____/ Greg Cox on Thursday 10 January 2008 03:12 : \____
> In article <e7e64024-b33c-4467-86b3-
> 34b42df1d9bc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx
> says...
>> On Jan 9, 2:28 pm, "Roger Wilco" <wi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >> `----
>> > >>http://sun-weekend.com/paper/?asw=view&asw=view&sun=38093308610108200...
>> >
>> > linux "might" "could" "may" "can" "possibly" "almost" "could be" "IF"
>> > "could easily" "could add"
>> >
>> > Blah-blah-blah. A bunch of long winded no-nothing blathering about some
>> > purely hypothetical future neither one knows nothing about.
>>
>> Precisely the point of my post. People have been predicting "The Year
>> of Linux on the Desktop" for almost a decade, and I had even expected
>> it since 1994. Yet, for almost 15 years, Microsoft has been able to
>> maintain it's monopoly, even in the face of it's on incompetence and
>> technical inferiority.
>>
>> Microsoft is the perfect study in Economics for a Monopoly.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/36guok
>>
>> <quote>
>> # Ways for policy makers to correct the inefficiency.
>>
>> 1. antitrust laws
>> 2. regulations (AC regulation and MC regulation)
>> 3. public ownership
>> </quote>
>>
>> Antitrust proved to be completely ineffective.
>
> It seems to be working since the settlement some 5 years ago. Microsoft
> has been forced to treat all OEMs equally, charge a uniform amount for
> Windows licenses, and not interfere if any OEM wants to ship boxes with
> Linux installed. You call that ineffective regulation?
The regulation is /extremely/ ineffective. It achieved almost nothing of any
significance. Where does one even start when it comes to giving concrete
examples?
>> Although Microsoft is a public corporation, Bill and Steve own so many
>> shares that they can't be fired, effectively making Microsoft a
>> privately controlled corporation.
>
> So Rex, how many shares do Steve and Bill own that makes it so that they
> can't be fired? Let's take a look. As of September 7, 2007, Bill Gates
> owned 9.33% of Microsoft's stock and Steve Ballmer owned 4.34%.
> Combined gives them 13.67%.
> <http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/ar07/Proxy_2007.doc>
> So tell us again how 13.67% gives them controlling interest in the
> corporation.
You're looking at the wrong place. Look at Bill's (and Steve's) bank accounts
and the Gates Foundation, which in many ways has served as a proxy and a
guardian for Microsoft for almost a decade.
>> Microsoft as also avoided all attempts at regulation.
>
> So all that stuff with the EU was just a sham?
They messed up with Samba (initially). They also failed to address new
anticompetitive schemes like Silverlight. Mr. Vinje is looking at this at the
moment, but it remains to be seen what they will do to address complaints from
many giants including IBM (about XAML and Microsoft's planned Web hijack).
it's not to late to know what's going on.
> Microsoft didn't
> transfer all those millions of dollars to the EU?
Charging criminals for crime is not the same as changing their ways.
> Microsoft wasn't
> forced to create a version of Windows that didn't include Media Player?
*ROTFLMOA* Who uses that? What OEM delivers that? That's one of the biggest
shams that came out of antitrust 'actions'.
> Microsoft wasn't forced to document and license those internal APIs in
> Windows Server that the Samba project now has access to?
After /how/ long? Why were standard protocols ignored in the first place (hint:
watch the leaked Halloween Memos)?
> Please Rex, you really need to find some kind of drug that allows you to
> live in the same reality that the rest of us do.
And then come the attacks on one's credibility. Nice smears you got there.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Welcome to standards-compliant Web browsing. http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 149 total, 1 running, 147 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
