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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (516596)	10/25/2012 5:00:04 AM
From: LindyBill	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794009

a clear case of predatory pricing. I have read this argument in favor of anti-trust law a thousand times. It doesn't hold water. When people come in with lower prices and others leave the marketplace, they have to keep the prices down or the others come back in. Also, so what if it did happen? BTW, there is a large Walgreen's right across the street from my Wal Mart. Build since the Wal Mart came in. Does just fine. This was the Government's first big move into telling business what to do. It's been downhill ever since.

To: i-node who wrote (516596)	10/25/2012 8:49:11 AM
From: LindyBill	7 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794009

MSFT did precisely the same thing, when it gave away copies of Excel and Word with OEM distributions of Windows. Borland, at the time, had vastly superior competing products (particularly, Quattro Pro, which was far better), but there was no way they could sell the product when MSFT was giving it away. Totally predatory, and it had the intended result. The above is exactly the argument used by the EU in their present attack on MSFT. Who is left out in the description above? The consumer. Who doesn't give a damn about who makes the product or how they sell it, they just want the best deal they can get. What we are against in this world is the use of force or fraud on us. Who has been forced or defrauded in the above case? No one. I got something I wanted for nothing by paying for something I did want. Borland couldn't match the deal. So they want the Government to step in and use force on me and MSFT to stop me from getting something for nothing. This is "restraint of trade" by the Gov and Borland. The opposite of what we want to happen.