Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Josep Lluís Guallar Esteve <jlguallar AT maduixa.net>]

A Dimecres 04 Juliol 2001 15:04, vàreu escriure:
> on Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:38:48AM -0000, Michael Czeiszperger wrote:
> > Its interesting that Kodak is somehow more worthy of protection that
> > software companies:

> Well, Kodak is another monopolist, after all. I'm sure if Microsoft
> tried to get into the business of providing consumer credit reports,
> licensing music, or funerary gear, they'd get smacked down, too.

Actualy, there are monopolies and monopolies that abuse of its position, 
breaking the law (Sherman Act). 

Being a Monopoly is not against the law. What it is against the law is 
abusive practices and unfair business *because* you are the monopoly.

Right now, at least last week, I was able to select between different film 
makers for my camera. And there are different photo-paper companies around. 
And my camera is not even a Kodak.

So, maybe Kodak has a monopoly position (by its big share of the market) 
*but* it is *not* forcing competition act with abusive practices.

On the other hand, Microsoft is just acting agains the Sherman Act. It has 
done it before (Internet Explorar + Windows, Java, Compaq), it is doing it 
now (OfficeXP, Kodak) and it will do it tomorrow (instant messaging).

Why? $30 bilion in the bank is a pretty good insurance against 
too-lawful-politicians and megacorp-friendly-D.C.



Call me a dreamer, but I want Justice to win in the end, puting Microsoft 
back in the right side of the Law, with nasty fines, vigilante-comitees, and 
consumer-tech-savvy surveilance teams.

Maybe we will get a non-crashing Windows. Well, you will get it. I'm in the 
non-Microsoft 10% camp (with Apple's, BSD's and Linux's users). <grin>




Salut,
Josep
-- 
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
mailto:jlguallar AT maduixa.net