Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: Kodak scrambles to hire anti-trust lawyers after MS betrayal

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Josep Lluís Guallar Esteve <jlguallar AT maduixa.net>
  • To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Kodak scrambles to hire anti-trust lawyers after MS betrayal
  • Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 00:01:22 -0400


A Dijous 05 Juliol 2001 13:15, vàreu escriure:
> > > 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.

...maybe a monopolist under Sherman Act?

What's the name, then, for a monopoly that does not engage in unfair business
practices?

> > 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.

I firmly believe that Microsoft is a monopoly, they have repeatedly acted in
a criminal business way and that they are evil. Oh yes! and they sunk the
Titanic.

:P

Now, seriously, Microsoft has broken the law with its activities. They are a
Sherman-Act-breaking monopoly.

And my computer has no Windows (Linux here!)

> > 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.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

Is Kodak now a Monopoly? I guess not. So the law (probably) acted and
punished Kodak, so now there's competition and we can get better, cheaper
film.

That's what I want to happen with Microsoft. Get some law working.


> S


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page