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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13655)	10/24/1997 9:54:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Metaphor Monopoly search.nytimes.com (yuck, sorry about that url, couldn't figure out how to get a direct link) This is an op-ed piece, I'd guess it carries the same weight as that famous WSJ op-ed piece about my right to call Bill Gates a hairball. Look at it this way. Imagine that Microsoft controls the market for office desks, and it is also a major telephone maker. One day it announces that all its desks will come with built-in phones -- thereby putting all the other phone manufacturers out of business. The Internet browser is the phone here, and Microsoft, by building it in has effectively made itself into the de facto access provider to the Internet. This means, continuing in a metaphorical vein, that the 90 percent of computer owners who use Windows software on their metaphorical desktop will now ride only metaphorical Microsoft rockets as they speed through the metaphorical Internet universe. For those who say I've become irrational and hotheaded lately, I can dig up a post from last Nov/Dec where I said pretty much the same thing, including phone analogy, although I think I said phone system, not "built in telephone". I really am pretty worn out arguing with people saying what a wonderful monopoly Microsoft is, except under antitrust law, where it's inconceivable they could have done anything wrong, and anyway the antitrust laws are unfair, and have no applicability here, and the DOJ has investigated and found them not guilty, and Janet Reno is just trying to crash the markets for commie lesbian Hillary. What's important is the integrity and uniformity of the Windows experience. I don't know, I sort of feel like Yossarian, where I'm more than willing to say I'm crazy, but I think this whole war is nuts, so I can't get out of it, because that shows I'm not nuts. Cheers, Dan

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13655)	10/24/1997 10:05:00 AM
From: nommedeguerre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Dan, >Ever read a shrink-wrap license Norm? Yes, I have and I have also been told that you cannot sign away your rights. If it was so easy to get out of liability no one would be able to sue airlines, etc. since they all have disclaimers regarding the inherent "risk". An interesting case involves a man who was killed during take-off in his private plane. The family sued the aircraft manufacturer and won. Cause of crash: no fuel in the tanks. Despite a general disclaimer of the "hazards, etc. of flying", the owner's manual did not specifically state that the tanks should be full before take-off. Now I've been told there is a sticker in the cockpit which specifically warns the pilot to check the fuel-level before take-off. Disclaimers are only as good as the lawyers defending them. Yes, the license agreements all shed responsibility for software products. This also gives the software world a free-license to distribute poorly-written/tested software (although at a reasonable cost.). Take it easy, Norm