Paul Bramscher <pfbram_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> BearItAll wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Microsoft Shuts Down Linux 10 Years Ago Says Iowa Attorne
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Going back now to as early as 1998, Microsoft starts to realize that
>>> | Linux might pose a possible threat, and Vinod Valloppillil, who is
>>> | a program manager at Microsoft, is asked by Mr. Allchin, Jim Allchin,
>>> | to analyze potential strategies for combatting open-source software,
>>> | and specifically Linux.
>>> | His memos are leaked to the press in April -- I beg your pardon --
>>> | in October of 1998 and become known as the Halloween documents.
>>> | And the evidence will be that Microsoft uses its influence in the
>>> | OEM channel, the computer manufacture channel, to make sure that
>>> | end users have a difficult time buying PCs with Linux preinstalled.
>>> `----
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.linuxelectrons.com/News/RoundUp/Microsoft_Shuts_Down_Linux_10_Years_Ago_Says_Iowa_Attorney
>>>
>>> Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | They are, in short the secret to Microsoft's success. And the word
>>> | secret is to be taken quite literally: No OEM may talk about the
>>> | contents of his contract, or he will lose his license, and (assumption)
>>> | likely be sued for breach of contract as well.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
>>
>> The problem with this stuff comes when trying to distinguish between the
>> parts that are bullying, underhanded, monopolistic and those parts that are
>> just good business decisions for the time that they were made.
>>
>> Take coaches. When the government put the busses out to tender, there was
>> some tax advantage in being a local bus or coach company, to do with the
>> distance between bus stops serviced (I don't know exactly how that worked,
>> but that was the gist of it). So, one enterprising man and wife who until
>> then were quite a small player in the coach industry, put a bus stop in
>> every service station down the M1, and M6, which effectively meant they
>> could undercut the long distance coaches by quite a lot and cover just
>> about the whole country, certainly the most used routes.
>>
>> Other bus and coach companies shouted and screamed, but it was simply a
>> matter that National Express had thought of it first. Well done I would
>> say. Now they are the largest of the coach companies and many of those that
>> were around prior to that move have now gone.
>>
>> Some could say that National Express is effectively a monopoly within the
>> bus and coach industry, simply because of their success, but should they
>> really be punished for success, in particular a single decision that lead
>> to that success probably a much greater degree of success than the two
>> owners would have thought possible at the time they thought of it? Now that
>> they are the biggest, they can undercut all oposition simply because it is
>> possible for them to balance profit and loss over many more active coaches,
>> simple accounting.
>>
>> I don't think that capping them or punishing them for success is the way to
>> deal with such things, there is nothing wrong in my book with success based
>> good products or an intelligent or wise decision.
>
> Well, you need to ask what "success" can and cannot be legitimately
> built on. Corporations are so-called "fictitious individuals":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation.
>
> The globalized corporations are somewhat based on several dynamics
> wholly inimical to the free market & free exchange of ideas:
> 1. They drop down borders of intellectual property, patents, etc. which
> are little more than "idea cartels", prohibiting others from
> manufacturing a similar product for a certain amount of time -- even if
> it's a potentially life-saving drug, etc.
> 2. They can achieve a position of monopoly via political backdoors,
> lucrative or slushy government contracts, etc. which (again) can give
> one company an unfair advantage.
> 3. Of course, companies are always free to outsource (Halliburton is now
> going to Dubai) -- but workers must stay put.
>
> Nobody should punish success, but we need to be careful about what is
> "success" vs. exploitive.
Talking back to the National Express example, NE do not have a monopoly on
travel around the UK, indeed, there are cars, taxis, trains, aeroplanes,
bikes, walking, and also other coach companies. Also, they have not
made any effort to kill any of those alternatives by any particular
means, excepting normal competition.
>
> 1. The patent system is broken. Let's dispense with it.
As soon as possible, please.
> 2. Far tougher public and government scrutiny over slushy practices,
> conflicts of interest, etc. Get "tough on" white collar crime.
Yup.
> 3. Forbid American companies from outsourcing -- or else allow free
> roaming rights for all workers, cross any border you want to, whenever
> you want to.
You cannot forbid outsourcing for a simple reason, which is that it's a
fundamental part of the global economy, and has been ever since
international trading started, which was shortly after the first boats
could get to a remote location.
For example, what is the real difference between buying-in a DVDr/w from
China, and buying-in programming expertise, say? In order to survive,
manufacturing companies will have to buy-in appliantised capabilities,
say, if they're not allowed to outsource the bits which would make up
their own appliance-like capability.
The only way you could really address this would be to end global
trading.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
