[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Nonsensical Discussion and Real questions (didn't seem to make it to the list last night)
(I sent this to the list last night, but it seems to not have made it
out. If this appears twice, my apologies.)
While Declan has no problems writing a half dozen posts regarding
"emoticons" and sarcasm, he seems to have trouble answering substantive
questions regarding any issues.
Declan, you seem to be very good at pointing out when all of us are
wrong or stupid or ignorant of the law. Could you just answer the
question I've posed below.
I don't mean to be confrontational, but I've yet to hear something
purposeful come from you that doesn't have to do with putting down
someone else's opinion on this list.
My previous message is quoted below.
The original subject was Re: Biased journalism, or let's try to ask
Declan some questions he can sink his teeth into and was dated July 20,
1998.
Eagerly awaiting your brilliant response, Declan. (not sarcastic at all)
Sujal :)
Sujal Shah wrote:
>
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > I think technology may have outpaced the law's ability to keep up. That's
> > why I think the best way to take on Microsoft is through private community
> > (virtual and otherwise) activism without relying on the Feds. Boycotts,
> > consumer alerts, and so on. That's how you can raise awareness and
> > convince people, if you like, that buying Microsoft is a bad idea.
> >
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Declan,
>
> I do have a question for you to consider: What type of activism do you
> think will be successful with the current state of the market? I'm
> asking for specific programs or campaigns you think would be successful.
>
> My concern is that it's already too late for that type of action. On
> top of that, I don't believe enough people care enough to make the type
> of tough choices which will make any sort of boycott effective. Too
> many people rely on Microsoft's software on a daily basis. On top of
> that, too many software manufacturers have already "bet the farm" on the
> Microsoft platforms, and are streamlining their production to target
> only that platform (not necessarily because they prefer that platform,
> either).
>
> Though I am normally as skeptical of government intervention and "big"
> government, in this case I believe it to be a required path. Not one
> person in the popular press or in my own private circle of friends and
> colleagues has been able to even imagine a remotely believable path for
> non-governmental intervention or activism to work.
>
> I'm wondering what possibilities you see?
>
> It is important to remember that antitrust actions don't need to break
> up a company, nor does it require that a company be irreparably harmed
> in order to succeed.
>
> I can say that I have specific remedies in mind when I say that an
> antitrust suit is the best path. Specifically, the type of tying
> contracts that Microsoft uses must be eliminated. They're illegal
> anyway, though it will require a court to open up the contracts for
> someone to examine.
>
> Activism has an important role in this situation, but it has a limited
> strength in the face of an entrenched enemy. Especially when the issue
> doesn't evoke the type of emotional response that racism or other issues
> do. Without some serious change in the contractual world that Microsoft
> has created with hardware manufacturers and major software vendors,
> consumers will only care when it is too late, and Microsoft already
> controls 99%+ of the personal entertainment and business computing
> market, hardware, software, and content inclusively.
>
> I do believe that with a change in that contractual space, Microsoft
> will become just another company vying for our time and interest,
> because they will have to compete on something else. They will still
> have the Windows franchise, and will still play a dominant role, but it
> won't be so hard for other OS and software manufacturers to enter and
> compete in the marketplace.
>
> having worked on the JavaReady project for a little while, and having
> done some independant looking around at how OEM's do business, it is
> clearly impossible for a OS publisher/manufacturer to enter into the
> market. Too many vendors will sell only Microsoft. Period. End of
> story. Including a controversial product (i.e. Netscape, an independant
> VM, Corel PerfectOffice,etc), "not enough demand," which seems
> ludicrous. Considering all of the press about lack of choice,
> considering open letters from Nader and Love, considering the thousands
> of individuals who have called and asked for something different (myself
> included), why hasn't one major vendor (in the top 6) chosen to add some
> alternative products to their mainstream offerings?
>
> I'm skeptical, Declan, that pure activism will accomplish anything (or
> that pure government intervention will do anything). I don't think
> you're biased, or bought-off. I do think, however, that you've
> oversimplified an issue that is too complex to rely on a single remedy.
> The situation is not at a neutral point now. Microsoft clearly has the
> leverage to affect each and every one of us in our daily lives, whether
> we want to or not. No remedy alone will accomplish anything useful.
> Only a carefully considered and coordinated massaging of the Microsoft
> issue will result in anything useful. Microsoft will be around for a
> while, but as a people, we just need to reassert that we, all of the
> consumers out there, have the final say on what goes into a product.
>
> Sujal
>
> --
> ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@worldnet.att.net
>
> http://home.att.net/~sujal/
> Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org
--
------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~sujal/
Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org
--
------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~sujal/
Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org