From: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 95 20:49:27 PST
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Vladimir Z. Nuri's fallacious defense of MS
In-Reply-To: <199512210204.SAA26757@netcom20.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD.3.91.951221035112.27593J-100000@usr1.primenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Without forcing everybody to search the interline comments.

    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.

    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. 

	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.

    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. 

    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.  

	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.

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

	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.

    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.
        
    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. 

    8)	no, I am not a liberal by any means. I am somewhere to the right 
	of the Libertarians, but definitely not an anarchist either.

      ANY FURTHER COMMENTS --FORWARD TO ALT.FLAME