From: unruh on 11 Jan 2010 00:03
On 2010-01-11, Jenn <Jenn(a)noway.whatever> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:04:01 +0000, unruh wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.comp.os.linux.]
>> On 2010-01-10, Jenn <Jenn(a)noway.whatever> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 21:02:40 -0700, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>> IMO, it's a waste of time challenging Microsoft
>>> when companies should put their efforts into producing a product that can
>>> actually compete in the marketplace and provide consumers what they want.
>> If Microsoft engages in anti-competitive practices-- using its monopoly
>> in OS to hinder or even prevent its competitors from actually "producing
>> a product that can actually compete in the marketplace and provide
>> consumers what they want", then those companies, no matter how hard they
>> try, cannot compete.
>> And those things will not be worked out in the courts if the legal
>> system is corrupt.
> If any business wants to be competitive then they should develop a product
> that will blow their competition out of the water and *take* the
> marketshare away legitimately instead of trying to do so by crippling
> their competition. Microsoft is what it is .. they developed their
> product and they don't want to share. They are in business to make money,
> and that doesn't include doing less than they have to in order to keep
> ahead. Healthy competition in business lends itself to better products,
> cheaper prices for consumers, and new products brought about by thinking
> outside of the box.
The reason monopoly laws were developed was that many many businesses
engage in anti-competitive practices--ie they purposely try to stifle
competition. As you point out comptetition is good, and thus laws have
been enacted to ensure that competition does take place. If Microsoft
uses its monopoly position in OS to prevent others from competing with
its own products on that OS, that should not be allowed.
Unfortunately if the legal system is corrupt, that anti-competitive
behaviour will not stop.
From: chrisv on 11 Jan 2010 09:39
Phil Stovell wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:15:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:32:56 +0100, Hadron wrote:
Stupid troll feeder.