Prev: what freeware is sitting in your system tray right now?
Next: Source code for LastPass? Anyone?
From: VanguardLH on 7 Mar 2010 19:18
za kAT wrote:

>> You proved my point. YOUR company isn't being forced to advertise someone
>> else's wares.
>
> My company isn't being anti competitive.

If your company spends money on advertising whereas a featherweight has to
use word of mouth and free venues for notification, yes, you are "unfair".
That someone with bigger pockets to spend more money to swamp consumers to
see their product rather than your picyune advertising budget would also be
"unfair". That they have more money than your company is what you think is
unfair. You aren't being unfair (based on someone else's perception) simply
because you don't have the money to do whatever is being considered unfair.

> This isn't about advertising competitors. It about allowing competition.

Which doesn't require that one company advertise another company's products.
So when you ran those relay races in college, did you also put babies on the
starting line while tying a couple hundred pounds of potato bags onto your
heels so the babies could compete?

So when should Sears Kenmore be forced to include advertising for Maytag?
How does Sears not advertising Maytag's product make it impossible for
Maytag to compete? Competition isn't one company advertising someone else's
wares. But fairness isn't what you want, anyway. You want to level the
playing field. You want those that have garnered wealth and power to throw
it away because, gee, you're a little guy. Awww, too bad. In your world,
we should give ants a growth hormone to make them as big as humans so they
can compete as to who gets squashed. You can have power in wealth or in
numbers. If users were so interested in "fair" competition against
Microsoft then their numbers would be represented in their use of those
competing products. Didn't happen, did it. God forbid that consumers drive
the markets for the products they want.
From: John Fitzsimons on 7 Mar 2010 19:38
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 18:18:06 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

> Which doesn't require that one company advertise another company's products.
> So when you ran those relay races in college, did you also put babies on the
> starting line while tying a couple hundred pounds of potato bags onto your
> heels so the babies could compete?

No that was me. Crystal rocks actually.
From: »Q« on 7 Mar 2010 19:40
In <news:Xns9D34BA8C1CCCFbearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.247>,
Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote:

> Craig <netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
> news:hn17lb$jc3$1(a)news.eternal- september.org:
>
> > On 03/07/2010 01:34 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> >> It isn't about the law. It's about politics.
> >
> > That's an odd argument. Considering how laws are created, one
> > could argue it's all politics.
> >
> > Regardless, MS broke the law. This is the remediation.
>
> What law did they break?

How unsurprising that you've reached your conclusions without first
finding out what Microsoft actually did.

> This is an attack on capitalism.

Remedying part of Microsoft's ongoing attack on capitalism is one way of
looking at it, sure.
From: VanguardLH on 7 Mar 2010 19:46
�Q� wrote:

> In <news:Xns9D34AA7D4D6BBbearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.247>,
> Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote:
>
>> If they applied this law to all companies in Europe, revolt would
>> ensue.
>
> Do you know of any some companies in Europe engaging in the kind
> of illegal business practices Microsoft got tagged for who *aren't*
> having European law applied to them?

Please detail what you consider was "unfair" or what were these illegal
business practices. From what I read during the height of news babble on
it, it seemed more like the EU wanted to prove their power by making an
example of Microsoft. It was a means of validating their authority.
Carrying a large head-chopping axe won't be seen as something to respect
until you use it to chop off some heads.

Microsoft had the anti-competitive practice of requiring a royalty on all
sales of computers from a vendor if that vendor wanted to partake in selling
Windows licenses. That got stopped back in 1994. Gee, like no other vendor
of any product has ever locked anyone into their product line, uh huh.
Guess Apple wasn't big enough in revenues back then to bother to extract
fines of any value.

Sun sued Microsoft over Java. At the time, you could get Java interpreters
from a host of non-Sun sources. Not anymore due to the threat of legal
action by Sun. So when is Sun going to get forced to advertise other Java
interpreters? After all, just who is as big as Sun regarding their Java
intrepreter that Sun wouldn't be seen as so big as to be anti-competitive?
So when anyone become the primary software vendor of a product type, oh yes,
let's force them to start advertising their competitors.

The EU gets Microsoft to debundle Windows Media Player from Windows. Wow,
now that was impressive, uh huh. Again the EU just proving they can do
something whatever that something might be. The EU has been very public
about their pro stance towards open source and open standards (which by
contrast means they are anti-proprietary code and protocol). Well, that's
no surprise from a pro-socialist entity. Wonder when Comcast will be
required to advertise for Verizon who will be forced to advertise for
someone else who will be ... Surely we don't want to induce any business to
outperform their competitors, uh huh.

Interesting how so many lemmings think the EU is a good thing. When
capitalism doesn't work for the little guy, go for socialist control to
flatten the competition.
From: »Q« on 7 Mar 2010 19:57
In <news:Xns9D34BDC0DECC9bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.247>,
Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote:

> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20100307175520.4ca641df(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > In <news:Xns9D34AA7D4D6BBbearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.247>,
> > Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If they applied this law to all companies in Europe, revolt would
> >> ensue.
> >
> > Do you know of any some companies in Europe engaging in the kind
> > of illegal business practices Microsoft got tagged for who *aren't*
> > having European law applied to them?
>
> What does "any some" mean? I'll take a shot at it:

Should have been either "any" or "some", not both.

> Yeah, those behind the wrongful laws passed against MS.

You believe that some companies passed wrongful laws against MS?
That's not anything to do with this thread, so you should probably
start a thread in a MS newsgroup about your strange, vague
allegations.

> What you call illegal is capitalism.

AFAICT, that's what you would say to any conviction of any capitalist,
and you'd do so without bothering to find out what the person or
company had actually done.

> What is illegal about a company providing their own software with
> their own OS?

That's an interesting red herring.

> What is illegal about forcing a company to advertise another
> companies products?

And another one. I wonder if anyone is tracking how you do against the
straw men you set up; at a guess, I'd say you defeat them about half
the time.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: what freeware is sitting in your system tray right now?
Next: Source code for LastPass? Anyone?