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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MeDroogies who wrote (326)	7/1/1998 1:38:00 PM
From: I Am John Galt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

Linux is a consumer product I bought off the shelf. If you choose to buy it, you know where to look for its products. That is what makes it a consumer product. The G3 point ONLY further proves that there is a marketplace. If there is a need to run Windows (and there always is - there's a need to run lots of OSs if you're any kind active user), then the G3 offers you a vastly greater amount of choice than any typical Wintel box. For the public to realize that will only require massive PR and advertising. But that happens to be what MSFT is good at, and why they are in the position they are in. There are no laws against good marketing. I disagree. Microsoft did not rise to power because of good marketing. They rose to power because they were able to capitalize on IBM's strategy and stole it. My hats off to Microsoft; they saw a window of opportunity and jumped on it. Bill Gates was able to buy DOS off of a little known Seattle company for 25,000 what is now worth several billion. I have no quarrels with that at all. My issues with Microsoft do not really entail the Operating System, as I have stated before. My issues with Microsoft entail the unfair practice of first cloning Netscape Navigator (MSIE), and then integrating their operating system with Internet Explorer. That is not only blatantly unfair, but impossible for Netscape to combat with. If Navigator is a little bit better, that won't matter, for Microsoft will steal the idea and make just good enough to compete. As for IBM, you did vastly overgeneralize. Review the facts of the IBM case and the DOJ's effectiveness on IBM. If the DOJ was so effective, why did IBM continue to grow during the longest portion of time the DOJ brought the case against them? Seems to me, people's attention were drawn to IBM, and their superior products were recognized for what they were....or, as in the case of MSFT, their marketing became more effective. The DOJ's case against IBM diminished dramatically as time went on, and eventually was left with no teeth as the market morphed around IBM...any agreements and rulings that resulted were window dressing for the DOJ to declare victory and go home. The DOJ was effective in that it demoralized IBM. IBM was on top of its game, and using what some would claim to be false business practices. Although nothing was ever won, it was a dragged out fight for years, which eventually allowed IBM to find a niche it could live in without becoming a monopolic power. I state again, if the government is serious about hitting MSFT where they live, why not use the market and cancel contracts? How come nobody speaks to that point? Also, why didn't the DOJ go after Apple when they tried to corner the computer market? They had complete and total control of a very large portion of the market for some time. Why was Apple immune from DOJ pressure? Because the DOJ wanted time to let the market work? If so, why doesn't the DOJ let the market work again? My contention is Internet Explorer. That is the DOJ contention. They could care less about the OS just as long as the products are kept separate. Matty Gregg