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: miraje who wrote (19137)	5/16/1998 6:45:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Everyone in business is a potential criminal at some point if they compete too successfully. This, to me, is Alice in Wonderland. I just don't see how that's the case. Does everyone in business restrict consumer choice as part of competing successfully? Are the predatory tactics which Microsoft has performed over the last years a necessary part of business? It's wrong in practice as well as in theory. There are plenty of companies out there which are extremely successful yet not the target of a DOJ probe. Somehow they also do not pull half the stuff that Microsoft has pulled over the years, either. Coincidence? I think not.

To: miraje who wrote (19137)	5/16/1998 7:51:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Me divert an issue? Like "We must be free to innovate" by cloning other people's stuff and giving it away? Or like "The economy will collapse without Windows 98"? Or the ever popular "Bill Gates is John Galt? I don't think any of those are particularly relevant as a legal defense, but I hear them a lot. On the little speed limit thing, just to repeat as usual, the point is that lots of stuff goes on that's much more clearly "unfair" than poor Bill having to deal with antitrust enforcement, just like everybody else that's big and successful. The arbitrary search and seizure stuff that goes on under the ridiculous war on some drugs is pretty far outside the envelope of any law I've heard of, but the poor shmucks that it hits don't have a bunch of highly paid PR hacks and rich stockholders to argue "fairness" for them. I don't think you as a member of the "first of all, kill all the lawyers" club are in a very good position to say what is or isn't clearly defined in the law. And I, for one, have never tried to say what's legal and illegal, only that there is a clearly defined process to follow in making a determination. It has nothing to do with libertarian or objectivist philosophy, or what a friend of the common man Bill Gates is, or how much Microsoft stock has gone up and how unfair it would be if anything got in the way of it continuing to go up, at the same rate it has in the past. I've had plenty of ridiculous arguments with people who think they know, absolutely, what's legal and illegal, which often enough comes down to "what's legal is what you can get away with". I try to avoid those discussions these days, though I can't resist a bit of the naive civic virtues lecture from time to time. I got to go back to straight sarcasm, it's less aggravating. As for Alice in Wonderland and your citation of my hero George Orwell in the other thread, well, whatever. Usually, nobody even tries to enforce antitrust until things are pretty clear cut. And, once more, if you want real "free enterprise", go try a startup in the Congo, or Rwanda, or Russia for that matter. Not much threat of force from the government in a lot of places in those countries, but you'll have to deal with the mafia or something worse instead. I'm sorry for dropping in on the other thread, I'll have to leave it to the strong - stomached Hal Rubel to intrude on the Microcentric view of the world there. Brian Mulloy can keep telling you guys about how everybody really wants Microsoft to control the world, and you can believe it too, if you want. Cheers, Dan.

To: miraje who wrote (19137)	5/17/1998 12:19:00 AM
From: wonk	Respond to of 24154

Gentlemen: Permit me to wade in for a brief moment. FWIW, I truly enjoy the discussion. James, the following could have been plucked out of Rand. Anti-trust laws are vague in definition, deliberately so. They give justice officials virtual carte blanche to prosecute any "crimes" they chose against any "criminals" they so designate at their whim (or at the behest of current political winds). Enforcement of such "laws" has to be arbitrary. One day a company is competing legally and the next they have crossed some undefined line and become "monopolistic predators" or some other criminal designation. Everyone in business is a potential criminal at some point if they compete too successfully. This, to me, is Alice in Wonderland. The antitrust laws are in some measure subjective, as are any other law. Without the ability to apply judgement in the application of practically any law, injustice inevitably results. A fair look at the history of enforcement of the anti-trust laws is that they have only been applied when business conduct became so egregious that few would deny that violations of the law were occurring. Maybe the application of the has something to do with the our democratic republic form of government. All too often I hear the generic refrain "keep government out of business." Shall we take it to the n-th degree. I propose we eliminate the corporation as a form of organization. The corporation, of course, is a totally artificial creation of the government, designed primarily to insulate the managers and shareholders from their torts and their debts. In my own industry (telecom), AT&T sowed the seeds of its own breakup by massive hubris and its inability to simultaneously be both competitor and supplier. IMO, no company with market dominance can do the latter in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. IMO ww

To: miraje who wrote (19137)	5/17/1998 1:32:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>>One day a company is competing legally and the next they have crossed some undefined line and become "monopolistic predators" or some other criminal designation.<<< I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen that way, aren't you :-) I believe they have had escalating warnings which they have ignored for years. The line was defined, it was pointed out that they had crossed it, court cases were filed and they chose to go ahead until they faced real force, assuming correctly that they might be stopped but not really punished. Chaz