-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Scherrey ">scherrey@switchco.com>
To: Pete Hardie ">pete.hardie@dvsg.sciatl.com>
Cc: ">ale@ale.org ">ale@ale.org>
Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ale] CNN Poll: Should M$ be broken up
>Pete Hardie wrote:
>> You are forgetting the barrier to entry that a 94% MS OS world created - if
>> I wanted to write and sell software and profit, I'd need to write it primarily
>> for Windows - and if I started to show a real chance at a profit, MS could (did,
>> in some cases) easily create their own version, entwine it with the OS so that
>> they could claim it a required part ot the OS, and sell it at a loss until I
>> went out of business. MS had a *real* monopoly.
>
> Did MS achieve that dominance by forcing people to use their software
>or just being extremely competitive. I believe more the later than the
>former.
I believe you should look at the actions of microsoft during the eighties when DOJ was asleep at the wheel!
Please reexamine your premise. You limit yourself to a very
>simple and increasingly irrelevant business model. Operating systems
>and hardware are becoming commoditized rapidly. All you need to do is
>develop your software to be platform independent - something I've been
>doing since 1991 and quite simple to achieve today, especially with
>Java, for example. Now you're not tied to any particular OS or
>hardware platform. You've got a great competitive advantage that MS
>cannot (or will not) afford to chase after. Are you forgetting the attempt by MS to create it own java.
And how about their disclosed plans to usurp the open standards of the net.
> But you (and the Justice Department) miss the point. Where do all
>these other "side businesses" end up? I was simply pointing out that
>MS does a lot more than sell Windows and Microsoft Office and that the
>proposed deal completely ignores this fact. FWIW - I expect that there
>are (or will be) features in the MSN ISP that will only be accessible
>from a Windows based box. And don't get me started with those funny
>little keys on those keyboards they make! Don't these fall within the
>realm of the evil behavior that Justice is trying to end? Is it
>immoral, illegal, or just plain dumb? Maybe none of the above - but it
>certainly isn't addressed or understood by a giant government entity
>that thinks it knows best and is willing to force its will on us (and
>poor little Cuban boys it seems) - now that's dangerous; much more so
>than Bill Gates could ever hope to be.
> regards & later,
The simple fact is that by law there are certain types of corperate conduct that a monoply CANNOT engage in.
Call me naive but this is the standard oil case of our era. Sure MS has our best interest in heart. ;) Just like that family had elians intrest first and foremost.NOT. Granted in both cases the solution is a little problematic and a little late. But something had to be done. As Madison stated" If men were angles, there would be no need for law."
--
To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.