From: attila <attila@hun.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 04:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: saving the world from a cancerous monopoly
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980629113011.281C-100000@hun.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	there is only one _sane_ course of action against M$:
	divestiture  --before Gates becomes the Hydra.

	to make it short: at 90% of the OS market, and 95% of the 
	current	office software (w/p, spreadsheet, database, etc) 
	market worldwide, M$ _is_ in a position of total market 
	dominance.

	the real issue is not the 90% of the OS market, it is the
	95% (expected to grow to 98% before 2000) of the office s/w.
	the office software, available _only_ on M$ platforms 
	creates a self-perpetuating juggernaut: no other OS can
	even begin to make market penetraton without the key
	product (office s/w) --and people are not willing to
	learn a new application-- that's just human nature.

	it will take two technical factors to make M$ subject to 
	market pressures and responsive to further competitive
	innovation (and this involves extensive ongoing regulation
	and oversight which I consider anathema):

	1.  M$' base operating system must be fully defined; eg-
	    the API interface must be made available to all. if
	    the API is not a moving target, emulators can be 
	    written enabling native WinTel s/w to run correctly
	    on other platforms (unix variants, OS/2, beos, apple,
	    etc). the increasing CPU "horsepower" makes this 
	    approach at least feasible.
	    
	2.  M$ must be required to port it's major products to
	    other operating systems; it is worth noting that 
	    freeBSD, for instance, will run native binaries from
	    Linux and SCO variants which simplifies on set.

	    as a corollary, M$ must be required to support some 
	    of the non-Intel hardware ports such as freeBSD or 
	    Linux on Alpha (almost 5 years ago, Alpha was at the 
	    performance level of the current Intel 400 Mhz). M$
	    does support Word and Explorer on Apple, but major
	    features were not ported in both instances --this is
	    not acceptable.

	I am not in favour of the government meddling in the design
	or integration of M$ products...  but:

	the Sherman Act, passed in 1890 is designed to level the 
	playing field, not regulate/administrate. the real issue 
	of the act is that it acts _in the interest of society_ 
	to curtail monopolistic and anti-competitive actions and
	excesses  --M$ certainly qualifies for the remedies far
	more than John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil did in 1908.

	Bill Gates, through his _total_ dominance of the desktop, 
	
	  (with exceptiom of a few of the hardheaded/stubborn who
	  refuse to run _any_ M$ products (author included))

	is using his cash cow, swollen by gouging the consumer, to
	acquire _significant_ interests in industries which use
	computers: cable networks, cellular networks, satellite 
	networks, etc. and related industries dependent on 
	communications: news (MSNBC), television, productions, 
	etc.

	this horizontal and vertical spread of M$ is even more 
	dangerous. Bill Gates is quickly approaching critical mass
	--Bill Gates could literally bring the world to its knees--
	and Gates is a notorious control freak: there is Bill's
	way, there is Bill's way, there is...    sorry, there is
	no other way.
	
	unless the DOJ shows some spine, particularly in light of
	the appeals court ruling dumping the injunction _and_ the
	special master (which is far more critical than the public
	perceives, which is why M$ went after Lessig), the DOJ is
	going to be in and out of court with M$ until M$ literally
	buys the government or intimidates the DOJ out of the deal.  

	the scenario of forcing M$ to accommodate other OSs and
	hardware platforms might be workable, but Gates will not
	only fight it, but it will be a constant additional legal
	burden to force M$ to make the services available in a
	timely manner; in other words, the government will end
	up establishing an agency the size of the FCC just to
	regulate M$ the "controlled" monopoly (as Sen. Hatch
	threatened).

	nothing in American law says we can not have a regulated 
	monopoly if it serves the public interest --AT&T provided 
	superb and universal service for decades (many of us would 
	love to have that service today), but AT&T did _not_ 
	innovate in a timely manner at the market demand. and
	telephones are rather low tech compared to computers
	which have been subject to Grove's Law for two decades.

	M$ has not been a creative company --it is a marketing
	and control machine which acquires technology, often by
	less than socially acceptable means, and integrates it
	into M$' market offerings. credit must be given to M$
	for making the PC ubiquitous, but that value starts to
	wear very thin with M$' current market domination.

	from the perspective of serving the future interests
	of our society, the only effective option for the DOJ
	is to litigate for the divestiture of M$ into several
	operating companies --and to prevent Bill Gates from
	owning or controlling more than one division --much
	on the line of the AT&T divestiture.  

	anything less will mean continuing litigation and further
	dominance of Gates as he uses his enormous cash reserves 
	to buy control in additional markets. likewise, the orders
	must prohibit Gates from further market horizontal and
	vertical "octopussing".  

	the Sherman Act also permits market damages (M$' 50-80% 
	gross profit margin certainly qualifies as gouging) 

	    --which are then trebled; 

	that would put a cramp on Bill's $50 _billion_ net worth 
	and probably force even further divestiture of his 
	controlling stock interests.

	Gates' personality needs to be considered as a factor
	as he must control, totally control. it is not enough
	to be first in a market, he must be the only player in
	the market.  

	Gates' tactics have been deplorable: his minions go forth to
	companies and say: "...we dont know whether to buy you out, 
	or force you out..." and if the company is purchased, it is
	purchased for much less than potential or fair market value.  

	Gates does not buy just the leader, he buys outright, 
	or controls, _all_ of the players in an emerging technology
	so there will be no competition to the direction chosen for
	inclusion in the M$ product line --and the choice may not 
	be the best choice...  the market is stifled.

	unfortunately, Bill Gates is a cancer on society. it is
	the old story: deal with it today, or deal with it later
	when Gates has become an even more cash bloated and
        arrogant monster which has devoured more of societies' 
	rights and destroyed even more of the worlds' technical 
	infrastructure.  

	Bill Gates is not going to mellow with age; if anything,
	he will get more difficult. the world will be in less of
	a shock knocking the pins out from under Gates now rather
	than later.

	    attila out....
__________________________________________________________________________
    go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say:
      yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off.
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Brian wrote:

>> 	...(Compared to Gates,  Hannibal lacks vision...) 
>>
>> 	I read a statistic yesterday (I think) that 90%
>> of all PCs have Win95 installed, and Gates wants 90% of them to 'upgrade'
>> to Win98. He has 90% of the WORLD market. And the Zionist theory people
>> worry about 6% controlling 90%? What about one guy controlling 90% of the
>> PC in the world? And stopping him is a restriction of his rights as defined
>> by the American Constitution? During a debate on this, people happened to
>> mention that the constitution was partially about resisting tyranny. Gates
>> could bury ANYTHING DEEP into a new OS (remember the windows bomb joke that
>> made the rounds a while back?), and no one would know. even then, people in
>> businesses don't speak up, cause those who dissent, get fired.
>>
>>     I think that Gates should be slowed down now, while the chance is still
>> there, and (somehow) get some alternative, workable, opposition OS's up and
>> running, yet are compatible with win95/98 as well. The only way forward is
>> through both unity and diversity.
>>