From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:28:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: RE: Impeachment of Janet Reno -- was Justice Department Sues Micr
Message-ID: <v03110707b071d06ab0b8@[139.167.130.248]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




--- begin forwarded text


Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:20:09 -0400
Reply-To: com-priv@lists.ecosystems.net
Originator: com-priv@lists.psi.com
Sender: com-priv@lists.psi.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Com-Priv <com-priv@lists.ecosystems.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv@lists.psi.com>
Subject: RE: Impeachment of Janet Reno -- was Justice Department Sues Micr
X-Comment:  Commercialization and Privatization of the Internet


All right, I will justify (again) my position.

Re: the bundling of a software with an Operating System.

I will not say that I agree that there should be any restrictions or
regulations regarding what applications can be "bundled" with an
operating system. I will say that I vehemently disagree that the
government should legislate what constitutes an operating system and
what applications may be included. But I will concede that there is an
ethical question regarding of bundling of any product with that of
another in an effort to make bundled product competitive on something
other than its merits.

But please do not insult my intelligence. This is not the core issue at
hand. Microsoft has been bundling IE since before it even had a version
number when Windows 95 was originally released more than two years ago.
I just took a close look at Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2, and you
cannot not install IE -- that was released last summer.

So I ask, why is this coming up now?

The answer was given in the letter to the DOJ that Ralph Nadar's
organization posted to this very list not more than one month ago.

"Microsoft should not be permitted to...integrate the MSE with the
operating system in ways that are unavailable to other firms."

This is not the consumer public via DOJ against Microsoft, this is
Netscape via DOJ against Microsoft. This is not about Windows 95 and IE
3.0, this is about Windows 98 and NT 5.0.

Windows 98 and NT 5.0 have evolved the core operating system interface
and functionality to be seamlessly integrated with and based upon
Internet standards CIFS, LDAP, HTTP, HTML/XML, etc. This is what
Netscape is attacking.

There is a natural progression and market pressure to natively integrate
Internet-based standards into both OS's and applications -- to
legislatively prevent that is absolutely ridiculous and harmful to
consumers. It would be the equivalent in my mind if the Australian maker
of the Trumpet Winsocket (the most popular TCP/IP stack for Windows 3.1)
had sued Microsoft for bundling TCP/IP with Windows 95/NT.


All I can say about Netscape is the ability to successfully build and
market software that complements or enhances another software package is
dependent on a good relationship with that software vendor -- this is
self-evident in the market. To self-proclaim yourself the destroyer of
that vendor and then except that vendor to support you is utterly
moronic -- they get what they deserve.

For our mercenary government to pull out their guns in service of
Netscape and force Microsoft to permit their existence is criminal. To
proclaim Microsoft a monopoly and use that as justification to
completely disregard reason, objectivity and rights of property, and
disrupt the free market with subjective law and reason of guns is
repulsive. I have trouble calling myself an American.

	Matt


"You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're
up against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful
gestures. We're after power and we mean it. Your fellows were pikers,
but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no
way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power
to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals,
one makes them. Once declares so many things to be a crime that it
becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a
nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But
just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor
objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers---and
then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system...that's the game, and
once you understand it, you'll be easier to deal with."

_Atlas Shrugged_

--- end forwarded text



-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/
Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>