantial size of both customer base
    >> and
    >> corporation in order to address the critical mass needed to succeed. A

    >
    > Outside of artificial entry barriers, this is pure nonsense.
    >
    > Without some artificial entry barrier for vendors or artificial
    > exit barriers for customers, there's no good reason that companies
    > can't be "2 guys in a garage" at any point in the business cycle.
    >

    Motherhood and apple pie, maybe, but nothing that makes sense. 2 guys in a
    garage cannot produce a jet fighter or a jet engine or even the canopy for a
    jet fighter. They might be able to grunt out yet another CD to MP3 ripper,
    but that is close to their limit.

    > The fact that this cannot be so just means that the market is
    > broken and has become prone to monopoly.
    >

    The small guy has to get to market first and it has to be a small market.
    That is the story of all businesses over all time.

    >> small guy coming to a mass market is in the wrong place and there is no
    >> good
    >> reason to encourage the practice.
    >>
    >>> It's all very well gloating about protectionist thugs like Microsoft
    >>> being the "big boys", but the fact is that if the "IP" landscape in the
    >>> 70's had looked like it does today, then Microsoft would never have even
    >>> existed. Essentially you are hypocritically and unethically endorsing
    >>> the concept of racketeers profiting from (what should be) a crime that
    >>> would have destroyed those same racketeers when they were starting out.
    >>>

    >> You stupidly ignore the facts of the matter. When Microsoft started,
    >> they
    >> were a big guy regardless of their small size. The business environment
    >> itself was miniscule. Microsoft is not a racketeer and was one of the
    >> key
    >> companies to develop the almost non-existent PC market in 1980 into the

    >
    > The business environment for computing was by no means miniscule.
    > Microsoft benefited from this directly. What IBM and others developed
    > for them is what they exploited. Microsoft essentially traded on the IBM
    > name until they were big enough not to be squashed like a bug by all of
    > the business computing companies that existed in 1980.
    >

    The business environment for personal computers was indeed small. Further,
    as you suggest, Microsoft didn't come to the market, IBM did. Microsoft
    parlayed its small part of that small market into a huge business as the
    market grew, but you had to be there at the start to do that. Even IBM
    couldn't swing a re-entry with OS/2 once it had matured.

    > Redefining the market by arbitrarily narrowing it doesn't really
    > change this.
    >

    You don't examine the markets very accurately.

    >> massive activity that it is today. A bunch of latecomer amateurs is
    >> never
    >> going to achieve such success.

    >
    > You mean like the amateurs that knocked Sun off it's perch as the
    > leading
    > platform for expensive enterprise applications like Oracle?
    >

    Don't kid yourself. Linux didn't knock Sun off its perch. IBM did.



  13. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying


    "Homer" wrote in message
    news50oj5-nde.ln1@sky.matrix...
    > Verily I say unto thee, that amicus_unscrupulous spake thusly:
    >
    >> but there is no reason to allows the latecomers to gain easy entry.

    >
    > Since when is it any corporation's business to decide what is or is not
    > allowed? That's corporatism not capitalism, and certainly not democracy.
    >
    >> You stupidly ignore the facts of the matter.

    >
    > And your callousness blinds you to the moral depravity of businesses
    > operated like crime syndicates.
    >
    >> When Microsoft started, they were a big guy regardless of their small
    >> size. The business environment itself was [minuscule].

    >
    > IOW you equate "big guy" to "first to market", and then advocate that no
    > others may ever enter that market, because it's "right" that all markets
    > should be monopolised, excluding all competition. More extremist
    > corporatism.
    >

    You are just another clod who can't see what is plain as day. "Find a need
    and fill it!" is the motto of the successful entrepreneur. If someone is
    already filling the need, you are out of luck in any business. You have to
    be unique. You OSS folk think that being able to clone a successful
    commercial product should lead to success, if the price is right, but you
    are stupid and don't even look to your own feelings for guidance. Why can't
    anyone bump the iPod out of its lead? There are dozens of players that are
    just as good from a performance point of view and cost a lot less, but iPod
    has the sizzle and the mind share of the consumer. It defines the market,
    just as Windows defines the PC. The copycats can make some headway, but
    they will hardly ever succeed. Once in a while it can happen, but that is a
    long struggle and not the best way to go ever.

    >> Microsoft is not a racketeer

    >
    > How else would you describe a company that imposes its products on
    > consumers using secret deals, with OEMs and others, that exclude the
    > competition (FACT: proven and documented by the DOJ and EU)?
    >

    You have a very weak grasp on the facts. Try reading the court documents
    and find anything that supports what you claim.

    > Oh but I forgot ... you don't believe in competition, because you're a
    > fascist nut.
    >
    > How about bribery ... is /that/ acceptable (FACT: Sweden, Nigeria and
    > elsewhere)?
    >
    > How about "stacked panels" (FACT: documented by Microsoft themselves,
    > and disclosed as court evidence) and other forms of corruption like
    > lobbying (legalised bribery), I suppose that's OK in your book too, is it?
    >
    > Obviously any nefarious device is acceptable to you, as long as it
    > benefits Microsoft, then it's OK.
    >
    > What is Microsoft afraid of, that they can't just sell products and
    > services on their own merits, rather than stoop to protectionism and
    > racketeering to secure sales? Well of course that's a rhetorical
    > question, since Microsoft's products and services /have/ little or no
    > technical merit.
    >
    >> and was one of the key companies to develop the almost non-existent
    >> PC market

    >
    > It was the key company that went dumpster diving for its first product,
    > then stole its second one from Gary Kildall. They've been raping and
    > pillaging the market ever since, but this is "OK" though, since it's
    > their "right". After all, they were the "first" to do so.
    >
    > Yes, Microsoft are true innovators ... of software racketeering.
    >

    You are just a whiner.


  14. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies-- by Paying

    amicus_curious wrote:
    > business. You have to be unique. You OSS folk think that being able to
    > clone a successful commercial product should lead to success, if the



    The whole basis of microsoft's success is from clone markets.

    You have a distinct lack of understanding of the principles of
    capitalism. Capitalism *requires* competition to drive development. When
    there is no competition there's no incentive for development (example:
    ie after v6 before firefox came along).

    If capitalism was all about letting a guy come along to "fill a need"
    then **** everyone else there'd be no need for monopolies authorities in
    each country.

    The state of markets being monopolised by one player is *not* the
    natural state for a capitalist society. It shows just how far we have
    fallen that this seems to be happening all over. Your iPod example is
    however a bad one as the iPod *has* had serious compeititon.

    It is the perceived natural state of only the incumbent monopolist who
    believes in their divine right to their "revenue streams".

  15. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying


    "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    message news:ItmdnT68S68QcvTVnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >> business. You have to be unique. You OSS folk think that being able to
    >> clone a successful commercial product should lead to success, if the

    >
    >
    > The whole basis of microsoft's success is from clone markets.
    >

    You have a useless notion of "cloning", I think. First off, Microsoft
    didn't "clone" their stuff, it was part of the "original" IBM PC package
    version that became successful. IBM intially offered the PC in PCDOS,
    CPM-86, and Pascal p-code versins. The PCDOS version was far more popular
    than the others and they were subsequently dropped. Microsoft's retention
    of the rights to sell PCDOS on their own was the key to the start up of the
    IBM compatibles, but they started in a time when the IBM PC product market
    was in a formative stage and they had their own differentiators based on
    packaging, technology, and price. They were not clones in the sense that
    Linux is a clone of Unix, but rather they were aimed at different market
    niches.

    > You have a distinct lack of understanding of the principles of capitalism.
    > Capitalism *requires* competition to drive development. When there is no
    > competition there's no incentive for development (example: ie after v6
    > before firefox came along).


    You have a total misunderstanding of capitalism, which has little to do with
    product marketing. Your example is simply a case of a successful product
    leader defending its market position. Consider that Microsoft has not lost
    a cent due to Firefox. Every PC going out the door at Best Buy, Office
    Depot, Circuit City, etc., still goes out with one version of Windows or
    another. That is a successful product.

    >
    > If capitalism was all about letting a guy come along to "fill a need" then
    > **** everyone else there'd be no need for monopolies authorities in each
    > country.
    >

    Well, you are getting warmer. Capitalism has nothing to do with product
    marketing. It does have some touch on monopolization, however, and, yes,
    you do need some law and oversight there.

    > The state of markets being monopolised by one player is *not* the natural
    > state for a capitalist society. It shows just how far we have fallen that
    > this seems to be happening all over. Your iPod example is however a bad
    > one as the iPod *has* had serious compeititon.
    >

    My iPod example had nothing to do with monopoly. You cannot monopolize such
    a market, it doesn't have any effective means of control. Standard Oil
    owned the means of both gasoline production and distribution and could
    control the market. Microsoft, by the way, does not have this kind of
    control either and never did. If they didn't think that they would be
    walking the plank, they are physically and legally free to introduce
    packages with alternate operating system platforms. They could have offered
    OS/2 as a base some 10 years ago and they chose to not do so. Even IBM
    didn't offer any OS/2 only product lines or even feature OS/2 with any great
    effort. Today they could offer Linux and many do, but they don't waste a
    lot of their promotional budget on those versions with good reason.

    My example was about how the consumers in a mass market form attitudes
    towards products and these attitudes define who wins and who loses. They
    are established early in the product market life cycle and pretty much
    determine the fate of the participants.


    > It is the perceived natural state of only the incumbent monopolist who
    > believes in their divine right to their "revenue streams".


    You won't find Microsoft relying on that sort of thing. Maybe in your
    obviously confused understanding you might attribute that attitude to their
    efforts, but that is solely due to your having relied on biased sources for
    all of your information. They are continually reworking their products,
    even if only cosmetically in some cases, in order to show a continual
    evolution of product feature, function, and benefits.


  16. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies-- by Paying

    amicus_curious wrote:
    > My example was about how the consumers in a mass market form attitudes
    > towards products and these attitudes define who wins and who loses.
    > They are established early in the product market life cycle and pretty
    > much determine the fate of the participants.


    Which has what precisely to do with software patents, and the use of
    such as barriers to entry for alternatives?


    >> It is the perceived natural state of only the incumbent monopolist who
    >> believes in their divine right to their "revenue streams".

    >
    > You won't find Microsoft relying on that sort of thing. Maybe in your
    > obviously confused understanding you might attribute that attitude to
    > their efforts, but that is solely due to your having relied on biased
    > sources for all of your information. They are continually reworking
    > their products, even if only cosmetically in some cases, in order to
    > show a continual evolution of product feature, function, and benefits.


    I'm not referring to microsoft. I am generalising. Software patents are
    morally wrong and should be abolished at the earliest convenience.

  17. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies-- by Paying

    On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:47:09 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    > "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    > message news:ItmdnT68S68QcvTVnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>> business. You have to be unique. You OSS folk think that being able
    >>> to clone a successful commercial product should lead to success, if
    >>> the

    >>
    >>
    >> The whole basis of microsoft's success is from clone markets.
    >>

    > You have a useless notion of "cloning", I think. First off, Microsoft
    > didn't "clone" their stuff, it was part of the "original" IBM PC package
    > version that became successful. IBM intially offered the PC in PCDOS,
    > CPM-86, and Pascal p-code versins. The PCDOS version was far more
    > popular than the others and they were subsequently dropped. Microsoft's


    The price of CP/M was FAR more expensive than MSDOS, which is why CP/M
    was dropped. The prcing apparently angered Kildall a lot.

    > retention of the rights to sell PCDOS on their own was the key to the
    > start up of the IBM compatibles, but they started in a time when the IBM
    > PC product market was in a formative stage and they had their own
    > differentiators based on packaging, technology, and price. They were
    > not clones in the sense that Linux is a clone of Unix, but rather they
    > were aimed at different market niches.


    No, they weren't since Linux is a clone of Unix. It is a POSIX compliant
    system in it's own right. I don't recall that Torvalds reverse engineered
    any Unix. If I am wrong about the reverse engineering, please point me to
    docs. I'd love to read about it.

    >
    >> You have a distinct lack of understanding of the principles of
    >> capitalism. Capitalism *requires* competition to drive development.
    >> When there is no competition there's no incentive for development
    >> (example: ie after v6 before firefox came along).

    >
    > You have a total misunderstanding of capitalism, which has little to do
    > with product marketing. Your example is simply a case of a successful
    > product leader defending its market position.


    Illegally.

    > Consider that Microsoft
    > has not lost a cent due to Firefox.


    Microsoft stopped selling Internet Explorer. Microsoft lost revenue due
    to Nescape, which is Microsoft stopped selling Internet Explorer.

    > Every PC going out the door at Best
    > Buy, Office Depot, Circuit City, etc., still goes out with one version
    > of Windows or another. That is a successful product.


    That is monopoly power that was illegally maintained.

    >
    >
    >> If capitalism was all about letting a guy come along to "fill a need"
    >> then **** everyone else there'd be no need for monopolies authorities
    >> in each country.
    >>

    > Well, you are getting warmer. Capitalism has nothing to do with product
    > marketing. It does have some touch on monopolization, however, and,
    > yes, you do need some law and oversight there.


    Products do not "sell" without some kind of marketing.

    >
    >> The state of markets being monopolised by one player is *not* the
    >> natural state for a capitalist society. It shows just how far we have
    >> fallen that this seems to be happening all over. Your iPod example is
    >> however a bad one as the iPod *has* had serious compeititon.
    >>

    > My iPod example had nothing to do with monopoly. You cannot monopolize
    > such a market, it doesn't have any effective means of control. Standard
    > Oil owned the means of both gasoline production and distribution and
    > could control the market. Microsoft, by the way, does not have this
    > kind of control either and never did. If they didn't think that they
    > would be walking the plank, they are physically and legally free to
    > introduce packages with alternate operating system platforms. They
    > could have offered OS/2 as a base some 10 years ago and they chose to
    > not do so. Even IBM didn't offer any OS/2 only product lines or even
    > feature OS/2 with any great effort. Today they could offer Linux and
    > many do, but they don't waste a lot of their promotional budget on those
    > versions with good reason.


    Courts on more than one continent disagree with you.

    >
    > My example was about how the consumers in a mass market form attitudes
    > towards products and these attitudes define who wins and who loses.
    > They are established early in the product market life cycle and pretty
    > much determine the fate of the participants.
    >
    >
    >> It is the perceived natural state of only the incumbent monopolist who
    >> believes in their divine right to their "revenue streams".

    >
    > You won't find Microsoft relying on that sort of thing. Maybe in your
    > obviously confused understanding you might attribute that attitude to
    > their efforts, but that is solely due to your having relied on biased
    > sources for all of your information. They are continually reworking
    > their products, even if only cosmetically in some cases, in order to
    > show a continual evolution of product feature, function, and benefits.


    They have continually reworked their products to insure incompatibility
    with competitors... ie smb, kerberos.

    --
    Rick

  18. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:WoydnfZVUvDmovfVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@supernews.co m...
    > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:47:09 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    >> message news:ItmdnT68S68QcvTVnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>> business. You have to be unique. You OSS folk think that being able
    >>>> to clone a successful commercial product should lead to success, if
    >>>> the
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The whole basis of microsoft's success is from clone markets.
    >>>

    >> You have a useless notion of "cloning", I think. First off, Microsoft
    >> didn't "clone" their stuff, it was part of the "original" IBM PC package
    >> version that became successful. IBM intially offered the PC in PCDOS,
    >> CPM-86, and Pascal p-code versins. The PCDOS version was far more
    >> popular than the others and they were subsequently dropped. Microsoft's

    >
    > The price of CP/M was FAR more expensive than MSDOS, which is why CP/M
    > was dropped. The prcing apparently angered Kildall a lot.
    >

    CPM-86 was dropped because so few wanted it. Perhaps it was price, it
    doesn't matter.

    >> retention of the rights to sell PCDOS on their own was the key to the
    >> start up of the IBM compatibles, but they started in a time when the IBM
    >> PC product market was in a formative stage and they had their own
    >> differentiators based on packaging, technology, and price. They were
    >> not clones in the sense that Linux is a clone of Unix, but rather they
    >> were aimed at different market niches.

    >
    > No, they weren't since Linux is a clone of Unix. It is a POSIX compliant
    > system in it's own right. I don't recall that Torvalds reverse engineered
    > any Unix. If I am wrong about the reverse engineering, please point me to
    > docs. I'd love to read about it.
    >

    Well you are rarely right about anything, it seems. Bruce Perens, one of
    the OSS gods, eh?, defended the code that SCO claims Linux stole from System
    V by demonstrating that it was stolen from the freeBSD source. Read about
    it at http://perens.com/SCO/SCOCopiedCode.html


    >>
    >>> You have a distinct lack of understanding of the principles of
    >>> capitalism. Capitalism *requires* competition to drive development.
    >>> When there is no competition there's no incentive for development
    >>> (example: ie after v6 before firefox came along).

    >>
    >> You have a total misunderstanding of capitalism, which has little to do
    >> with product marketing. Your example is simply a case of a successful
    >> product leader defending its market position.

    >
    > Illegally.
    >

    You haven't any understanding of the law, either, eh? Is there anything
    that you DO know?

    >> Consider that Microsoft
    >> has not lost a cent due to Firefox.

    >
    > Microsoft stopped selling Internet Explorer. Microsoft lost revenue due
    > to Nescape, which is Microsoft stopped selling Internet Explorer.
    >

    You are blathering again. IE is a part of Windows.

    >> Every PC going out the door at Best
    >> Buy, Office Depot, Circuit City, etc., still goes out with one version
    >> of Windows or another. That is a successful product.

    >
    > That is monopoly power that was illegally maintained.
    >

    Again you show your ignorance. Or is it stupidity? After all, you have
    been told numerous times about the truth.
    >>
    >>
    >>> If capitalism was all about letting a guy come along to "fill a need"
    >>> then **** everyone else there'd be no need for monopolies authorities
    >>> in each country.
    >>>

    >> Well, you are getting warmer. Capitalism has nothing to do with product
    >> marketing. It does have some touch on monopolization, however, and,
    >> yes, you do need some law and oversight there.

    >
    > Products do not "sell" without some kind of marketing.
    >

    Capitalism has nothing to do with selling products, fool.
    >>
    >>> The state of markets being monopolised by one player is *not* the
    >>> natural state for a capitalist society. It shows just how far we have
    >>> fallen that this seems to be happening all over. Your iPod example is
    >>> however a bad one as the iPod *has* had serious compeititon.
    >>>

    >> My iPod example had nothing to do with monopoly. You cannot monopolize
    >> such a market, it doesn't have any effective means of control. Standard
    >> Oil owned the means of both gasoline production and distribution and
    >> could control the market. Microsoft, by the way, does not have this
    >> kind of control either and never did. If they didn't think that they
    >> would be walking the plank, they are physically and legally free to
    >> introduce packages with alternate operating system platforms. They
    >> could have offered OS/2 as a base some 10 years ago and they chose to
    >> not do so. Even IBM didn't offer any OS/2 only product lines or even
    >> feature OS/2 with any great effort. Today they could offer Linux and
    >> many do, but they don't waste a lot of their promotional budget on those
    >> versions with good reason.

    >
    > Courts on more than one continent disagree with you.
    >

    What does the court have to do with IBM not selling OS/2 or major OEMs not
    promoting Linux? You are not only ignorant and/or stupid, you are not able
    to stay on topic.

    >>
    >> My example was about how the consumers in a mass market form attitudes
    >> towards products and these attitudes define who wins and who loses.
    >> They are established early in the product market life cycle and pretty
    >> much determine the fate of the participants.
    >>
    >>
    >>> It is the perceived natural state of only the incumbent monopolist who
    >>> believes in their divine right to their "revenue streams".

    >>
    >> You won't find Microsoft relying on that sort of thing. Maybe in your
    >> obviously confused understanding you might attribute that attitude to
    >> their efforts, but that is solely due to your having relied on biased
    >> sources for all of your information. They are continually reworking
    >> their products, even if only cosmetically in some cases, in order to
    >> show a continual evolution of product feature, function, and benefits.

    >
    > They have continually reworked their products to insure incompatibility
    > with competitors... ie smb, kerberos.
    >

    More ignorance on your part, it seems. Do you ever read more than the
    headlines or picture captions?


  19. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying

    On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:09:06 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    >>> You haven't any understanding of the law, either, eh? Is there anything
    >>> that you DO know?

    >>
    >> You might want to tell the US Distict, US Appeals and European courts
    >> they don't know anything. They found Microsoft to have illegally
    >> maintained its monopoly.
    >>

    > No they did not. You apparently can't read or won't read or are too stupid
    > to understand.


    Correct. An Appelate court does not "find" anything like that. They only
    affirm, overturn, or remand a decision by a lower court. It is true,
    however, that the Appelate affirmed (in part) the decision of the lower
    court on the illegal monopoly maintenance part of the case.

    >> Is now. MAybe. However, it wasn't always. It was "innovated" into the OS
    >> simply to hel "cut off Netscape's air supply". IE was indeed sold in the
    >> Plus Pack before being bundled with the OS for "free".
    >>

    > It wasn't "sold" in the PlusPack, it was "included" along with other stuff.
    > And that was only for a few months. Firefox had not been thought of back
    > then, Mozilla either. Stick to the context.


    IE was always free. You could download it from MS's website from day one
    at no cost. Yes, it was included in Plus!, but that's like saying that
    Linux isn't free because you can buy CD's with Linux on it.

  20. Re: [News] The Latest Stupid Plan to Fight Intellectual Monopolies -- by Paying


    "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote in message
    news:ka247scvwwyb.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
    > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:09:06 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>>> You haven't any understanding of the law, either, eh? Is there
    >>>> anything
    >>>> that you DO know?
    >>>
    >>> You might want to tell the US Distict, US Appeals and European courts
    >>> they don't know anything. They found Microsoft to have illegally
    >>> maintained its monopoly.
    >>>

    >> No they did not. You apparently can't read or won't read or are too
    >> stupid
    >> to understand.

    >
    > Correct. An Appelate court does not "find" anything like that. They only
    > affirm, overturn, or remand a decision by a lower court. It is true,
    > however, that the Appelate affirmed (in part) the decision of the lower
    > court on the illegal monopoly maintenance part of the case.
    >

    That is true, however, Rick stated "they found Microsoft to have illegally
    MAINTAINED its monopoly". The circuit court found, most exactly, that
    Microsoft had done things that had no business purpose other than to
    maintain their market power, akin to a monopoly. However, they found that
    these things were not causual, i.e they didn't have any effect on the
    Microsoft position, mostly because at the time they were employed, there was
    no competition to harm. They were put on notice to stop these practices,
    which they have. But no damage was caused and no corrective action was
    taken and no fines were levied.

    If you step back and take a larger view, you see that the states and DOJ
    charged Microsoft with unlawful blocking of Netscape's access to its
    markets, of unlawfully leveraging their Windows monopoly to create a browser
    monopoly, with unlawful tying of a product, IE, to a monopoly product, and
    with unlawful monopoly maintenance via the various practices noted. Of
    these charges, the most serious, which originally resulted in the Jackson
    court ordering the break-up of Microsoft, were the leveraging and tying
    charges. The exclusive dealing charge was found to be without any merit by
    the Jackson court and was never appealed. But the major charges and the
    corrective action were reversed or remanded and ultimately dismissed. The
    minor charges for the monopoly maintenance were hardly a cause for such a
    long and costly trial. The DOJ and states effectively lost that case and
    could have settled for a lot more at the onset based on Microsoft voluntary
    offers at the beginning when they were trying to avoid the trial altogether.


    >>> Is now. MAybe. However, it wasn't always. It was "innovated" into the OS
    >>> simply to hel "cut off Netscape's air supply". IE was indeed sold in the
    >>> Plus Pack before being bundled with the OS for "free".
    >>>

    >> It wasn't "sold" in the PlusPack, it was "included" along with other
    >> stuff.
    >> And that was only for a few months. Firefox had not been thought of back
    >> then, Mozilla either. Stick to the context.

    >
    > IE was always free. You could download it from MS's website from day one
    > at no cost. Yes, it was included in Plus!, but that's like saying that
    > Linux isn't free because you can buy CD's with Linux on it.


    I imagine that, had Netscape taken the Microsoft offer to be the browser
    supplier for Windows, a "pro" browser version would be sold today to augment
    a much less capable "free" browser included with Windows.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast