[TriLUG] A little off topic
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:05:04 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Justin Johnson wrote:
> Not to mention there is NO WHERE in the US Constitution that allows
> the Federal Govrnment to control how a company sells it's wares. I'm
> sorry, but the Government telling a corporation that they are abusing
> their power and position, well, ain't that the pot calling the kettle
> black? Leave Microsoft alone.
and now that you've finished frothing at the mouth, allow me to
enlighten you. the issue here is not whether the federal government
has the right to tell microsoft how to run its business. the issue
is whether the federal government has the power to tell microsoft
to *stop* *breaking* *the* *law*.
did i type that slowly enough for you?
i am thoroughly tired of people who, apparently without a clue, keep
harping on how the government should get off microsoft's case, leave
them alone, stop telling them how to run their business, etc, etc.
the issue here is very simple: microsoft broke the law. this is not
in dispute -- it's been established beyond any reasonable doubt that
microsoft abused their monopoly position using tactics like predatory
pricing, exclusionary contracts and so on, to cripple and/or outright
destroy their competitors.
the issue now before the courts is -- what should the punishment be?
that's what you get when you *break* *the* *law*. is this starting
to make any sense?
> Their arrogance will eventually lead to
> their demise, or possibly not. One thing needed is a good competitor
> in the home user / Desktop market, and so far I havn't seen one. Not
> even in a penguin uniform.
and did it even begin to occur to you why this might be? for the last
several years, it's been a fact of life that, when any startup is putting
together a business proposal and looking for venture capital, the first
question they have to address is: will you be competing against
microsoft in a specific market? if so, you're dead in the water.
there is not a sane VC company around that would invest money in
going toe-to-toe with microsoft. they've seen what happens when you
bitching and moaning that there aren't better alternatives to MS
products really gets the whole concept of cause-and-effect backwards.
> Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, and one
> day may be able to format my Windows box for once and for all and be
> done with that OS, but I would rather see MS fall at the hands of
> their competition than at the hands of the government.
and when microsoft has the power and the money to make sure their
competition never gets a realistic chance? whoops, never thought
of that, did you?
> Kinda sets a dangerous precedence don't ya think...
and that's "precedent," not "precedence." but bad spelling is the
least of your rhetorical problems.