From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 00:22:40 PST
To: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Subject: attila's fallacious flagwaving
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD.3.91.951221035112.27593J-100000@usr1.primenet.com>
Message-ID: <199512210819.AAA01149@netcom9.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>1)	you obviously have no concept of anti-trust or anti-competitive 
>	law, practice or the public interest it represents. I wrote my
>	thesis on government regulation of monopoly v. monopoly 
>        franchises such as utilities.

neither do you, mr. pseudonym. <g>  notice how nothing that MS does even
remotely resembles the *utility* business, and how painfully absurd it would
be to imply such a thing were so...

your point above, while seemingly implying something significant,
in itself gives absolutely no evidence for what you claim (i.e. that I don't
have a clue). this is quite similar to your essay in which you say that
"MS *clearly* violates free/fair trade" with nothing to support your
case other than innuendo. I am not going to play ----sizewars with you,
I wouldn't want to damage your obviously fragile selfesteem.  I wouldn't
*want* to be an expert on the ridiculous legislative laws that go under
the idea of "antitrust", which are just a convenient excuse in most cases
for the government to interfere with business when the public is whining
a lot.

>    2)  market domination can, and generally does, stifle competition, 
>	but it also kills innovation of alternatives.  Software companies
>	are too busy kissing arse with Bill, and threatened by Bill, 
>	to release software on other systems say unix or os/2. 

this is a subjective matter. you continually lace your claims with many
subjective claims that have no basis in fact. who is to decide what is
unfair and what is not? answer: a court. so far, no court has agreed with
you that MS has been involved in unfair trade. 

you seem to believe that you are the authority.
you have failed utterly to give a single concrete instance of how Microsoft
is *unfairly* stifling competition, although you have infinite innuendos
and seem to think that merely by saying things like "OS2" in your writing
that you have proved your case.

 it may be that Microsoft "stifles" 
competition because all of its competitors are simply *choosing* not to
compete with them on certain platforms and areas. now, 
*no*amount*of*legislation* will change what a company decides of their own
free will in this manner.

why is it a horrible calamity if other companies voluntarily *choose* not to
compete with microsoft? is microsoft putting a gun to anyone's head not
to compete with them? are they essentially paying people not to compete
with them? are they trying to sabotage their competitors by contract
killings on their programmers? no, they are succeeding because they 
have a *superior product*, *nothing* more sinister than that is going on.
no amount of wet-tissue-paper conspiracy theories ranting about API
documentation is going to change that.

>	a perfect example is Corel.  Corel was _very_ enthusiastic to 
>	release for OS/2, in fact they were ported to OS/2 before W95
>	released.  Shortly after the announcement, the honcho reversed
>	positions and canceled Rev 6 for OS/2 stating that Rev 2.5 which
>	has existed for some time, was "adequate" for OS/2. I am not going
>	to expose my inside source, as their will be retribution.

why is this a problem? companies change their course all the time based on
the competition. you think this is the first time a company decided to 
change course when they found out what a powerful competitor was doing?
*wrong*. obviously. but because MS is involved, you seem to think this
is a horrible injustice for mankind. there's no doubt that people voluntarily
choose not to compete with MS. MS voluntarily decided not to compete with
Intel for chip fabrication!! *surprise*.. likewise many software companies
choose not to compete with MS in particular areas that MS has *won* through
hard work.

MS is in the position of a marathon runner, not a tyrannical
despot as you imply. the *moment* that MS makes a bad strategic decision
or trips from their relentless pursuit of customer satisfaction, any one
of the numerous hyenas nipping at their hyenas will take advantage of the
slip.

>    3)  you are totally ignoring the comments on anti-thrust and restraint
>	of trade. In general market terms, anti-thrust is less important
>	than restraint of trade --Bill _clearly_ violates the rules on
>	restraint of trade, and therefore should be dismembered to avoid
>	lack of innovation as in #2 above. 

no amount of times of saying "Bill clearly violates [x]" will prove your case
without concrete examples, none of which you have provided. furthermore,
you are correct in that I am ignoring many of your comments about "markets".
you don't seem to understand this point: MS dominates in markets that they
*created*.

MS *created* the "widget" market. then to have other companies and individuals
such as yourself screech that they are being "excluded" from this market is
the height of hypocrisy, when these people voluntarily decided to "opt out"
at an early stage. this basic point of mine in my prior essay totally
sailed over your head.

 antitrust laws make sense in *pre*existing* 
markets that have come to be dominated by a single company, a "monopoly",
that seems to be trying to stifle competition. e.g. there are 5 railroad
companies, then suddenly there is only 1 that charges highway robbery. or, 
series of [x] barons collude to price fix.

what has MS done that
stifles competition? they stifle competition not by trying to overtly
prevent companies from competing. they "stifle competition" by being the
best there is. and you are free to change this by creating better software.
so far they are so ingenious in creating brilliant software that no one
has come close to their prowess.

why do you think that antitrust laws are the panacea for all problems in
markets? you haven't even proven that MS is a problem, you just take that
as a given. then you presume that because antitrust laws exist, they must
be sacred and they must apply. well, you look pretty silly to me trying to
apply your 19th century antitrust laws and feebleminded market ideas to
a state-of-the-art 20th century market that is doing just fine, thank you
very much, without interference from legislative busybodies like YOU.

do you recall the RAM "crisis" of a few years ago in which the Reagan 
administration accused Japan of "dumping" RAM chips? do you consider this
a success of legislation applied to high tech markets? if so you are
in the minority of all people in the technology industry.

now, dear sir, I admit that there are unethical businessmen, and I do
believe that government antitrust laws make sense when a single businessman
or a set of them are conspiring to seize a market and *prevent*competitors*
from even participating in that market. but nothing MS has done prevents
competitors a-prior. it is a far different thing to have some kind of
skullduggery that prevents others from even attempting to get into business
(such as blackmail, sabotage, manipulating their employees, manipulating
resources, etc.). however we have a clearcut situation in which various 
companies are simply voluntarily *choosing" not to compete with microsoft.

and you complain there is not enough "innovation" in the technological field?
you think MS' dominance is preventing "innovation"? this is the most utter
ridiculousness I've heard in many years, and I'm embarrassed to see these
thoughts on the CP list, although not surprised they come from someone
without any interest in revealing their identity.

> 4)	you clearly have no concept of American free market policy. Yes, 
>	you may be very successful, even filthy rich, but when you 
>	stretch your rights to clearly offend the public interest, then 
>	anti-trust and restraint of trade laws serve the _needs_ of a 
>	free and _competitive/innovative_ market.  

these things you talk about with breathless patriotism are all *subjective*.
its *subjective* whether a given company is preventing competition or
free trade. there may be legislative criteria, but they are only subjective
guidelines that the courts have to try to figure out. you talk about 
operating systems as if it is a "public interest" area. well, sir, it seems
to me you can manipulate any company to any ends you like by insisting that
what they manufacture, after all, is in the "public interest" and therefore
this merits legislative brainless busybodiness. 

furthermore your silly effusive rhetoric above again fails utterly to 
tangibly demonstrate that MS is engaged in "unfair" practices. again you
seem to believe that MS is involved in unfair practices because

1. Gates is the richest man on the planet
2. other companies avoid competing with MS in some areas
3. OS2 is not as successful as windows
4. gosh darn it, there isn't enough *innovation* in software right now

>	America does not serve dinner to merchants who rape, pillage, and 
>	burn --as Bill Gates has crushed his opponents; the barbarians 
>	are punished.  There are grounds for criminal charges in Bill's 
>	actions.

all I can say is, hee, hee.  Bill Gates is ruthless, I grant you that:
he's ruthless in cutting the crap out of his products and the hot air
that customers *don't* want, and putting in the concrete meat that people
crave, and the marketplace has virtually deified him. to argue with 
MS's dominance is to argue against the people who buy his products.
why do you think they made the wrong choices? with their own cash?
your legislative solution are designed to make decisions that individuals
are quite happy to make by themselves, thank you very much.

>    5)	you are incorrect in your assumptions that Gates was sued 
>	anonymously. 

I didn't say that. I said that his throat-slashing attackers would
*like* to be anonymous, as you delightfully prove.

>In the initial action by the DOJ, competitors were 
>	_asked_, by subpoena, for factual information by the DOJ.  The
>	_DOJ_ provided the shield in so much as Bill's barbarian actions
>	were of sufficient interest that evidence providers desired and
>	were given protection --not much different than the Federal
>	Witness Protection program. 

oh brother. yes, Bill is going to go out and hire hit men to get back
at all his enemies. (hee, hee, once again).

what you fail to understand is that if Bill decides that other companies
are trying to slash his own company's wrists, he has full authority to 
make business decisions regarding their declared enmity.

apparently your miracle system would be the following: any company can
lodge an anonymous complaint against their enemy and tie that enemy up
in court without revealing their own identity. after all, we need to
*protect* those accusers, don't we??

heh. in all your sparkling effusion about America (oh, I can hear the
flag flapping in the breeze behind you, god, this country is great)
you fail to consider the ideas about "confronting ones accuser" deemed
important enough to stick in the bill of rights...

can you reiterate why you think Bill is a "barbarian"?? hee, hee.

>	when CI$ and the rest banded together to protest Bill's obvious 
>	restraint of trade and stonewalling on hooks to Win95 for three 
>        months after Win95 released, they did not, and _could_ not, do 
>        so anonymously.

yes, what a pity they could not. let me tell you, I really feel your
pain. hahahahaha.

>    6)	how much is Bill paying _you_ for your efforts?  You obviously have
>	too much of an interest in the commercial outcome to be so ignorant.

my efforts in what? I have no financial ties to microsoft. I have friends
that work there. I have met plenty of people such as you who I think simply
fail to understand the concept of free enterprise, which does *not* promote
equality. in fact it rewards those people fantastically who can anticipate
markets and give consumers precisely what they want. and for this brilliant
gift of Gates' which is perhaps unparalleled in the history of business
(imho), you would like to cut up his painfully constructed kingdom so that
other people have a "chance" to "compete" in markets that Microsoft actually
originally created.
        
>    7) 	Your beliefs are one thing --state 'em, but don't speak for America
>	until you know the definition of the "public interest" and have 
>	some concept of anti-trust and restraint-of-trade legislation and
>	court rulings which have set the guidelines.  clutch it in,
>	_after_ your brain is in gear. 

your using terms such as "anti-trust" and "restraint of trade" do not make
you any authority either. I freely admit I am not an expert, but I also think 
that its translucently obvious to even some of the most uneducated of people
that

1. if there are laws, they can be misapplied by bureacrats to manipulate
companies. a situation where companies can sabotage each other merely through
litigation is a very serious red flag.

2. because a company is not doing well in the marketplace, is not reason
to introduce legislation or litigation against a successful company.
it is a reason to REJOICE that the market has sent a CLEAR MESSAGE
about WHAT IT DOESN'T WANT. any amount of whining and pleading by executives
in this company or their sniveling sycophants does not change this *basic*
reality.

IBM got a massive reality check in the marketplace in the early 80's. no 
matter how much they though they were sacred, the *market* told them 
to **** off!!! because they didn't have a clue, and failed to listen to 
people who were *offering* them clues for free (Bill Gates) included.
and you whine that IBM "didn't sabotage themself", that "they weren't
their own worst enemy", they just didn't "adjust". oh, the grisly horror.
they had half a decade or more to get a clue about what the industry wanted,
and it didn't tolerate their egocentric vaporideology. cypherpunks, rejoice.

3. furthermore, because a lot of people hate a company and think that they
ought to be restrained, DOES NOT MAKE THIS LEGITIMATE or ACTIONABLE. 
people are notorious for wanting things they don't really want in the 
long run, not understanding the full consequences of their own demands. 
that is, perhaps even demanding something that is self-contradictory
(i.e. "kill microsoft so that we can get more software innovation", apparently
your own view).

4. antitrust laws were invented in the 19th century and originally were
related to railroad price gouging. there was some real skullduggery going
on in this period imho, but to compare Gates to these "robber barons" is
a disservice to humanity and a black mark on your karma record, imho <g>


what is my hidden agenda? to see the truth as it stands, when everyone around
is trying to see the truth that fits their hidden agenda. its a rare gift
and a curse I assure you but it's known as "speaking one's truth". as someone
who has written software and understands the difficulty of *pleasing*customers*,
I congratulate Gates as a brilliant pioneer and visionary of the 20th century
and say a pox on all his detracters that paint him as a "barbarian" for his
sterling accomplishments in *customer*service* in an insanely difficult 
enterprise (software development).

I wouldn't have responded to your last message if you had more coherently
rebutted the actual message of my original essay. as it stands I just thought
I would sent this little missive to further highlight your own cluelessness
and decrease your reputation on the list. having done this, I think now
I will probably just ignore you as inconsequential or take fun intermittent
potshots  at you.

sweet dreams!!