Ding, dong, the witch is dead

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

OK, she's not quite dead yet, but still:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20021230/bs_nf/20334

[MountainHawk]

That's a terrible ruling.

[TwistedMentat]

I do not see this withstanding appeal. This is equivalent to requiring Ford to use GM parts in its cars. It's preposterous.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

This is very much different from the Ford and GM analogy.

Unlike Ford and GM, Microsoft has a monopoly and has been found guilty of abusing that monopoly. Convicted monopolists can be legally forced to make concessions that benefit their competitors.

Sun had a contract with Microsoft to include Java with Windows, but Microsoft failed to fulfill that contract when they included a *******ized version of Java with Windows-specific alterations, in an attempt to defeat Java's cross-platform capabilities.

[TwistedMentat]

Unlike Ford and GM, Microsoft has a monopoly and has been found guilty of abusing that monopoly. Convicted monopolists can be legally forced to make concessions that benefit their competitors.
Don't get me started on this monopoly BS. I don't have the time.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

Monopoly BS? They were found guilty, by due process in a court of law, of having a monopoly and abusing it. If you disagree with the court on the monopoly issue, that's another matter. But that ruling provides a legal basis for restricting Microsoft's behavior, which makes it a different type of situation than the Ford/GM analogy because neither of those car companies has a similar conviction against them.

[TwistedMentat]

Monopoly BS? They were found guilty, by due process in a court of law, of having a monopoly and abusing it. If you disagree with the court on the monopoly issue, that's another matter. But that ruling provides a legal basis for restricting Microsoft's behavior, which makes it a different type of situation than the Ford/GM analogy because neither of those car companies has a similar conviction against them.
I do have a disagreement with the ruling, since by the court's logic, I could be accused of having a monopoly on being me.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

I do have a disagreement with the ruling, since by the court's logic, I could be accused of having a monopoly on being me.

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing monopoly power in certain ways is illegal.

[TwistedMentat]

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing monopoly power in certain ways is illegal.
So we should be good at what we do, but if we are too good and we win too much, we cannot enjoy the fruits of that victory? What's the point of trying to win, then?

[ExamHater]

So we should be good at what we do, but if we are too good and we win too much, we cannot enjoy the fruits of that victory? What's the point of trying to win, then?

Oh my God!!! I come to work on the first day of the new year
and I finally find somebody who shares my views?
No, it sounds too good to be true...

Anyway, back to doing quarter end...

[Incredible Hulctuary]

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing monopoly power in certain ways is illegal.
So we should be good at what we do, but if we are too good and we win too much, we cannot enjoy the fruits of that victory? What's the point of trying to win, then?

It has nothing to do with being too good. For it to be considered illegal you have to abuse the monopoly power in the specific ways outlined by antitrust law.

This is an example that would probably fit into those ways: Suppose Pepsi had a monopoly on carbonated beverages, then dictated to supermarkets that if they want to stock Pepsi they must not sell any other brand of beverage otherwise Pepsi would stop supplying to them or would only supply them at jacked up prices. As a result, the vast majority of stores decided to exclusively carry Pepsi, even though they would have preferred to sell both Pepsi and their competitors. Microsoft did a similar thing with computer manufacturers, which is main the reason why until a couple years ago it was practically impossible (and still is quite difficult) to buy a PC with anything other than MS Windows installed, even though useful alternatives such as BeOS and OS/2 existed.

If you want more details of what is allowed and what isn't, read up on antitrust law.

[TwistedMentat]

If you want more details of what is allowed and what isn't, read up on antitrust law.
Gee, thanks, I have read up on antitrust law, and it is bad law.

Monopoly can only be created and sustained under one or more of the following conditions:
1) Superior performance and reduced prices
2) Patent
3) "Natural" monopoly, where economies of scale allow only one participant
4) Government establishment
5) Physical coercion

1) above would seem to be a good thing. 2) above is a necessary protection to provide incentive for motivation. The existence of 3) is debatable. The wisdom of 4) is highly questionable. 5) is already illegal based on laws prohibiting assault and destruction of property.

So why do we need antitrust law?

I note that the monopoly which spawned the antitrust movement of the last century, Standard Oil, found that their elaborate kickback schemes and economic extortion attempts were insufficient to keep out the competition. They had to resort to physical coercion. I am not aware that MS has done this (yet), but if they do, they should be prosecuted.

If you don't like MS, use Apple, or Linux, or BeOS or something else.

[glenn]

If you don't like MS, use Apple, or Linux, or BeOS or something else.
That's what I want to do. So why do I still have to pay MS even though I don't want to purchase their software?

[Cho Da]

If you don't like MS, use Apple, or Linux, or BeOS or something else.
That's what I want to do. So why do I still have to pay MS even though I don't want to purchase their software?So don't. :-?

[Will Durant]

If you don't like MS, use Apple, or Linux, or BeOS or something else.
That's what I want to do. So why do I still have to pay MS even though I don't want to purchase their software?So don't. :-?
Unfortunately, MS charges for its OS on every PC sold by its customers. So if you buy an HP machine with Linux installed, you are still paying for an MS Windows license that you do not intend to use.
THAT's an abuse of monopoly power (according to existing anti-trust law). And THAT is the basis for the current ruling.
One could argue that existing anti-trust law is obsolete and not applicable to MS, but as of right now, there is no such case law.

[TwistedMentat]

Unfortunately, MS charges for its OS on every PC sold by its customers. So if you buy an HP machine with Linux installed, you are still paying for an MS Windows license that you do not intend to use.
But you are not paying for that directly. HP has made a business decision to pay that fee, because it believes that it is better off economically. You have made a decision to buy an HP because you believe you are better off economically. As soon as you and HP change your minds, MS won't be able to act as it does. For now, customer are voting with their wallets, and they are voting for MS.

Antitrust law is poorly conceived. The best argument against MS is that they have failed to satisfy their contracts, as techguy mentions with respect to Sun.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

If you don't like MS, use Apple, or Linux, or BeOS or something else.

And what if you are one of the 80% of the population who is unwilling or unable to install their own operating system, but wants to use an alternative like Linux or BeOS? Why shouldn't consumers and resellers have the uncoerced choice to buy and sell whatever else they want, and have the OS of their choice preinstalled?

Some people don't like antitrust law because they feel it places too much governmental restriction on a corporation's rights. But they conveniently forget that corporations are only artificial entities that exist because of the government, and that their rights are artificial and granted by government in the first place. They (the corporations) otherwise would only be loose collections of individuals who could be personally held liable for the liabilities of the business. Corporations are given governmental protections such as copyrights, patents, and limited liability, in exchange for them operating within the confines of the government's rules including antitrust law and paying taxes. You play, you pay.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

But you are not paying for that directly. HP has made a business decision to pay that fee, because it believes that it is better off economically. You have made a decision to buy an HP because you believe you are better off economically. As soon as you and HP change your minds, MS won't be able to act as it does. For now, customer are voting with their wallets, and they are voting for MS.

HP (and other computer manufacturers) are better off economically for selling only MS Windows than the available alternative. But there is yet another alternative for which they would be still better off than selling MS only, which should have been available to them but wasn't. That is the choice to sell MSWin at a price based on volume of actual sales of licenses, in addition to selling PCs with other operating systems. This way, for example they could make more money by selling 1 million computers with MS, plus 200,000 dual-booted with BeOS (thus making a slice of profit from both BeOS and MS), plus 50,000 with BeOS only -- just as a supermarket makes more profit if they sell both Pepsi and Coke instead of Pepsi only (but would have chosen to sell only Pepsi if Pepsi had a monopoly and told them to sell Pepsi only).

[TwistedMentat]

If you don't like MS, use Apple, or Linux, or BeOS or something else.

And what if you are one of the 80% of the population who is unwilling or unable to install their own operating system, but wants to use an alternative like Linux or BeOS? Why shouldn't consumers and resellers have the uncoerced choice to buy and sell whatever else they want, and have the OS of their choice preinstalled?
If you can't handle the new OS, that is tough. If you care that much, learn, or find another vendor who will do it for you. But don't expect to get it for free.

[Cho Da]

From Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product_listing.gsp?path=0%3A3944%3A3951%3A41937%3 A86796%3A96356&dept=3944&cat=96356&sb=61&bti=0)

[TwistedMentat]

HP (and other computer manufacturers) are better off economically for selling only MS Windows than the available alternative. But there is yet another alternative for which they would be still better off than selling MS only, which should have been available to them but wasn't. That is the choice to sell MSWin at a price based on volume of actual sales of licenses, in addition to selling PCs with other operating systems. This way, for example they could make more money by selling 1 million computers with MS, plus 200,000 dual-booted with BeOS (thus making a slice of profit from both BeOS and MS), plus 50,000 with BeOS only -- just as a supermarket makes more profit if they sell both Pepsi and Coke instead of Pepsi only (but would have chosen to sell only Pepsi if Pepsi had a monopoly and told them to sell Pepsi only).
First of all, if that many people really want another OS, someone will find a way to give it to them.

Secondly, you are defining the universe too narrowly. MS has a monopoly on MSWin based systems, not a monopoly on all computers. I remember only 13 years ago when Windows was a joke, and now it is the standard. MS can try all the marketing arrangements they like, but when someone makes a better system for the consumer, people will buy it.

You make the same error with your Pepsi scenario. Even if Pepsi had a monopoly on brown cola drinks (never happen since Coke is the best), they don't have a monopoly on beverages. This is actually an interesting example, because exclusive marketing arrangements are the standard in the cola business, and if anyone could have locked up the market by now, it would have been Coke. But they haven't been able to, because people actually like Pepsi (go figure). I will reiterate that when their is a consumer demand, someone will figure out how to supply it. I have more confidence in this aspect of human nature than in the government.

BTW, any comments on my general view of monopoly given above?

[Double High C]

BTW, any comments on my general view of monopoly given above?

Adam Smith - a man often quoted and misquoted by free market fundamentalists - realized that a fundamental interpretation of his invisible hand metaphor was ridiculous.

The free market is wonderful, but it should not be adhered to in a pure form at times when so doing would result in a death of the free market.

Whenever possible, the government should avoid getting its hand involved, but certain rules need to be in place, some of which may not be entirely free market-like in nature (e.g. limits on some pricing policies, e.g. dumping). The Microsofts (i.e. would be monopolists) hout there and small and large businesses in general benefit from rules that, while somewhat limiting in a narrow sense, maximize the free market principles over the long run.

[TwistedMentat]

Adam Smith - a man often quoted and misquoted by free market fundamentalists - realized that a fundamental interpretation of his invisible hand metaphor was ridiculous.
Could you give the quote or misquote on that one?

The free market is wonderful, but it should not be adhered to in a pure form at times when so doing would result in a death of the free market.

Whenever possible, the government should avoid getting its hand involved, but certain rules need to be in place, some of which may not be entirely free market-like in nature (e.g. limits on some pricing policies, e.g. dumping). The Microsofts (i.e. would be monopolists) hout there and small and large businesses in general benefit from rules that, while somewhat limiting in a narrow sense, maximize the free market principles over the long run.
How is MS causing the death of the free market? MS pricing policies are hurting their competitors. Well, duh, they are supposed to. All I see is MS trying to hang on to hard-won gains. They probably won't succeed and will eventually go the way of Lotus, or Ashton-Tate, or Novell.

Maximizing the free market doesn't mean everybody wins. Everybody gets a chance to win. MS won, the other guys lost. If you don't like it, start your own software company and do better.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

First of all, if that many people really want another OS, someone will find a way to give it to them.

Very few companies would sell to the 10% or 20% of customers who want another product if it means sacrificing the ability to sell the product that has a 95% market share. Yes, some companies did sell PCs with other operating systems, but they were so few and far between that it is almost like they didn't exist, as far as consumers were concerned. (Yes, I know 95% + 10% > 100%, which is deliberate because there will be a portion of those actually want the competitor's product who end up paying for the monopoly product due to the lack of available choice).

You make the same error with your Pepsi scenario. Even if Pepsi had a monopoly on brown cola drinks (never happen since Coke is the best), they don't have a monopoly on beverages. This is actually an interesting example, because exclusive marketing arrangements are the standard in the cola business, and if anyone could have locked up the market by now, it would have been Coke. But they haven't been able to, because people actually like Pepsi (go figure). I will reiterate that when their is a consumer demand, someone will figure out how to supply it. I have more confidence in this aspect of human nature than in the government.

BTW, any comments on my general view of monopoly given above?

Exclusive contracts are fine if you don't have a monopoly. If one store sells only Coke you can always find somewhere else that sells Pepsi. But if Coke had a monopoly and maintained that monopoly by having exclusive contracts, you would have to drive for hours and tens of miles to find one of the 5% or less of places that sold Pepsi, even though it could be as many as 20% of the stores who actually wanted to also sell Pepsi but don't do so because they would lose the ability to sell the more popular Coke.

I don't have much of a problem with how Microsoft gained their monopoly in the first place. My problem and the government's problem is with how they abused that monopoly power to prevent emerging competitors from even having a chance to be chosen by consumers. I fail to see how the exclusive contracts of a monopoly can help the free market.

[TwistedMentat]

Exclusive contracts are fine if you don't have a monopoly. If one store sells only Coke you can always find somewhere else that sells Pepsi. But if Coke had a monopoly and maintained that monopoly by having exclusive contracts, you would have to drive for hours and tens of miles to find the 1% of places that sold Pepsi, even though it could be as many as 20% of the stores who actually wanted to also sell Pepsi but don't do so because they would lose the ability to sell the more popular Coke.

I don't have much of a problem with how Microsoft gained their monopoly in the first place. My problem and the government's problem is with how they abused that monopoly power to prevent emerging competitors from even having a chance to be chosen by consumers.
techguy, this is why I did not want to get into this. I think we are at the end of the line, and neither of us has made a dent in the other. I think consumer choice/demand will drive supply/innovation despite anyone's worst efforts; you are less confident. I agree that the law is on your side, but I think the application of the law is too narrow in scope, both in terms of defining a market and in terms of time. We are at an impasse.

So sell me on the benefits of other OSs and office suites. I still need some compatibility with the MS package, but I would not be opposed to something new if it is not too difficult to implement.

[Cho Da]

So sell me on the benefits of other OSs and office suites. I still need some compatibility with the MS package, but I would not be opposed to something new if it is not too difficult to implement.
http://openoffice.org/
http://freebsd.org/
http://mysql.com/

Tastes great, less filling! It's <blink><big>free</big></blink>, baby!

[Incredible Hulctuary]

techguy, this is why I did not want to get into this. I think we are at the end of the line, and neither of us has made a dent in the other. I think consumer choice/demand will drive supply/innovation despite anyone's worst efforts; you are less confident. I agree that the law is on your side, but I think the application of the law is too narrow in scope, both in terms of defining a market and in terms of time. We are at an impasse.

So sell me on the benefits of other OSs and office suites. I still need some compatibility with the MS package, but I would not be opposed to something new if it is not too difficult to implement.

I am less confident because I have personally tried in the past to buy a laptop with a naked hard drive or BeOS and could not. Demand for alternatives has been artifically constrained. I am more disturbed by the emerging competitors with good alternative products that got squashed by the monopoly, than I am enthusiastic about the current crop of alternatives. Anyway, I'll agree to disagree.


As far as other OS for the x86 systems are concerned ... Linux is the pretty much the only one to reckon with at this time, now that BeOS is defunct and IBM is dropping OS/2 from their product line and neither has had a new version in years. It is not as easy as Windows for a nontechnical end user to maintain (in terms of installing software and drivers on it and customizing the look and feel), but I've found it to be way more stable than Windows (hasn't crashed once in the few months I've been experimenting with it). I'd give it another year to improve before recommending it for widespread use on the desktop. You can painlessly give it a try by downloading and burning Knoppix ( http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html ), a bootable CD version of Linux that runs straight from the CD-ROM (without writing anything to your hard drive) and includes the Mozilla browser and OpenOffice and other free software.

The free OpenOffice suite (and its commercial but inexpensive twin StarOffice), which runs on Windows and Linux, is definitely ready for prime time right now. I use it at home whenever I have to bring home a document or spreadsheet from work. It won't write complex MS Word documents 100% perfectly, but is very close to perfect when reading them. If I edit a document at home with it and the document formatting is altered I only have to spend a few minutes back at the office to touch it up the next day.

My brother who is a high school math teacher (and former actuarial student!) uses it extensively for creating exams and handouts and spreadsheets for grading. I understand some actuaries on this forum use the OO spreadsheet program instead of Excel. It will convert Excel spreadsheets with plain formulas properly; the only problems I've heard are with Excel sheets that have macros.

In addition to being free of cost, an advantage (especially if you are a corporation that needs to archive files for years) is the open and documented file format of OpenOffice. MS formats are read by other software only as the result of reverse engineering their deliberately obfuscated format. The OO formats provide the opportunity for new types of readers to emerge, such as browser plug-ins and Palm Pilot software, which will eventually guarantee that practically anyone will be able to read what you send them regardless of their hardware or operating system.

There is also KOffice, AbiWord, and Gnumeric (spreadsheet), which I haven't tried yet. Maybe another person reading this thread who has used them would care to comment.

But by and large, to me the best benefit is that it doesn't cost a dime. Unless you don't have a broadband connection to download it, in which case you may prefer spending $5-$10 to get a CD with OpenOffice and a collection of other free software (see http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/en/index.html and http://www..theopencd.org ).

[Lucy]

If you are new to the game, I suggest you buy a copy of Linux from a good vendor. Many vendors sell a CD with Linux bundled with a couple months of telephone tech support. That's how we installed out first version of Red Hat and I think the handy CD and the support are well worth the fee.

Open Office is great, and needs no support. Even if you are running Windows, it is worth checking out because it has fewer annoying "intelligent" features than Word.

[Cho Da]

KOffice is mediocre. If you use KDE, then just get OOo (http://openoffice.org).

[SamChevre]

Exclusive contracts are fine if you don't have a monopoly... I don't have much of a problem with how Microsoft gained their monopoly in the first place. My problem and the government's problem is with how they abused that monopoly power to prevent emerging competitors from even having a chance to be chosen by consumers. I fail to see how the exclusive contracts of a monopoly can help the free market.

The problem with Microsoft isn't that they have (and profit from) an effective monopoly in operating systems. The court case was based on their use of that monopoly to stifle competition in other markets--web browsers and Java particularly. (Altho "Windows ain't done until Lotus won't run" dates from long before the case.) It isn't comparable to Coke and Pepsi. A better comparison would be if I had a monopoly on gas stations in an area (let's just assume that it is possible to maintain that.) I could sell gas at whatever price I pleased; what I could not do is buy a tire shop, and refuse to sell gas to people unless they bought their tires from me. That was the substance of the Microsoft case--they refused to sell their operating system without IE, and tried to make software packages other than Office function as poorly as possible.