NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/10768

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.9 KB | 90 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!lowell
From: [e-mail] (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:27:30 GMT
Lines: 79

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>
>|> too.  The problem is that they are allowing their application
>|> developers to use calls from their OS that other developers can't
>|> use.  This gives MS applications an unfair advantage over the
>|> competitors applications.
>
>Bill Gates doesn't have to show anybody his OS calls any more than he
>has to show them his underware.
>
>
>|>      The question isn't a matter of ownership of the OS.  MS wrote
>|> MS-DOS, and nobody is going to argue that (I guess it depends on
>|> what I mean by 'wrote'...).  It's a question of interpreting the
>|> law.  That is what the FTC is out to do.  If the law is interpreted
>|> that MS is being unfair, then the FTC has every right to break up
>|> the company.  Period.
>
>NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!!!
>
>If there was a law in Germany mandating that all Jews be killed would you
>said that Hitler had every right to do it, Period???

Very Bad Example.  The German Decree was Written by Hitler after the
disolution of the Bundestag (parlement) and was an Illegal Executive
Order.  Not Law at all.  And even if the Bundestag has agreed, the
German constitution (if my memory serves me correctly) would have made
That Agreement Illegal.  And of course, Genocide is illegal by international
laws dating from before WWI.

The Anti-Trust laws have been upheld by every court that has examined them,
including the international ones.

>
>Or a less drastic example, suppose a new law gave the FTC a right to
>steal everything that you own and give it to Microsoft?  Would you
>calmly state that the FTC had a right to do it because it was the law?
Not in the least, I would fight it in court.  The Anti-Trust laws and
their applications have been so challanged a number of times and upheld,
thus becoming the Law of the Land.  And boy am I glad.

>
>Just because the FTC has a "legal" right to steal and destroy doesn't make
>it right.
Try telling that to the IRS, they do it much better and with more verve.
They make YOU tell them you have sinned and then fine you for it...<grin>

>
>Won't you please consider what is going on from a moral standpoint?
>Is this really the kind of country that you want to live in?

Yep, this is the kind of country I want to live in.  It may be the
worst form of government, with the worst laws, until you consider
all the rest.

>|>      A return, yes.  Binding contracts which allow no other
>|> alternatives, no.
>
>Hey, Microsoft didn't hold a gun to anybody clone maker's head and
>force them to sign a contract.  Both parties voluntarily signed contracts
>because they both thought it would benefit them.
>
>However, Microsoft's competetors are more than willing to point the guns of
>the Federal goverment at Bill Gates because they can't compete with him.
>
>
>|> competing as heavily in the applications market.  Now, though, MS
>|> has practically forced (yes *forced*) vendors to either load MS-DOS
>
>Force is the wrong word to use here.  When Bill Gates starts toting
>M-16's like the U.S. Army does, then we can start talking about force.
I think you have a lot to learn about force.  The old saw about the pen
being mightier than the sword is truer today than it ever was, communications
are so much better though understanding is about the same or lower.

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf