on web standards: sent to Markoff
here's a quickie rant about software standards sent to Markoff, precipitated by his recent column on Berners Lee & the Web. please help kill the urban legend I refer to in this letter. ------- Forwarded Message Subject: tim berners lee etc. Date: Wed, 20 Dec 95 00:39:44 -0800 From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> I read your recent article on Tim Berners Lee. there is a misconception in the article that annoys me and that I have seen you/others repeat elsewhere. the following myth is: COMPANIES SET STANDARDS. this is not really true. in the short term, companies can set whatever "standards" they like. but in the long term, the *market* decides what standards are acceptable. an example of this was IBM: they set various standards until the market decided that the "standards" they were setting were not acceptable. they became their own worst enemy. no amount of shovelling their ideas down consumer's throats via million dollar ad campaigns or sales pressure changed the basic reality of what the market wanted. even though "microchannel" may have been technically superior, consumers consistently decided the proprietary price of the architecture was not worth the extra economic burden to obtain it. you and others are continually reiterating and reinforcing this myth in regards to web software in your writing. you talk about various companies as if they could somehow seize various standards for their own and exclude other companies (Netscape's supposed proprietary web "standards" are an example). this is fallacious for the reason I outlined above. the market may not tolerate this exclusivity, and particularly in the area of computer software and hardware this has been shown emphatically so. furthermore, the idea that companies can legislate their own web standards is particularly ludicrous. it is true that netscape has added their own "extensions" that their own browser understands and other browsers initially do not. but nothing prevents other companies from immediately incorporating these "enhancements" so that they are recognized by their own software. in fact this is trivial to do so in many cases (e.g. one of these so-called "enhancements" is blinking text in web pages). so the idea that a single web company can somehow monkeywrench the standards process by introducing new ideas is absurd and completely ignorant of reality. in fact this rapid "standard" fluctation is the heart of innovation. it is true that the web standard is fluctuating very rapidly right now, but that is not evidence of companies trying to seize the standard for their own: instead it is the chief sign of dynamic and rapid innovation. I urge you to read Bill Gate's recent book. he addresses this continual myth that people yammer about, namely the idea that individual companies can set exclusive or proprietary standards. a company standard is in fact a sort of temporary whirlpool in time: it will exist only so long as the forces surrounding it support it. a single company can temporarily create an illusion that their standards are the only ones available, but the market may eventually decide that their standard is not appropriate. Microsoft would crumble in a short amount of time if they failed to deliver what the market demands, and Gates reiterates this theme. it is tempting to think of Microsoft or Netscape as large behemoths that "drive the market". this is true in the short term but in truth over the long term the market drives these companies, and they lose market share if they become irrelevant. it is useful to look at one company as a focus of market forces, not the determinant of them. in my opinion the idea that various companies are in control of the market is not only erroneous but highly dangerous. it leads to the view that the government has to step in to promote "fair competition" or "legislate standards". these approaches are usually total failures because they completely neglect the true nature of the innovation of ideas, something that is expressed quite tangibly and viscerally in software development, but this simple point various people still utterly fail to grasp. its quite dramatic to write about single companies such as Microsoft or Netscape as if they have tremendous power and influence over the industry. various companies have found however that this influence is highly fleeting if they are not in tune with market currents. companies are subservient to the market, not vice versa. please strive to recognize this basic fact in your future writing. p.s. I am willing to work this into a letter to the editor if you are willing to publish it.
Markoff is not the best on criticism. write the editor direct. ---------------------------------- Microsoft particularly does seem to place a death grip on things, but more industry consortiums are forming and Billy has been required to accept the heat; Java is one, except Billy always finds a way to subvert the process. Billy is like Karl Marx' premise: "sign all treaties; break them when it is convenient." The conundrum is trying to decide "when" a particular company is a monopoly by either the classic definition of the Sherman and Clayton Acts or an effective monopoly, or "bad" player as defined in the Robinson-Patman act. Bill Gates more than satisfies the requirements of defining a monopoly in Sherman and Clayton with 85% of the desktop locked in and an assualt with "almost" standards on the open-system server market. NT is already garnering more than 25% of server installations in business --big business, since it will be "guaranteed" compatible with their desktop 95s. The rest of us, stay with the real thing. Add to MS' virtually absolute domination of the desktop and its impending domination of the commercial servers the fact that MS has 95% of the front line office products --WP, Spreadsheet, Database, and mail with the last be non-standard to long established rules and you do have a problem to be considered. Will the market correct itself? Very questionable since MS rode to its position on IBM's back and capitalized on IBM's failure to recognize what they had stumbled into. IBM did not fall by the market rejecting IBM --the market exploded with the PC for price and diversity reasons: you can not compare direct entry, full screen aplications and transportability of a PC against a looped, expensive main-frame connection, if the boss even approves the cost. However, Bill Gates' more serious offense involves the fair trade provisions of the Robinson-Patman act and the subsequent fine-tuning of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which has its own courts. Bill Gates has used his operating system dominance to force hardware vendors to ship MS products on _every_ machine, or pay substantial penalties in rates 2 and 3 times larger for all MS products --cheap only if it is universal. Under these conditions, why would they ship OS/2 or UNIX? Add a few more of his contractural items and Anne Bingaman was correct in charging Bill with restraint of trade. The real issue in DOJ v. MS was that although Bill complied with a consent decree, he _immediatley_ found other ways to apply the screw, and many of these newer terms are even worse, but more subtle. And, there is no question the verbal threats have been significantly worse. To software vendors it is the threat of denial of technical information on GUIs and APIs, to hardware manufacturers it is threats of ecomnomic sanctions, including publishing decertification of the platform for various WIN95 and NT compliant stickers, etc. Bill Gates is NOT an ethical businessman. If the fact was that Bill was able to garner his position from hard work, a better product, and a well-greased advertising and marketing organization would not justify the application of the classic Sherman and Clayton anti-trust rules; the market will either continue to accept them or not. However, Bill has used his position of 85% in OSs not only to dictate OS considerations, as bad as they are with DOS nothing more than a boot sector virus and Windows a pretty program loader, but he has used this position to dominate the applications market by bundling and forcing machine integrators to include the MicroSoft applications in return for the OEM discount on the operating systems. Preloading the market by those means is _not_ ethical or good business. Bill Gates _clearly_ violates the FTC provisons on ethical conduct and restraint of trade by a monopoly or quasi-monopoly position. Why were nearly 30 OEMs represented anonymously in "friend of the court" briefs? --and the first thing Billy's (hired virtually every high end firm in SF) attorneys' did was subpoena the _names_ of the consortium under the rules of evidence --welcome to the "Kiss of Death." Personally, I think it is time to dismember Bill Gates --give him a choice of his OS group or his applications group and literally force him to sell all direct or indirect interest in the one he does not choose, plus forego any involvement. An example of the "ill" is Gate's clear announcement that _all_ MS programs would now be geared to direct interface to the internet --again initially only the Microsft Network with proprietary standards. This may be commendable on the intended results of better integration to the world, but not in terms of free trade as _everything_ MS does is proprietary, or they do not release _correct_ API information until they have taken a commanding lead in the market (witness Compu$erve and the rest on no access to Win95 --IBM put their network and a button for other networks, with a working PPP interfacein the same folder). Anyone who thinks Bill Gates or Microsoft is a benevolent 800 pound gorilla has not paid attention in history classes: power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. he who fails to heed history, is doomed to repeat it. (which is mankind's normal path) ATTILA
there's been MS flamewars on this list before, but Attila repeats various snippets that I find highly objectionable. cpunk relevance: operation of the free market Gates' conquests can either be made out to be a failure of the free enterprise system or a success from it. the more I read whining complaints about MS's dominance, the more I prefer the latter interpretation. perhaps power corrupts, but on the other hand failure clearly promotes whining. "you cannot grow taller by chopping off the heads of others". I've seen so many people try to smear MS with innuendo, as if "enough people being unhappy" at a company is ample evidence that there is "unfairness". the marketplace is *not* fair. it rewards people who are in tune with it disproportionately!! sometimes, *dramatically*so* as in the case with Gates. consider this anecdote. a market for [x] gizmos does not even exist. a brilliant person says, " I think people really need [x] gizmos. I'm going to make and sell them. I'm going to find people who will help me, but if I can't find any I'm going to do it all myself". Gates is such a person and did it with PC OS'es and various windows applications (Excel, Word Perfect, etc.). he bet his entire future on the idea that he knew what people wanted even when other companies disagreed. all companies had a chance to get on the windows bandwagon and write decent software when he created this OS-- he was going around and virtually begging companies. what did they say? "no, we aren't going to take our chance with you. we don't think people really want your @#$$%^&* gizmos". they snickered and sneered at him. Gates succeeds, and sells a bazillion gizmos. he *creates* a market that was not even in existence. or rather, he anticipates what people really want, and the related markets begins to respond to him in a "positive feedback loop". suddenly all these companies cry foul in the greatest of hypocrisy. "Gates has cornered the gizmo market!! he has 95% of it!!! why weren't we notified!! no one should have such power!!" the truth is that the playing field has always been level, but because Gates is such a brilliant genius, market anticipator, and gizmo producer, he succeeds far beyond his or anyone else's wildest dreams. "well, all things should be equal in the competition, unless someone is succeeding more than somebody else, in which case we should penalize them to make things more even" say his competitors. the market has *given* bill gates his dominance. all the arguments about him being "unfair" are absolutely bogus that I have seen. they amount to, "Bill Gates is using tactics to sell more of his software than his competitors. therefore, he's not being fair to everyone else who wants to sell their software as well." hee, hee. I really love the free market. it's a delight that Gates has put his money where his brain is, and in only 20 years built one of the most successful companies in the entire history of business. it's a tribute to the intelligence of the market and people who have the sense to listen to it. MS has gained its dominance through the utmost of hard work, and consuers vote with their $$$. whoever denies that consumers know what they *really* want is an awfully pretentious and deluded person, IMHO.
The conundrum is trying to decide "when" a particular company is a monopoly by either the classic definition of the Sherman and Clayton Acts or an effective monopoly, or "bad" player as defined in the Robinson-Patman act.
pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their back. when they fail, everyone sneers at them. when they succeed, everyone sneers at them and says they succeeded through skullduggery. and then competitors refer to this *market* they had no hand in *creating* (the *hard* work is creating a market, *anyone* can capitalize on one once created) as if they have some "right" to it. Gates is the biggest teddybear on the planet. those who are afraid of him only show they are afraid to think as focused and seriously as he does all day. "gosh, we shouldn't have to compete against someone who understands the market so well. what about us? we are competition challenged!! we need a level playing field."
Bill Gates more than satisfies the requirements of defining a monopoly in Sherman and Clayton with 85% of the desktop locked in and an assualt with "almost" standards on the open-system server market. NT is already garnering more than 25% of server installations in business --big business, since it will be "guaranteed" compatible with their desktop 95s. The rest of us, stay with the real thing.
"no fair!!! Bill Gates has a monopoly on the gizmo market!!! he should be stopped!!! restrained!! otherwise, no other gizmo companies will succeed!!" you have a very short memory. only several years ago most of the population of the planet was in total skepticism about the success of windows. now that it has succeeded, everyone believes that this market should be carved up to everyone that wants a piece of the pie. well, Gates helped "create" the pie in the first place.
Add to MS' virtually absolute domination of the desktop and its impending domination of the commercial servers the fact that MS has 95% of the front line office products --WP, Spreadsheet, Database, and mail with the last be non-standard to long established rules and you do have a problem to be considered.
is anyone twisting people's arms to buy his software? are there a lack of choices because other companies are simply choosing not to compete with MS? if MS is giving customers what they want better than anyone else, (which is proven viscerally by *cash*, people invariably put their money where their mouths are) why is this "a problem to be considered"?
Will the market correct itself?
why is MS dominance require "correction"? the fact that you consider it an anomaly shows how naive and ridiculous your position is. MS dominance is absolutely no accident, and anyone who claims it was achieved through anything less than honest competition is in my opinion a whining nonthinker who is afraid of a true, free market realized.
Very questionable since MS rode to its position on IBM's back and capitalized on IBM's failure to recognize what they had stumbled into.
beautiful, isn't it? one man can "capitalize" on the idiocy of others. oh, poor IBM. they didn't *get*it* even after half a decade, perhaps an entire decade. the big bad Gates Wolf sunk his fangs into IBM. yes, Gates is a dracula. hee, hee. perhaps you would like to start a government program to help poor companies that don't have the brains to understand a market when it is screaming at them in their faces? lets call it the "dog eat dog" welfare fund.
IBM did not fall by the market rejecting IBM --the market exploded with the PC for price and diversity reasons: you can not compare direct entry, full screen aplications and transportability of a PC against a looped, expensive main-frame connection, if the boss even approves the cost.
IBM failed because they had no brain to recognize what was happening around them. Gates did, and his success proves the correctness of his vision. the market is the force that will use or throw away companies as it sees fit. it doesn't care about loyalty to a company that has lost the edge.
Bill Gates has used his operating system dominance to force hardware vendors to ship MS products on _every_ machine, or pay substantial penalties in rates 2 and 3 times larger for all MS products --cheap only if it is universal.
Gates is free to demand as much payment for his products and services that the market will bear. if the market decides it's highway robbery, Gates will go the way of the dodo bird. perhaps you think that the government should now subsidize purchase of windows 95 so that everyone can get their copy?
The real issue in DOJ v. MS was that although Bill complied with a consent decree, he _immediatley_ found other ways to apply the screw, and many of these newer terms are even worse, but more subtle. And, there is no question the verbal threats have been significantly worse.
all far less than the slimy tactics used by his detractors to limit his ability to compete freely in the market, such as all the "antitrust" laws supposedly relevant to his situation.
To software vendors it is the threat of denial of technical information on GUIs and APIs, to hardware manufacturers it is threats of ecomnomic sanctions, including publishing decertification of the platform for various WIN95 and NT compliant stickers, etc.
why should Bill be forced to do business with people who would love to slit his throat? answer: he doesn't have to. he can flick his finger at them. and if they misunderstand his right to do this, they misunderstand the essence of America.
Bill Gates is NOT an ethical businessman. If the fact was that Bill was able to garner his position from hard work, a better product, and a well-greased advertising and marketing organization would not justify the application of the classic Sherman and Clayton anti-trust rules; the market will either continue to accept them or not.
that's absolutely what he has done, and none of your hocus-pocus flimflamery can rebut this truth.
However, Bill has used his position of 85% in OSs not only to dictate OS considerations, as bad as they are with DOS nothing more than a boot sector virus and Windows a pretty program loader, but he has used this position to dominate the applications market by bundling and forcing machine integrators to include the MicroSoft applications in return for the OEM discount on the operating systems.
horrors!! you mean that if someone is successful, they have more influence on the market?? *gasp*
Preloading the market by those means is _not_ ethical or good business.
Gates is free to do whatever he likes. the market decides what is appropriate by where it spends its money. so far, it support him. are you going to argue with everyone who spent money on MS products and say, "no, that's not really what you wanted!!" whose business of it is yours to limit the freedom of consumer choice?
Bill Gates _clearly_ violates the FTC provisons on ethical conduct and restraint of trade by a monopoly or quasi-monopoly position.
"Gates is selling all the widgets and gizmos!!! no fair!!!"
Why were nearly 30 OEMs represented anonymously in "friend of the court" briefs? --and the first thing Billy's (hired virtually every high end firm in SF) attorneys' did was subpoena the _names_ of the consortium under the rules of evidence --welcome to the "Kiss of Death."
*gasp* -- finding out who is out to slit your throat. yes, it should be mandatory that people can anonymously attack him (as you are doing) without any possibility of consequence. let's just put a bag over his head and let everyone take free punches. that would be appropriate, don't you think?
Personally, I think it is time to dismember Bill Gates --give him a choice of his OS group or his applications group and literally force him to sell all direct or indirect interest in the one he does not choose, plus forego any involvement.
unfortunately, your puffhead arguments, falsehoods, innuendoes and hallucinations are beginning to grip people who matter. in fact it is becoming quite trendy to besmirch MS.
Anyone who thinks Bill Gates or Microsoft is a benevolent 800 pound gorilla has not paid attention in history classes:
anyone who thinks that business involves charity for the intellectually challenged has not paid attention to reality of the free market.
power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.
funny how this statement is always assumed to apply to microsoft, not to the companies that are trying to anonymously slash his throat in courts as a desperate resort when they have failed the egalitarian test of the marketplace.
Not that this subject matter is relevent to cypherounks, but...
cpunk relevance: operation of the free market ???
Gates' conquests can either be made out to be a failure of the free enterprise system or a success from it. the more I read whining complaints about MS's dominance, the more I prefer the latter interpretation. perhaps power corrupts, but on the other hand failure clearly promotes whining. "you cannot grow taller by chopping off the heads of others".
I respectfully disagree with the analogy. In a competitive market economy, you can indeed grow larger by killing off the competition. In fact, that's the whole idea of unfettered capitolism. This was tried 100 years ago and the result was monopolies which in the end eliminated competition and ended up reducing innovation and productivity while increasing prices. Then the US government decided to end this by introducing laws to limit monopolies. The broke up AT+T and essentially forced IBM to become weak in the name of fairness, but when Bill Gates brought Microsoft into the same position, the government failed to act (and is continuing to do so). This is (in my opinion) because Ron Raegan was so influential as president and heavily favored unfettered free trade.
I've seen so many people try to smear MS with innuendo, as if "enough people being unhappy" at a company is ample evidence that there is "unfairness". the marketplace is *not* fair. it rewards people who are in tune with it disproportionately!! sometimes, *dramatically*so* as in the case with Gates.
Inuendo or not, there are clear facts that have been widely documented regarding Microsoft (Bill Gates doesn't run it alone you know!). Among them are: - Microsoft forces dealers to buy only Microsoft software bundles if they want to use ANY microsoft products in their PCs at discount prices. I have been personally caught in this one. I had a calendar product a few years back that was marketed to about 1,000 of the largest microcomputer dealers and bundlers in the US. Not one would buy the product, and the reason they gave was that they were not allowed to bundle any non-Microsoft-approved software without losing their ability to sell the Microsoft bundles. This is not a case of sour grapes - it's just plan fact. That is what the dealers said - not just one of them. - Microsoft has historically used undocumented operating system calls which they provided details on to select software companies and which they used for their own products, but which they did not release to the greater market place. Without the use of these undocumented calls, many operating system features were not usable. The net effect was that companies not on the Microsoft chosen list were delayed in delivering new versions of products to meet new versions of operating systems, giving Microsoft and companies they worked with a market advantage. - Microsoft holds a dominant market position. This is a necessary component of the situation because if the same facts held for a non-dominant company, it would be within bounds of the law and would not stifle free trade.
a market for [x] gizmos does not even exist. a brilliant person says, " I think people really need [x] gizmos. I'm going to make and sell them. I'm going to find people who will help me, but if I can't find any I'm going to do it all myself".
Nobody is disagreeing with this. That is the desirable part of what Gates and Microsoft did - 20 years ago. But the standards we hold and the requirements we place on companies increase with their size and market dominance. This is done in the name of keeping a thriving competitive environment. In today's environment, Microsoft is dominating the market and thus reducing innovation (or so the theory goes) by using anticompetitive methods, and that is the issue. In my personal opinion, they are doing something far worse. By dominating the market with inferior products, they are essentially forcing the world to build an artificially weakenned global network environment. The net effect will be years of new versions of the Microsoft product line without a single bug fix (they call them feature enhancements).
Gates is such a person and did it with PC OS'es and various windows applications (Excel, Word Perfect, etc.). he bet his entire future on the idea that he knew what people wanted even when other companies disagreed.
This is factually inaccurate. Microsoft created inferior versions of existing products that have only come to market dominance because of anticompetitive methods. For example, Excel has numerour bugs and produces wrong answers at a rate far in excess of 123. It is truly an inferior product, and yet it now dominates the market - solely because it is bundled with other microsoft products and because interoperation between 123 and Microsoft products is delayed due to undocumented features and changes in the underlying Microsoft operating system. Microsoft did not bet its fortune, nor did Bill Gates, on Excel, WordPerfect, or any other of their applications. With a few exceptions, they took existing products, built their own versions, used inside information and their dominant market position to force the products on PC dealers, and continue to do so. ...
the truth is that the playing field has always been level, but because Gates is such a brilliant genius, market anticipator, and gizmo producer, he succeeds far beyond his or anyone else's wildest dreams.
It's just not accurate. IBM, until recently, was barred from selling more than a certain dollar value worth of units. Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft alone either. He has thousands of employees. Admitidly he was a driving force, but his team members are largely responsible for his success, and I think he would readily agree to this if you asked him.
the market has *given* bill gates his dominance. all the arguments about him being "unfair" are absolutely bogus that I have seen. they amount to, "Bill Gates is using tactics to sell more of his software than his competitors. therefore, he's not being fair to everyone else who wants to sell their software as well."
That's not what people are saying. They are saying that Microsoft is breaking the law of the land and has been for a long time and that is why they have market dominance. Whether the law has been broken or not, you are mischaracterizing what has been said about Microsoft. Enough of this - sorry for the noise, and let's get back to what cypherpunks are about - cyphers. -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/ Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236
On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
there's been MS flamewars on this list before, but Attila repeats various snippets that I find highly objectionable.
cpunk relevance: operation of the free market
*sigh* "operation of the free market" isn't necessarily cypherpunk-relevant, unless of course all libertarianism is. I, for one, consider myself a cpherpunk, and not necessarily 100% behind free markets. (I'm still thinking about it.) In short, can this *please* move off list? Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lasser <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu> (410)494-3072 Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.
Without forcing everybody to search the interline comments. 1) you obviously have no concept of anti-trust or anti-competitive law, practice or the public interest it represents. I wrote my thesis on government regulation of monopoly v. monopoly franchises such as utilities. 2) market domination can, and generally does, stifle competition, but it also kills innovation of alternatives. Software companies are too busy kissing arse with Bill, and threatened by Bill, to release software on other systems say unix or os/2. a perfect example is Corel. Corel was _very_ enthusiastic to release for OS/2, in fact they were ported to OS/2 before W95 released. Shortly after the announcement, the honcho reversed positions and canceled Rev 6 for OS/2 stating that Rev 2.5 which has existed for some time, was "adequate" for OS/2. I am not going to expose my inside source, as their will be retribution. 3) you are totally ignoring the comments on anti-thrust and restraint of trade. In general market terms, anti-thrust is less important than restraint of trade --Bill _clearly_ violates the rules on restraint of trade, and therefore should be dismembered to avoid lack of innovation as in #2 above. 4) you clearly have no concept of American free market policy. Yes, you may be very successful, even filthy rich, but when you stretch your rights to clearly offend the public interest, then anti-trust and restraint of trade laws serve the _needs_ of a free and _competitive/innovative_ market. America does not serve dinner to merchants who rape, pillage, and burn --as Bill Gates has crushed his opponents; the barbarians are punished. There are grounds for criminal charges in Bill's actions. 5) you are incorrect in your assumptions that Gates was sued anonymously. In the initial action by the DOJ, competitors were _asked_, by subpoena, for factual information by the DOJ. The _DOJ_ provided the shield in so much as Bill's barbarian actions were of sufficient interest that evidence providers desired and were given protection --not much different than the Federal Witness Protection program. when CI$ and the rest banded together to protest Bill's obvious restraint of trade and stonewalling on hooks to Win95 for three months after Win95 released, they did not, and _could_ not, do so anonymously. 6) how much is Bill paying _you_ for your efforts? You obviously have too much of an interest in the commercial outcome to be so ignorant. 7) Your beliefs are one thing --state 'em, but don't speak for America until you know the definition of the "public interest" and have some concept of anti-trust and restraint-of-trade legislation and court rulings which have set the guidelines. clutch it in, _after_ your brain is in gear. 8) no, I am not a liberal by any means. I am somewhere to the right of the Libertarians, but definitely not an anarchist either. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS --FORWARD TO ALT.FLAME
1) you obviously have no concept of anti-trust or anti-competitive law, practice or the public interest it represents. I wrote my thesis on government regulation of monopoly v. monopoly franchises such as utilities.
neither do you, mr. pseudonym. <g> notice how nothing that MS does even remotely resembles the *utility* business, and how painfully absurd it would be to imply such a thing were so... your point above, while seemingly implying something significant, in itself gives absolutely no evidence for what you claim (i.e. that I don't have a clue). this is quite similar to your essay in which you say that "MS *clearly* violates free/fair trade" with nothing to support your case other than innuendo. I am not going to play ----sizewars with you, I wouldn't want to damage your obviously fragile selfesteem. I wouldn't *want* to be an expert on the ridiculous legislative laws that go under the idea of "antitrust", which are just a convenient excuse in most cases for the government to interfere with business when the public is whining a lot.
2) market domination can, and generally does, stifle competition, but it also kills innovation of alternatives. Software companies are too busy kissing arse with Bill, and threatened by Bill, to release software on other systems say unix or os/2.
this is a subjective matter. you continually lace your claims with many subjective claims that have no basis in fact. who is to decide what is unfair and what is not? answer: a court. so far, no court has agreed with you that MS has been involved in unfair trade. you seem to believe that you are the authority. you have failed utterly to give a single concrete instance of how Microsoft is *unfairly* stifling competition, although you have infinite innuendos and seem to think that merely by saying things like "OS2" in your writing that you have proved your case. it may be that Microsoft "stifles" competition because all of its competitors are simply *choosing* not to compete with them on certain platforms and areas. now, *no*amount*of*legislation* will change what a company decides of their own free will in this manner. why is it a horrible calamity if other companies voluntarily *choose* not to compete with microsoft? is microsoft putting a gun to anyone's head not to compete with them? are they essentially paying people not to compete with them? are they trying to sabotage their competitors by contract killings on their programmers? no, they are succeeding because they have a *superior product*, *nothing* more sinister than that is going on. no amount of wet-tissue-paper conspiracy theories ranting about API documentation is going to change that.
a perfect example is Corel. Corel was _very_ enthusiastic to release for OS/2, in fact they were ported to OS/2 before W95 released. Shortly after the announcement, the honcho reversed positions and canceled Rev 6 for OS/2 stating that Rev 2.5 which has existed for some time, was "adequate" for OS/2. I am not going to expose my inside source, as their will be retribution.
why is this a problem? companies change their course all the time based on the competition. you think this is the first time a company decided to change course when they found out what a powerful competitor was doing? *wrong*. obviously. but because MS is involved, you seem to think this is a horrible injustice for mankind. there's no doubt that people voluntarily choose not to compete with MS. MS voluntarily decided not to compete with Intel for chip fabrication!! *surprise*.. likewise many software companies choose not to compete with MS in particular areas that MS has *won* through hard work. MS is in the position of a marathon runner, not a tyrannical despot as you imply. the *moment* that MS makes a bad strategic decision or trips from their relentless pursuit of customer satisfaction, any one of the numerous hyenas nipping at their hyenas will take advantage of the slip.
3) you are totally ignoring the comments on anti-thrust and restraint of trade. In general market terms, anti-thrust is less important than restraint of trade --Bill _clearly_ violates the rules on restraint of trade, and therefore should be dismembered to avoid lack of innovation as in #2 above.
no amount of times of saying "Bill clearly violates [x]" will prove your case without concrete examples, none of which you have provided. furthermore, you are correct in that I am ignoring many of your comments about "markets". you don't seem to understand this point: MS dominates in markets that they *created*. MS *created* the "widget" market. then to have other companies and individuals such as yourself screech that they are being "excluded" from this market is the height of hypocrisy, when these people voluntarily decided to "opt out" at an early stage. this basic point of mine in my prior essay totally sailed over your head. antitrust laws make sense in *pre*existing* markets that have come to be dominated by a single company, a "monopoly", that seems to be trying to stifle competition. e.g. there are 5 railroad companies, then suddenly there is only 1 that charges highway robbery. or, series of [x] barons collude to price fix. what has MS done that stifles competition? they stifle competition not by trying to overtly prevent companies from competing. they "stifle competition" by being the best there is. and you are free to change this by creating better software. so far they are so ingenious in creating brilliant software that no one has come close to their prowess. why do you think that antitrust laws are the panacea for all problems in markets? you haven't even proven that MS is a problem, you just take that as a given. then you presume that because antitrust laws exist, they must be sacred and they must apply. well, you look pretty silly to me trying to apply your 19th century antitrust laws and feebleminded market ideas to a state-of-the-art 20th century market that is doing just fine, thank you very much, without interference from legislative busybodies like YOU. do you recall the RAM "crisis" of a few years ago in which the Reagan administration accused Japan of "dumping" RAM chips? do you consider this a success of legislation applied to high tech markets? if so you are in the minority of all people in the technology industry. now, dear sir, I admit that there are unethical businessmen, and I do believe that government antitrust laws make sense when a single businessman or a set of them are conspiring to seize a market and *prevent*competitors* from even participating in that market. but nothing MS has done prevents competitors a-prior. it is a far different thing to have some kind of skullduggery that prevents others from even attempting to get into business (such as blackmail, sabotage, manipulating their employees, manipulating resources, etc.). however we have a clearcut situation in which various companies are simply voluntarily *choosing" not to compete with microsoft. and you complain there is not enough "innovation" in the technological field? you think MS' dominance is preventing "innovation"? this is the most utter ridiculousness I've heard in many years, and I'm embarrassed to see these thoughts on the CP list, although not surprised they come from someone without any interest in revealing their identity.
4) you clearly have no concept of American free market policy. Yes, you may be very successful, even filthy rich, but when you stretch your rights to clearly offend the public interest, then anti-trust and restraint of trade laws serve the _needs_ of a free and _competitive/innovative_ market.
these things you talk about with breathless patriotism are all *subjective*. its *subjective* whether a given company is preventing competition or free trade. there may be legislative criteria, but they are only subjective guidelines that the courts have to try to figure out. you talk about operating systems as if it is a "public interest" area. well, sir, it seems to me you can manipulate any company to any ends you like by insisting that what they manufacture, after all, is in the "public interest" and therefore this merits legislative brainless busybodiness. furthermore your silly effusive rhetoric above again fails utterly to tangibly demonstrate that MS is engaged in "unfair" practices. again you seem to believe that MS is involved in unfair practices because 1. Gates is the richest man on the planet 2. other companies avoid competing with MS in some areas 3. OS2 is not as successful as windows 4. gosh darn it, there isn't enough *innovation* in software right now
America does not serve dinner to merchants who rape, pillage, and burn --as Bill Gates has crushed his opponents; the barbarians are punished. There are grounds for criminal charges in Bill's actions.
all I can say is, hee, hee. Bill Gates is ruthless, I grant you that: he's ruthless in cutting the crap out of his products and the hot air that customers *don't* want, and putting in the concrete meat that people crave, and the marketplace has virtually deified him. to argue with MS's dominance is to argue against the people who buy his products. why do you think they made the wrong choices? with their own cash? your legislative solution are designed to make decisions that individuals are quite happy to make by themselves, thank you very much.
5) you are incorrect in your assumptions that Gates was sued anonymously.
I didn't say that. I said that his throat-slashing attackers would *like* to be anonymous, as you delightfully prove.
In the initial action by the DOJ, competitors were _asked_, by subpoena, for factual information by the DOJ. The _DOJ_ provided the shield in so much as Bill's barbarian actions were of sufficient interest that evidence providers desired and were given protection --not much different than the Federal Witness Protection program.
oh brother. yes, Bill is going to go out and hire hit men to get back at all his enemies. (hee, hee, once again). what you fail to understand is that if Bill decides that other companies are trying to slash his own company's wrists, he has full authority to make business decisions regarding their declared enmity. apparently your miracle system would be the following: any company can lodge an anonymous complaint against their enemy and tie that enemy up in court without revealing their own identity. after all, we need to *protect* those accusers, don't we?? heh. in all your sparkling effusion about America (oh, I can hear the flag flapping in the breeze behind you, god, this country is great) you fail to consider the ideas about "confronting ones accuser" deemed important enough to stick in the bill of rights... can you reiterate why you think Bill is a "barbarian"?? hee, hee.
when CI$ and the rest banded together to protest Bill's obvious restraint of trade and stonewalling on hooks to Win95 for three months after Win95 released, they did not, and _could_ not, do so anonymously.
yes, what a pity they could not. let me tell you, I really feel your pain. hahahahaha.
6) how much is Bill paying _you_ for your efforts? You obviously have too much of an interest in the commercial outcome to be so ignorant.
my efforts in what? I have no financial ties to microsoft. I have friends that work there. I have met plenty of people such as you who I think simply fail to understand the concept of free enterprise, which does *not* promote equality. in fact it rewards those people fantastically who can anticipate markets and give consumers precisely what they want. and for this brilliant gift of Gates' which is perhaps unparalleled in the history of business (imho), you would like to cut up his painfully constructed kingdom so that other people have a "chance" to "compete" in markets that Microsoft actually originally created.
7) Your beliefs are one thing --state 'em, but don't speak for America until you know the definition of the "public interest" and have some concept of anti-trust and restraint-of-trade legislation and court rulings which have set the guidelines. clutch it in, _after_ your brain is in gear.
your using terms such as "anti-trust" and "restraint of trade" do not make you any authority either. I freely admit I am not an expert, but I also think that its translucently obvious to even some of the most uneducated of people that 1. if there are laws, they can be misapplied by bureacrats to manipulate companies. a situation where companies can sabotage each other merely through litigation is a very serious red flag. 2. because a company is not doing well in the marketplace, is not reason to introduce legislation or litigation against a successful company. it is a reason to REJOICE that the market has sent a CLEAR MESSAGE about WHAT IT DOESN'T WANT. any amount of whining and pleading by executives in this company or their sniveling sycophants does not change this *basic* reality. IBM got a massive reality check in the marketplace in the early 80's. no matter how much they though they were sacred, the *market* told them to **** off!!! because they didn't have a clue, and failed to listen to people who were *offering* them clues for free (Bill Gates) included. and you whine that IBM "didn't sabotage themself", that "they weren't their own worst enemy", they just didn't "adjust". oh, the grisly horror. they had half a decade or more to get a clue about what the industry wanted, and it didn't tolerate their egocentric vaporideology. cypherpunks, rejoice. 3. furthermore, because a lot of people hate a company and think that they ought to be restrained, DOES NOT MAKE THIS LEGITIMATE or ACTIONABLE. people are notorious for wanting things they don't really want in the long run, not understanding the full consequences of their own demands. that is, perhaps even demanding something that is self-contradictory (i.e. "kill microsoft so that we can get more software innovation", apparently your own view). 4. antitrust laws were invented in the 19th century and originally were related to railroad price gouging. there was some real skullduggery going on in this period imho, but to compare Gates to these "robber barons" is a disservice to humanity and a black mark on your karma record, imho <g> what is my hidden agenda? to see the truth as it stands, when everyone around is trying to see the truth that fits their hidden agenda. its a rare gift and a curse I assure you but it's known as "speaking one's truth". as someone who has written software and understands the difficulty of *pleasing*customers*, I congratulate Gates as a brilliant pioneer and visionary of the 20th century and say a pox on all his detracters that paint him as a "barbarian" for his sterling accomplishments in *customer*service* in an insanely difficult enterprise (software development). I wouldn't have responded to your last message if you had more coherently rebutted the actual message of my original essay. as it stands I just thought I would sent this little missive to further highlight your own cluelessness and decrease your reputation on the list. having done this, I think now I will probably just ignore you as inconsequential or take fun intermittent potshots at you. sweet dreams!!
participants (4)
-
attila -
fc＠all.net -
Jon Lasser -
Vladimir Z. Nuri