__/ [ mike ] on Friday 02 March 2007 16:04 \__
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:59:21 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> __/ [ mike ] on Friday 02 March 2007 05:34 \__
>>
>>>> "Doug Mentohl" <doug_mentohl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:es764l$nga$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>- Original Message -
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that anyone could dispute the wisdom shown here!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Ben Slivka
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November01, 1995 7:38 PM
>>>>> To: Ben Slivka's internet Client Team (Xerox DL)
>>>>> Subject: Getting to 30% Share Memo
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is final copy of the memo we sent to BillG for think week about
>>>>> what we should do to get 30% browser share. Pls do not distribute
>>>>> broadly.
>>>>>
>>>>> ..
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Clone and Supernet Netscape. PSD needs to get serious about cloning
>>>>> Netscape. We must have a plan to clone all the features they have
>>>>> today, plus new ones they will add between now and our next release. We
>>>>> have to make this our only top priority and put our top people on the
>>>>> job. In addition to our planned Win32.OLE work, we have to get serious
>>>>> about extending and owning HTLM as a format ..
>>>>>
>>>>> ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Shell Integration. The Internet is a part of Windows. We will bind the
>>>>> shell to the Internet Explorer so that running any other browser is a
>>>>> jolting experience. Shell/Browser user model becomes the same.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> what microsoft did to netscape is a classic case of antitrust violation,
>>> to say otherwise is to show a lack of understanding of what happened.
>>> the result is not so much a statement about microsoft as it is about the
>>> government's failure to enforce basic antitrust law. to understand
>>> why this occurred one need not look at technology issues but instead
>>> study how large corporations use their profits to influence the gov't
>>> through various methods such as lobbying, campaign contributions and a
>>> vast propaganda campaign espousing the merits of their monopoly-centric
>>> agenda. upon conducting such a study, one finds that the regulatory
>>> component of the gov't has been compromised by corporate interest to the
>>> point that it
>>> is often, as in this particular case, rendered completely useless. in
>>> the end, it had nothing to do with product quality or consumer benefit
>>> but who
>>> had the overwhelming clout in terms of political influence. note that
>>> the money that pays for all the influence comes from ill-gotten
>>> (antitrust violating) gains hence the reason microsoft continues to view
>>> its endless antitrust settlements as "business expenses".
>>
>> Have a look at this good article which I've just found.
>>
>> Free-market predators vs. well-meaning reformers
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | The computer business is a prime example of the cut-throat competition
>> | that American history books and reformers warn us against.
>> |
>> | Predatory companies like Microsoft, Intel, AOL and Apple relentlessly
>> | pursue bigger and bigger markets with no thought of the consequences
>> | -- concerned only to fatten the bottom line. There is no special
>> | government regulation controlling computer hardware or software, so
>> | computer companies can do pretty much anything they want.
>> |
>> | At the same time, areas like health care and education are
>> | rigorously controlled by government. Government operates most
>> | of our education system and it sets the rules for health care...
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24068
>
> that article is a good example of the monopoly-centric propaganda
> campaign in action. microsoft not only did not contribute to any of the
> listed accomplishments by the computer industry, it impeded them. the
> article is dedicated to propagating the myth that capitalism works best
> without gov't involvement. that may be true in a utopian world,
> but in the real world it's nonsense. it's a well documented fact that in
> the absence of adequate regulations, corporations will engage in
> increasingly counter-productive behaviors in the name of increasing
> profits. one only need look at corporate history to find the reason for
> regulations such as for consumer & worker safety, hazardous waste, etc.
> in the case of antitrust, the cost of not regulating is borne by the
> consumer from whose pocket is extracted the monopoly profit, so it
> is no surprise that those advocating the hands-off approach are the
> corporate monopolies and their army of shills and those that have
> fallen prey such as the author of that article.
It's very simple really. R&D costs money. Sabotage and elimination of rivalry
may cost /less/. So which will the/a monopoly choose?
--
~~ Best wishes
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bYsxaMyFV2Y http://youtube.com/watch?v=QNb7gPA1JFk
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 462092k used, 574092k free, 84464k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|