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

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 04:22:38PM -0400, Josep Lluís Guallar Esteve wrote:
> 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). 

Yes, that's right.
 
> 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.

Which makes you a monopolist.

> 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.

Sure, and I can use Linux and FreeBSD and Apples, but that doesn't mean
that Microsoft isn't a monopolist, as you say yourself.

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

Historically, that has not been true. If you read the appeals court
docs in the MS case, you'll see that many of the definitions of what
constitutes monopolistic practices come from lawsuits brought against
Eastman Kodak.

S
 
-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com