NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/10940

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 9.8 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10940 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3429
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!sichermn
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 01:40:27 GMT
Lines: 197

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>From an excange with Jeff Sicherman:
>
>>  Charles Keating was a very successful entrepeneur until they caught up with
>>his business practices. That is not to put BG and him the same ethical class
>>of even suggest BG is engaged in patently illegal activities by any means.
>
>First let's clarify something. I think that if MS writes software this
>software is the propery of MS. Do you agree to this ? If you don't I
>would like to hear why. If you do, why do you think that BG is doing
>anything inappropriate if he trades his property with others, in
>what seems to him the most profitable way for MS.

   Property rights, which may or may not be totally applicable here
(there are copyright issues here which are not identical to either traditional
property rights for more tangible property or the more absolutist principles
you seem to expouse) do not exempt one from established obligations of the
marketplace when you seek to sell or otherwise transfer said property.
Though this concept is contested by Libertarian types.

>>If the actions of the FTC or any other duly consitituted regulatory or
>>investigatory agency serve to protect the integrity of the marketplace, which
>>is vastly more important than any particular entrepeneur whether he has a net
>>wealth of 5 bil or not, I will be satisfied with their actions. If BG doesn't
>>do it, someone else will.
>
>The old circular reasoning: If something is on the books therefore
>it is moral and appropriate. Why do hold this opinion ? Do you think
>that everything on the books should be there ?

  Definitely not. But that does not absolve one from following them
until they are removed in a judicial or legislative fashion or accepting
the consequences of not doing so. And in democratic societies, in fact
in most societies other than anarchies, one does not get to unilaterally
set these standards of behavior. I suppose that the marketplace should
be an anarchic institution from your perspective ??

>
>>>When I am buying software I could not care less about BG's personality
>>>traits. I would worry about them if I wanted to be his girlfriend -:). I
>>>am not interested in discussing any of his personality traits that
>>>are unrelated to software writing.
>
>>  Since he presumably does relatively little of the coding these days,
>>the whole coding/personality issue is moot. And I rarely consider the
>
>One does not have to actually write software by himself in order to
>be called a developer. He might just give ideas and more importantly
>a direction to his programmers.
>
>>founders personalities when selecting the best software and, in fact,
>>have many MS products. However, their personality as it affects their
>>business practices is a fit subject for discussion as it affects the
>>marketplace.
>
>Using terms like "Silly Billy Boy" and "megalomania" in a discussion
>reflects more on you then on BG & MS.

  Yeah, it does. But I never used 'silly' and your use in reply reflects
upon you then. However, it still is an issue in the management and
direction of his company.

>
>>The marketplace is a place where people are trading _voluntarily_. If
>>some government beaurocrats dictate to a software house how it should
>>write software it is no longer a market place, but a govermentpalace.
>
>>  *If* predatory business practices are used, then the voluntarism, in
>       ^^^^^^^^^^
>In biology this terms is used in totaly different context than we
>have here. It is when one animal that eats another against its will. Here
>we are having a totaly voluntary trade (assuming no fraud involved)
>between MS and other software houses or hardware vendors. Why do you
>use it here ?  The closest thing here to predatory practices is the
>FTC which uses its force in the literal meaning to take someone
>else's property.

  If MS's policies have the effect and intent on destroying the opposition
using means and practices which are contrary to the laws that govern the
marketplace in this country then the word predatory is satisfactory. I
doubt those companies want to be defeated/consumed in that manner even
if they wish to compete fairly. And who cares what biology says when we
are having an economic discussion ?

  And accusing the FTC of being predatory is pure political claptrap.
They are following rules of due process established in law. Which is more
than can be said for MS. But then they don't have the obligation to do so.

>
>>it's purist sense, in deficient in the marketplace and competition based
>>upon such factors as quality, efficiency, and value are denigrated in
>>favor of somewhat less noble means such as threats and arm-twisting. It's
>
>Arm-twisting ? How can one do arm-twisting with his own property ?

  When one enters into contracts with said property (which includes
the acts of merchandising, advertising, licensing, and other similar
commercial transactions) one incurs legal obligations related to the
marketplace and abuse of those obligations that involve coercion
could be construed as 'arm-twisting'.

>
>>the gov't role to see that the marketplace operates, within the limits
>>of reason and due-process, as close to the idealistic model of competition
>    ^^^^
>Something is within reason if it follows logically from something else.
>How does it follow logically that using one's property is not part
>of the market place ?

  I see you tend to stop at dictionary definitions that suit your premise
and ignore the rest.  Also see above about the obligations of participation
in the marketplace and how certain behaviors may be inferred from those
obligations.

>
>>with freedom of entry.
>
>>>Show me where it is written on the books that the same software house
>>>cannt write both system and applications, or that a company who
>>>writes system API must give them all to their competitors. It is
>>>purely an _ad hoc_ invention of the FTC, based on the success of
>>>a single a company.
>
>>  The rules need not be specifically written in such terms. They are
>>measured by the effect and the intent of the practices. And nothing
>>specifically stops them from doing both systems and applications s/w,
>>it's how they do it vis-a-vis the marketplace that is at issue.
>
>Would you also support forcing MS to release all its source-code, so
>that its competitors might see all its programming techniques to play
>fair ?

  No and neither is anyone else since that would incur a similar
responsibility upon themselves - equal treatment under the law. Why
are you raising straw-man arguments ? Run out of the valid kind ?

>
>>>>  Apparently you have developed a new philosophy of applications
>>>>programming that I have not seen in my 20+ years of it. The best
>>>>applications programming involves adhereing to the well defined
>>>>interface supplied by the O/S and not mucking about with and/or in
>>>>undocumented areas or the internals.
>>
>>>Wuh ? In the MS-DOS market you cannt avoid knowing a lot about
>>>the internals of the system and the hardware. Ever heard about
>>>writing interrupt handlers ?
>
>>  Which is fine so long as one adheres to the documented standards
>>such as hardware specifications, BIOS or DOS interfaces, etc.
>
>You know very well that there are good reasons not to use
>the standard, like improving speed. That is another evidence that
>MS & IBM cannt enforce any standard on anybody.

  We are talking about the wisdom of doing so in this context, not
the legality and it still remains unwise if sometimes neessary or
important. The issue with MS is still, however, is the practice
of promoting standards and then withholding parts of them but
exploiting them itself. This has to do with the concept of fair
dealing in the marketplace and in contractual relationships, whether
explicit or implied.

>
>>Besides, you say that if something has been so for 20+ years than
>>it cannt be better otherwise. Did it ever occur to you that some
>>people are innovators and are doing things differently from their
>>predecessors ? That is where the danger of FTC rulings are.
>
>>   We're not talking about implementations, we're discussing principles
>>which don't change so frequently. In fact, the whole basis of API's and
>>the driving force behind Windows is the creation and adherence to a
>>standard interface for programs so that they don't muck around with the
>>hardware and software environment on their own to the detriment of each
>>other and the user.
>
>Nobody can force a standard on anybody else. Someone may accept
>_voluntarily_ a standard if it is good for its bussiness. There is
>no reason that a company will start to develop software in another
>paradigm. Just like C++ vs. C.
>
>>  And again I ask, just where has MS been an innovator ?
>
>MS provides a service at a price that competitors could not afford.
>How exactly they did it I dont know. But since others _couldn't_
>do the same implies that there probably were innovations either
>in writing the code or in managements and marketing.

  This issue is precisely that which the FTC is examining: namely
are those advantages the result of technical superiority or are
they due to abuse of market dominance (where abuse is defined as being
outside the bounds of legal practice).

  And I doubt many will agree with your evasion of the issue of
innovation by MS by trying to turn it to the area of marketing.
--
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig