Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: The list isn't blowing up yet?

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Chris Owens" <internetworkers_box AT reality-v2-dev.com>
  • To: "'InterNetWorkers'" <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The list isn't blowing up yet?
  • Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:55:33 -0400


So, your saying that if my company is successful enough my reward is
litigation? People do have the option of acquiring Linux, buying a Mac
or whatever they want.

I agree with you to some degree on the exclusionary licensing. It's
another tactic I'm not terribly fond of, but back to the car analogy -

A car dealer should be free to sell the cars/products they want.
HOWEVER, if they devalue my product and pollute my market share by
including things like dashboard doggies and hula girls, rubber doggie
poo (AOL links) on my dashboard then I have a big problem. Features
included in my product are no longer valued. In addition they may
interact with features of my product producing unexpected and dire
results. What if I got sued for an accident caused by the now limited
windshield visibility?

Why should I be forced to include other dashboard doggies and such from
other manufacturers in my car? Let them manufacture their own. My
point is if I make a product, it's mine to decide how I want to market
and sell it. If people don't like it, then don't buy it.

I think we're touching on multiple issues here. Exclusionary licensing
and prohibitive/protective licensing are two different things.

I don't think the "sole source" argument isn't entirely valid in this
case. Aside from past edicts from the Sun dictatorship regarding their
products, or the barbaric totalitarianistic licensing of Oracle and so
forth the CLR is available or will be for licensing which would remove
the "sole source" aspect. As for channel partners - come on! That's
common practice in this industry.

When picking technologies should ask themselves whether they want to
invest in software that produces results, possesses longevity, provides
maximum value and ROI, requires the least amount of implementation time
and hits the overall budget the least. By overall budget I mean to
include development costs which are quite often less for the MS
platform. I don't think that a company watching its bottom line is all
that enthused about paying more on the assumption that it may foster
innovation and that by saving money they would inhibit it.



Chris Owens
chris.owens AT reality-v2.com
919.345.4339 mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael S Czeiszperger [mailto:czei AT webperformanceinc.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 3:54 PM
To: InterNetWorkers
Subject: [internetworkers] Re: The list isn't blowing up yet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 07 September 2001 03:30 pm, you wrote:
>> Can you elaborate on the part about putting the free version of my
> software on everyone's desktop? If you're referring to "enhancements"
> added to the operating system, then I'm all for it. A car
manufacturer
> has the ability to add whatever they want to their vehicles regardless
> of whether they produce it or want to purchase it from a third-party.
>

[...] Large discussion of car dashes removed.

> Oh NO! Company Y goes out of business! Boo-hoo! That's competition
> but a mass following of CompanyA cars develops into a cult lambasting
me
> and my company. Nevermind that any other company would and does do
the
> same thing every day.
>
The difference is that in your example Company A isn't a monopoly, so if

people want to buy a car without a dashtop Jesus they can't. Microsoft
not
only bundles, they use exclusionary licensing to force all of their
partners
to block customer's access to the competition.

Microsoft is doing the same thing that Kodak tried to do when they tried
to
forbid drugstores from carrying other types of film.

Other companies do have policies that allow for cooperation. With Sun,
for
example, you can purchase Java from any numbers of vendors. If you don't
like
the Sun version, you can buy it from IBM or HP. If you don't like Intel
chips, you can purchase compatible AMD chips.

> If I produce a product, what obligation do I have to not enhance it
or
> add features?
>
Of course. The problem is MS isn't content to let their products compete
on
their merits, instead relying on their monopolistic control over the
distribution channels, and enfluence with "channel partners" to make
sure
that customers can't purchase alternatives.

When picking technologies, companies should ask themselves whether they
want
to invest in something that is available from a sole source, putting
them at
the mercy of a single vendor, or whether they want to invest in
technologies
that can be obtained from a number of competitors, which keeps down
costs and
encourages innovation?


- --
Michael S Czeiszperger
czei AT webperformanceinc.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBO5klv1gOl/a4Fw2AEQKoowCdHtyLkzySvQbN3VHtgkBfcCYMgbYAoP5F
LHdXhmUQezUby3hz0tloUnTo
=ScX7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to internetworkers as:
internetworkers_box AT reality-v2-dev.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page