NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11095

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 3.7 KB | 80 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:46:17 GMT
Lines: 69

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>|> You came up with one yourself.  Morton Salt.  Or did that just slip your mind?
>|> How about Matashita?  (sp?)  They have a virtual monopoly on an number of
>|> aspects of the consumer electronics industry.  These are monopolies because
>|> the government lets them be, not because it is illeagle to compete with them.

>Point one, neither Morton salt nor Matashita are 100% monopolies.  And
>point two, Mogul Morton isn't oppressing the worthy poor by high salt prices,
>and neither is Matashita.  What's more neither is Bill Gates.


>|> So using vague phrases like "stealing trade secrets" and "immoral laws"
>|> confuses the issue any less?

>Ok, I'll be more precise.  The FTC is going to point the guns of policemen
>at the head of Bill Gates and steal from him at gunpoint his undocumented
>operating system calls.

>What's more, the FTC is going to point guns at the heads of Bill Gate's
>programmers, and at gunpoint prevent them from excercising their freedom
>of speech.

>I say that armed robbery is wrong no matter if I do it or the FTC does it.
>I further say that threatening someone into silence is wrong if I do it
>or the FTC does it.

And I say that you don't have the slightest idea of what you are
talking about.

Point 1 - a company doesn't need 100% of a market in order to exercise
significant monopoly power.

Point 2 - not all products and markets are susceptible to monopoly
control or influence.

Now, being more precise, so far as anyone knows, the FTC could care
less about Bill Gates and "his undocumented operating system calls".
However, if he is found to be deliberately manipulating those so as to
keep in those that his own people use while breaking those that others
use, he can probably expect some big fines.  As far as 'undocumented
calls' go, that's the limit of what I care about them, in a market
where MS controls an excessive portion of the market.  Lesson one for
you - there are more uses for monopoly power than pushing up the price
of the monopolized commodity.

As for 'pointing guns', I wasn't aware that they pointed guns at
people for anti-trust violations.  They generally point LAWYERS at
them.  You seem to want to differentiate between 'force due to market
position' and 'force due to law'.  There ain't no such difference at
the bottom line, son.

With regard to the 'freedom of speech' of MS programmers, the SEC
routinely interferes with the 'freedom of speech' of CEOs and
corporate officers, as well as interfering with their right to buy and
sell stock in the marketplace.  You would undoubtedly think this is a
bad thing, but then you don't seem to understand economics very well,
either.

You can 'further say' all you want, but if you can't put together a
more logical case than you have so far, I trust you won't be too
disappointed at the paucity of converts to your viewpoint.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.