[Am-info] Corel serves up Windows apps on Linux?

Fri, 07 Jan 2000 08:12:53 -0800

Erick Andrews wrote:
> 
> FOn Thu, 06 Jan 2000 13:44:23 -0800, Lewis A. Mettler wrote:
> 
> >I meant divestiture of networking technology, internet technology, Word,
> >Excell, Access, MS-SQL and possibly others.  Stock ownership in all
> >other companies should likewise be eliminated.  AT&T, Inprise and Apple
> >investments should at least be eliminated.
> 
> IMNSHO it would be more ethically respectful for many companies to clarify
> their mission statements to make it clear whether their core business...and
> their employees...are more important -- or whether their stockholders and
> officers' remunerations are more important.  Ah, but we know, they lie.
> 
> >
> >By divestiture I mean complete separation of the product from the OS
> >which is far more effective than simple unbundling and necessitates
> >unbundling as well.
> 
> I may go along with that.  But what specific rules (codified) do you propose
> to ensure that it will truly work?  Truly work in the sense of "un-monopolizing"
> the Microsoft monopoly.   I mean "simple unbundling",  "complicated
> unbundling", even "unbundling unbundling"...hey...where's the rubber
> meet the road?  Paul has some rubber on the road with his proposal below.
> Sorry, I want to be credible with remedies, but a major reliance on "bundling"
> concepts for solutions does not cut it.  It will not change MS's corporate
> behavior one nit.
> 
> >
> >There is absolutely no reason why home computer users must pay for
> >networking technology.
> 
> Yes, I agree.  I think they they should be entitled to pay no more than
> what non-home computer users pay for it.  Failing the competition
> of a cheaper package for them sans networking poop in it, they can still
> vote with their feet.  No monopoly there.  Nothing illegal I can see.
> No harm given the REAL choices out there, either.

Sorry.  They should have different products to buy. Not be forced to pay
the same price for the same product.

Do you want to be all forced to buy the same pair of pants?

Do you want to be all forced to eat the same food?

Then why in the hell do people suggest that all computer consumers must
buy the same bundle.

That idea is pure stupidity.

No consultant will ever suggest to a client that they must buy and use
precisely the same solution that everyone else does.  There would be no
such thing as "consultants" if that were true.

Yet. Listen to the crap you read.  "Everyone must buy IE because ...".

Sorry. But anyone who suggests that consumers should not have
appropriate choices "according to them" is disqualified in any way to be
a consultant or advisor in any capacity.  They are only bubblegum
salesmen.  Rather fraudulent ones at that.

> 
> >
> >There is absolutely no reason why any one should have to pay for
> >internet technologies either.
> 
> I suppose.  I mean I suppose that there is absolutely no reason, and I'm
> not aware of any law either, that would require us to pay for internet
> technologies.  Now, as far as the Internet [sic] is concerned, I thought
> we already paid for it.  Is that your point?

No product needs to be sold to or used by anyone.

We did not already pay for it at all.  You pay for it when you buy
Windows.  You pay for it again and again when you buy the Windows
bundle.

I guess you do not understand the concept of buying products.

> 
> >
> >All consumers must be absolutely free to buy or not buy any technology
> >based upon their particular need for that technology and based upon
> >their choice of brand.
> 
> Darned tootin'!  And just think.  For many years I actually thought that
> someone, somewhere had an obligation to make root beer flavored
> cigarettes for me to smoke.  After all, "Cheroots" [sp?] were cherry flavored
> cigars that have been available for years.  Cigarettes however, pretty much
> came in only plain or menthol flavors.
> 
> Nobody got a law established to require root beer or cherry ciggies, though,
> and I eventually figured out that that's just the way it's going to be.  So rather
> than fight, I quit.  Is that so bad?...that a merchant chooses to sell thus-and-such
> a product, but maybe it's not cherry?
> 
> >
> >If bundling remains, monopoly power remains intact and totally
> >unaffected.
> 
> Wrong.  Monopoly power, controlled or not, does not depend upon bundling.
> Bundling, controlled or not, does not depend upon monopoly power, either.
> QED.  So there.
> 
> Erick Andrews
> >
> >Paul Rickard wrote:
> >>
> >> lmettler@lamlaw.com
> >>
> >> >A complete divestiture is best for the industry.  Complete unbundling is
> >> >a far second.
> >>
> >>    Welcome to my side. Lets work on the best (also easiest to figure out)
> >> solution rather than continually wasting time on the 'far second' and
> >> much more complicated issue. Divesture. Personally, I would be happy with
> >> a forced selloff of all telecom investments made since the beginning of
> >> 1998. Do that, publicize OEM contracts/fees and then clean up the
> >> language of EULAs. Those are not difficult to do, and they would have the
> >> most impact. If Judge Jackson forced Microsoft to do those three easy
> >> things, we could all pack up our anti-Microsoft efforts and go do more
> >> productive things. Anybody on the list have a real problem with my
> >> suggestions?
> >>
> >> ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign =======
> >> --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]-----------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Am-info mailing list
> >> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> >> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info
> >
> >--
> >Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
> >lmettler@LAMLaw.com
> >http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust
> >trial)
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Am-info mailing list
> >Am-info@lists.essential.org
> >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info
> 
> >

-- 
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
lmettler@LAMLaw.com
http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust
trial)