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.
1. The patent system is broken. Let's dispense with it.
2. Far tougher public and government scrutiny over slushy practices,
conflicts of interest, etc. Get "tough on" white collar crime.
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.
|
|
