[Am-info] level the playing field

[Joe Moore]

"Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> Joe Moore wrote:
> > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> > > Sorry. You do not decide how many might want any utility or application.
> > I did not try to.  I simply asked "How many people transfer hard drives
> > between multiple OSs"?  That would be an upper limit to the usefulness
> > (and market size) of cross-platform disc compression software.
> 
> Have you heard of dual booting?  A boot manager from IBM, Lilo (Linux)
> and System Commander all permit you to install multiple systems on the
> same hardware.  If disc compression is supported on multiple platforms
> the user can benefit from that technology regardless of which OS they
> boot up at any time.  Stac provided that benefit until it was precluded
> from the market by illegal Microsoft bundling.  Microsoft's idea is to
> write and force sell two different compression schemes so that not even
> NT and Windows 98 can both share the same compressed files.
> 
> That is just one example of truly stupid engineering by a monopolist and
> bundling which at the same time precludes superior technology from the
> marketplace.

Yes, dual booting is probably the only use of this.  IIRC, Stac still
required a separate license for each platform it was run on.

Microsoft has stupid management.  They make stupid engineering
decisions.  So?

How many consumers use disc compression now anyway?

> > > Neither do you bundle crap in order to force their decision.
> > I'm not bundling anything.
> Good.  Then you support unbundling.  And, you support being able to buy
> the technologies you want to implement instead of what the monopolist
> wants to force you to buy, right?
I do not agree that unbundling is the end all and be all of antitrust
remedies that should be levied against Microsoft.  Unbundling is neither
necessary, nor is it sufficient.

> > > IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE.
> > > IT IS NOT MICROSOFT'S CHOICE EITHER.
> > The seller decides what to sell.  The buyer decides what to buy.  That's
> > what makes a market.
> False.  The seller does not decide what to sell at all.  The seller can
> only sell what is legal to sell.

WHAT?????????? The seller does not decide what to sell?  The seller can
sell whatever they want, if they are willing to be responsible for it. 
They can sell a kilo of cocaine in every box, if they decide to. 
They'll (hopefully) go to jail for a long time if they decide this, but
the decision is theirs.

Good thing we have you to decide what the sellers can sell.

> But, the real suggestion you made which is false is that buyers decide
> what they buy.  That is false in a monopoly.
Err, no shit.  But even in a competitive market, not all consumers will
see the bundles they want.

> Only if you have multiple sellers and multiple buyers in fair and open
> market can buyers and sellers "make a market".
> 
> In a monopoly, that is NEVER the case.  In a monopoly, the monopolist
> decides for everyone including you.  In a monopoly there is no decision
> made by any buyer.  Indeed, not one buyer has decided to buy IE.  Most
> have been fooled and defrauded into doing so.  But, since no one can buy
> Windows or Apple without it, it is not a decision made by the buyer at
> all.  That decision simply does not exist.  If you vote and find only
> one name on the ballot, you are the subject of a dictatorship. Only
> fools think they count.  They do not. You are being told who to vote
> for.
     > /dev/null


> > > You do not decide what anyone must buy.  No body does.
> > I decide what I must buy.  Your statement is false.
> > > Do you understand that basic principal?
> > Yes.
> Then why are you trying to decide what others can or can not buy?
I am not.  You are trying to decide what others can or can not sell.

> Then why are you trying to decide what others want or do not want to
> buy?
It is perfectly normal to decide what others want to buy.  Sellers do it
all the time.  It's called market research.

> Do you decide which clothes they buy and wear?  Do you decide which
> foods they eat?  Do you decide where they live?  Do you think you make
> any decision for anyone not your responsibility?  If not, then why in
> the hell do you insist upon deciding what computer software someone must
> buy, install, maintain and use?
No, No, No, and No.  I am not.  Why in the hell do you insist upon
deciding what computer software someone must create, sell, and maintain?

> That is none of your business.  And, you have absolutely no right to
> force any sale of any product upon anyone for any reason.  It is illegal
> to do so.
I do not have monopoly power in the computer software market.  Therefore
it is _not_ illegal.  You are wrong.

> > > Do you understand that you can buy whatever food you want to eat?
> > > Do you understand that you can buy whatever cloths you want to wear?
> > Actually, the food market has bundles, too.  Go into Burger King and say
> > "I'd like a Whopper combo, but since I don't like french fries or onion
> > rings, don't give them to me, but instead take off $1.19 from the cost
> > of the combo, which is the retail price of the fries if purchased
> > separately."  Let me know if it works.
> You can buy burgers without fries or onions.  That was my point.
Yes, you can.  But your unbundling suggestions that consumers get a
rebate of the RETAIL price of a competitor's product is rediculous.  Try
going to Burger King and getting them to take off $1.29 since that's
what McDonalds is charging for their fries.

Continuing the Burger King suggestion:
After they give you back the $1.19 because you didn't get fries, you
remember that you have a can of coke in the trunk of your car, which you
could drink.  Ah hah, I'll just get a rebate on the coke.  Another
$1.19.  At this point, you have been refunded $2.38 from your $2.99
combo meal.  Meaning that you have paid $.61 for your Whopper which
normally retails for $2.09.

> No one is forcing you to eat onions. (except maybe your mommy)
Hmm... Maturity.

> > > Do you understand that you make those decisions for yourself?  (unless
> > > your mother still does)
> > Err... So you're implying that my mother dresses me and picks out my
> > food?  My, how mature.
> It was your idea to tell someone what they must do.
Nope, you're telling someone what they must do.  You're telling the
seller what they must sell.

> I am not telling you what to do.  You are forcing others to buy
> bubblegum.
Nope, you are forcing sellers to.

> Read the bubblegum deal and tell everyone if you buy the gum, switch
> your OS or stop.
It doesn't matter what I do.  I do not try to speak for other consumers.

--Joe
-- 
IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft 
software" --The Register,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html

I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too.