-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com>
>To: "Attila T. Hun" <attila(a)hun.org>,
> cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net>
>Subject: Re: Making them eat their words... (while they watch!)
>Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 11:56:54 -0800
>
> At 05:15 PM 12/21/1997 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote:
>> there is only one solution to organizations like M$
>> which are operated without ethics: treat them to the
>> pleasures of not only the antitrust laws but the
>> exquisite delights of RICO.
> Nonsense, and I'm surprised to hear this from you.
No, Bill. it's not nonsense...
1) when a true market monopoly exists, society _is_
entitled to intervene. I wrote my Harvard thesis on
antitrust and the effect on society of a monopoly,
regulated in the public interest as in AT&T v. the
industrial monopolies. this may have been 35 years
ago, but the principles are even more imperative
now with the increasing concentration of real wealth
both individually and corporately in the hands of a
few.
2) why should you be surprised to hear this from me?
sure, I would prefer anarchy per se, but have
absolutely no faith that the vast majority would do
anything except rape, pillage, and plunder. and, I
think I have made my beliefs more than plain over
the history trail of cypherpunks.
anarchy is nothing more than an isolationist theory; as
a political system it does not work --never has, never
will. ergo, there is a need for some government in the
interest of the people (sheeple, if you prefer). man
has not proved his worth on this planet, and whether or
not you believe in God is irrelevant. the last several
generations have bequeathed a wilting, dying polluted
earth to their children and grandchildren.
therefore, I am neither your revolutionary anarchist
nor your "lost in the clouds" libertarian idealist; I am
just a pragmatist who wishes we could govern with an
enlightened electorate in the manner of a New Hampshire
town meeting; a pragmatist that I believe limited
regulation is essential, but a foolish dreamer to hope
for an enlightened electorate.
> Treat them to the pleasures of the free market -
> if you don't like them, start a Boycott M$ campaign,
> and see if people stop buying their lousy software.
no, Bill, there is no alternative in the mass market. A
perfect example is Gate$ buying _both_ WebTV and their
competitor to make sure he has _all_ the action.
another is EnCarta. Gate$ gave it away until the other
vendors dropped out of the market; now M$ charges for
the encyclopedia.
Gate$ is the perfect example of not only a pure monopoly
with 90% of the OS market, but also a constructive
monopoly who has leveraged the first position to force
monopolies in other areas: 95% of word processing, 95%
of spreadsheets, and approaching the total domination of
the browser market.
Secondly, Gate$ is spreading into the control of the
means of distribution in cable, networks, etc. and
likewise into media content. Gate$ current actions are
those of a spoiled four year old child who sees nothing
wrong with demanding it all.
> The direct democracy of the free market is far more
> appropriate than government here - it's $1/vote,
> and if enough people vote against M$ they'll get the hint,
> and it enough people vote _for_ M$, it's none of your
> business.
WRONG! when 90% of the voters are dependent on M$, M$ has
bought the vote. to the average user, to vote against M$ is
to vote against a free v. a not-free browser, etc.
WRONG AGAIN: the OEM computer group has no choice either;
software is available from virtually every software house
for M$ --and only M$. therefore the OEM has no choice of
operating system. without the software, any competing OS
is useless. M$ has also intimidated and constrained the
software houses. Corel is a good case in point with M$
threatening to withhold critical information on Windows
95 if Corel delivered their 32 bit product to OS/2
first.
WRONG AGAIN: M$ has required OEMs to load Explorer as part
of the "privilege" to be able to load the OS. That is
restraint of trade. when they try to exercise total
market control through their customers with their own
marketing policies.
WRONG AGAIN: M$ is forcing Explorer on totally
non-related software vendors. Why should the
accounting software vendor in MN be required to load
Explorer to be able to distribute the OS --and, most
additional M$ packages in networking, etc required
Explorer for essential DLLs. this is "binding" in
FTC unfair practices regulations.
> It _is_ funny to see the Feds hiring a big corporate lawyer
> to run their case; I guess they don't think Federal Prosecutors
> are good enough. Surely if a low-level prosecutor can't hack it,
> they should use their boss, and on up the hierarchical chain.
> If Janet Reno can't do it either, they should replace her with
> someone who can :-)
GRIN? Bill, I'm surprised you would say this. Reno is
not an anti-trust specialist. just how many of them are
there in the country as a whole? not many? why? --not
much anti-trust action; usually the FTC has been able to
block mergers, etc. before they become a menace to
society such as M$ has become.
this is where the failure of the free market comes in:
few companies manage to attain the total monopoly
position; _none_ to date have done so with clean hands.
frankly, Gate$' hands are dirtier than Cornelius
Vanderbilt's hands were in his heyday; and Cornelius
Vanderbilt made John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan look
like angels.
Gate$' literally has not only violated the anti-trust
laws and the FTC rules on fair competition, but he has
done so deliberately in what can easily be defined as a
conspiracy to limit or prevent access to the market
--and that can be construed as a RICO offense --and
should be. Neither Gate$ nor Ballmer show the slightest
interest in backing off what they consider their God
given rights in a free market to rape, pillage, and
burn; they feel that M$ is entitled to tell the American
(or world) buyer what he wants to buy. monopoly
eliminates freedom of choice.
I do not usually have much use for Jesse Berst, whom I
generally consider a senseless and shameless M$ schill,
like the rest of Ziff-Davis; however, this is what Jesse
had to say Monday:
Jesse Berst, 22 Dec.
"I'm a fan of its [Microsoft's] accomplishments
and its great products. More than that, I'm
a fan of personal computing. That's why I can say
that it's better for us -- and better for Microsoft
-- if the DOJ forces the company to play fair. Only
intense competition can keep a company from the
hardening of the attitudes that eventually damaged
companies such as IBM, Digital, Wang and Data
General."
to engender that competition, M$ needs to be forced to
divest either operating systems or products. despite
any imagined gains of their increasing integration, the
market can not fall to a monolithic line and then expect
further advances with no-one nipping at M$' heels
unfortunately, M$ idea of competition has not been to be
just the market leader --it has fostered an attitude
that it can be the only player.
and like all monopolies, M$ has fallen into the Al
Sloan mode ("What's good for General Motors is good for
the country").
more Jesse Berst, 22 Dec.
"That's why I can say with all sincerity, the more
you like Microsoft, the more you admire its
accomplishments, the more you appreciate its
products, the more you should root for the DOJ to
win its latest case. Anybody who thinks otherwise
should be forced to attend every single match of
the World Wide Wrestling Federation next year. That
will give them an up-close-and-painful taste of what
happens when you do away with competition.
Jesse, the Microsoft schill, is now at least as strident
as I have been since the late 80s when the uncontrolled
direction of Gate$' marketing and operating system
leverage over office products became more than evident.
the DOJ should have broken M$ into separate companies in
1994.
instead, the DOJ made a deal with a "Joe Stalin", who,
true to Lenin's manifestos, would sign any treaty which
bought him time to develop the prohibited weapons --then
he broke it. M$ violated the consent decree before it
was certified in court and. in reality, applied even
more onerous terms to the hardware OEM vendors; we are
reaping the results of Gate$ incredible arrogance today.
Gate$ also broke the public trust by arrogantly usurping
by whatever means more of the market --his actions
today are untenable in a civilized market. any
suggestions that if you do not like M$, you should not
buy M$ products are hollow inanities --to the public,
there is no alternative --economies of scale and market
dominance have wiped out all but a few niche market
vendors.
the sheeple never revolt; they just follow the Judas
goat to the abattoir happily enjoying the free software
while Gate$ builds his tollGate$ (nice pun --guess I
will add that to my lexicon). the sheeple will not be
happy when they find themselves being nicked for every
transaction, on or off Gate$' networks.
--and if Gate$ actions over the past 3 years were not
enough, his ridiculous, affrontive, and offensive
response to the Judge's order is prima facie evidence of
not only a monopoly, not only a constructive monopoly,
but a tyrannical, maniacal monster who is still a
spoiled four year old brat with absolutely no conscience
or sense of social responsibility.
the fact Steve Ballmer, et al, echo this dictatorial
policy in violation of US law is prima facia evidence of
an ongoing criminal enterprise which employs extortion
--yes, literally extortion-- in the furtherance of its
business plan --and this is a RICO offense for which
Gate$ and his henchman certainly appear to have
deservedly earned the right to 3 hots and a cot for the
20 years minimum on the lesser RICO charge, or mandatory
life imprisonment on a conspiracy of greater than 6.
Secondly, none of Gate$ lieutenants and captains can
claim they acted under orders; it wont fly any more than
it flew at Nuremberg.
Esther Dyson (with Margie Wylie of CNET)
But it is big government that's watching them, not
...
Yes--and that's why we need to keep...I mean, God
bless the Justice Department for fighting Microsoft;
God bless Microsoft for creating good products, and
the customers for keeping everybody in line. This
is what I want: I don't want anybody to win. I
want the game to keep going. I want little guys to
keep on coming up and tweaking the noses of the big
guys.
I've always been a believer in antitrust. It's the
concentration of power that bothers me, not whether
it's "for profit" or "for government." And I've
never claimed to be or not to be a Libertarian.
People put labels on things and stop thinking.
a good clear statement from Dyson on the public
interest.
do you think M$ should be permitted to behave in
their autocratic and callous manner towards software
developers who have no need for Explorer?
Brian Glaeske, a programmer/analyst with Fargo,
North Dakota-based Great Plains Software, complained
to the US Justice Department last month that
Microsoft effectively requires him and others to
provide its browser in his accounting software,
which has nothing to do with the World Wide Web or
the Internet.
"Microsoft should not be permitted to force
third-party developers to redistribute Microsoft
Internet Explorer in order to use [new] features,"
Glaeske wrote to Joel Klein, the Justice
Department's top pursuer of antitrust allegations.
is not Glaeske's position reasonable? the real point
however, does not relate to the browser; the bottom line
is that Glaeske, and most of the software developers, do
not have an alternative to Microsoft as an operating
system.
Oh, sure, some clients will run Unix flavours and there
are vendors for most high profile applications on unix
and OS/2, but the vast majority (90%) of the clients
take the easy way out and go Microsoft --M$ is what the
employees have at home; M$ is what the "trained"
employees have used before.... there are millions of
arguments, after WinTel being cheaper, why they should
not change --starting with "why should we be different?"
a pure free market is anarchy; anarchy may be a
wonderful idea for utopian people; the human race is far
from being anything except a selfish, greedy collection
of individuals who are constrained either by the threats
of fire and brimstone from the church, or the laws of
the land which punish transgressions of socially
acceptable behaviour --fair or not.
even Teddy Roosevelt wrote that anarchists should be
hunted down and exterminated like vermin.
William H. Gates III is just another robber baron who
really believes the statement: "What's good for
Microsoft is good for the country." Al Sloan never
realized his monopoly with General Motors, although
there have been periods where GM was over 50% of the
market (when Chrysler was close to failing).
Bill Gates has created an effective monopoly _world_
_wide_ which far surpasses any monopoly ever created
by one individual or company; even John D. Rockefeller
did not come close to Gate$' power. John D. was also
rather benevolent. IBM never approached Gate$' level
of monopoly.
Gate$ has proven, and is proving while the very
litigation is going on, that he is not a benevolent
monopolist; there is only one way: Bill's way, and
everyone will think like Bill, or they will be the
vermin to be exterminated.
and, that, my friends, is why there is such a thing
as the public interest; and it should have been
exercised on BadBillyG in 1994.
my vote goes to prosecute Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer,
at the very least, for violations of the Sherman Act,
the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the Robinson-Patman
amendments (FTC, etc.) to the full extent of the law,
including criminal violations as warranted under those
titles; and prosecute under the RICO statutes for an
ongoing racketeering (extortion is racketeering) and
criminal enterprise.
frankly, I am disappointed that it has come to this, but
Gate$ greed and lust for power has not only exceeded
his common sense, it has transgressed the boundary of
baseline social responsibility.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be
iQBVAwUBNKyor7R8UA6T6u61AQHtcAH/XVaZQWl+IicPv7adVvLy/Yy4xkBj7mUP
lyU0ecw8oQPCxB2zhtPQcwvPtCMJVBc3y8UtSuAu/i8Kn4XzWeS+EA==
=GIWP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
