Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarksterh who wrote (51176)	11/20/1999 4:28:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

Gidday Clark. You say Microsoft can essentially put any of their customers out of business if they so choose. Not really. If they yank my licence, they won't put me out of business. I'll buy an Apple, or some other thing and go on my merry way. Dell, the seller of the puter to me is NOT their customer. Dell is a distributor and MSFT sells me a licence, via Dell. They do not sell Dell the licence. Dell just passes on the licence fee from me to Microsoft. Of course, Microsoft can choose not to use Dell as a distributor if there is anything about Dell they dislike. For example, if they sell competing products, it makes sense that Microsoft might not want to deal with Dell. On the point you made of Microsoft putting their customers out of business. From where I come, it isn't a good idea to put customers out of business. That has an unfortunate effect on profitability. Usually marketing companies try to GET customers, not shut them down. I know the Globalstar strategy is to not get customers and that way there won't be any customer complaints, but that is not likely to be a good way to profitability though it will be a very good way to no customer complaints. Usually one tries to KEEP customers/distributors and help them maximize sales of one's products and give them incentive to do so. Of course that doesn't mean dealing with distributors who devalue the brand or product design. < does a company become obligated to behave more gently with their newly gained power > So it's okay to steal, monopolize, price fix, leverage, predatory price and gouge when a company is small? Okay, that's a point of view. But I don't subscribe to it and neither do I subscribe to the idea that children don't have responsibilities when they are young. Mine got short shrift the first instant they do a bad thing from when they are old enough to start learning that bad things can be done, which is about when they have the ability to start biffing things around, pulling cat's tails, or throwing food from their high chair. When the food doesn't go in their mouth, but goes on the floor. That means they are not hungry and that's the end of their meal. That way, they don't learn to chuck stuff around. They learn where there mouth is and to do things well. They learn that cat's tails are not for pulling. What's needed is to discriminate between bad behaviour, which damages other people and their property against their will. Some people can't understand that and think that not GIVING something to somebody is damaging them. It's a very important distinction which half the population struggles to understand. If Microsoft refuses a new computer company a distributorship, that is not damaging them. Hard though it might be for people to get that idea! Of course the company would be better off WITH the distributorship, but they do not have a RIGHT to somebody else's property. Private property and personal protection are the two dominant effects which make well-off countries. Where private property or personal security are compromised and the more those compromises are made, the worse the situation for people in the country [including the wealthy such as Saddam who can only live behind guns]. I have seen ZERO Microsoft abuse of power. They control their property and that is fine by me. They have no other power that I'm aware of. They hadn't even bribed governments until recently, which to me was admirable, but I believe their downfall. Bribing governments is questionable because that is the source of monpoly power which is lethal. Well, that's my rant for today. Mqurice PS: Incidentally, what did you think the SUN guy might be meaning with those comments about Q! IP? [Intellectual Property, not Internet Protocol]. It was suggested to me that SUN would benefit mightily from no patent protection or dramatically reduced with government fixing sensible compensation to those who created the technology [with presumably no pay for those who fail in their attempts to invent attractive technology]. This is because they have copyright protection rather than patent protection and the sun never sets on copyright cash flow.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (51176)	11/20/1999 4:28:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Gidday Clark. You say Microsoft can essentially put any of their customers out of business if they so choose. Not really. If they yank my licence, they won't put me out of business. I'll buy an Apple, or some other thing and go on my merry way. Dell, the seller of the puter to me is NOT their customer. Dell is a distributor and MSFT sells me a licence, via Dell. They do not sell Dell the licence. Dell just passes on the licence fee from me to Microsoft. Of course, Microsoft can choose not to use Dell as a distributor if there is anything about Dell they dislike. For example, if they sell competing products, it makes sense that Microsoft might not want to deal with Dell. On the point you made of Microsoft putting their customers out of business. From where I come, it isn't a good idea to put customers out of business. That has an unfortunate effect on profitability. Usually marketing companies try to GET customers, not shut them down. I know the Globalstar strategy is to not get customers and that way there won't be any customer complaints, but that is not likely to be a good way to profitability though it will be a very good way to no customer complaints. Usually one tries to KEEP customers/distributors and help them maximize sales of one's products and give them incentive to do so. Of course that doesn't mean dealing with distributors who devalue the brand or product design. < does a company become obligated to behave more gently with their newly gained power > So it's okay to steal, monopolize, price fix, leverage, predatory price and gouge when a company is small? Okay, that's a point of view. But I don't subscribe to it and neither do I subscribe to the idea that children don't have responsibilities when they are young. Mine got short shrift the first instant they do a bad thing from when they are old enough to start learning that bad things can be done, which is about when they have the ability to start biffing things around, pulling cat's tails, or throwing food from their high chair. When the food doesn't go in their mouth, but goes on the floor. That means they are not hungry and that's the end of their meal. That way, they don't learn to chuck stuff around. They learn where there mouth is and to do things well. They learn that cat's tails are not for pulling. What's needed is to discriminate between bad behaviour, which damages other people and their property against their will. Some people can't understand that and think that not GIVING something to somebody is damaging them. It's a very important distinction which half the population struggles to understand. If Microsoft refuses a new computer company a distributorship, that is not damaging them. Hard though it might be for people to get that idea! Of course the company would be better off WITH the distributorship, but they do not have a RIGHT to somebody else's property. Private property and personal protection are the two dominant effects which make well-off countries. Where private property or personal security are compromised and the more those compromises are made, the worse the situation for people in the country [including the wealthy such as Saddam who can only live behind guns]. I have seen ZERO Microsoft abuse of power. They control their property and that is fine by me. They have no other power that I'm aware of. They hadn't even bribed governments until recently, which to me was admirable, but I believe their downfall. Bribing governments is questionable because that is the source of monpoly power which is lethal. Well, that's my rant for today. Mqurice PS: Incidentally, what did you think the SUN guy might be meaning with those comments about Q! IP? [Intellectual Property, not Internet Protocol]. It was suggested to me that SUN would benefit mightily from no patent protection or dramatically reduced with government fixing sensible compensation to those who created the technology [with presumably no pay for those who fail in their attempts to invent attractive technology]. This is because they have copyright protection rather than patent protection and the sun never sets on copyright cash flow.