From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 09:52:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.035536.7481@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <Bzvxpw.Lx3@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec26.040250.11884@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>>In article <BzuFBF.8Dq@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec26.000917.7829@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>
>>>Please answer in a definite way: Do you support a position that denies
>>>an individual/company from selling/buying _voluntarily_ their property
>>>under certain conditions ?
>>
>>  I don't think I understand what you mean by 'under certain conditions'.
>>While I accept their right to choose to sell or not to sell their property
>>at their discretion, I do not accept the premise that they have an unfettered
>>right to sell (or, more generally, make contracts) in whatever way they see
>>fit independent of the laws and practices governing commercial activity in
>>this country. We are not discussing their right to distribute or to set
>>the price, but the way they interact with the market at large and an
>>obligation to engage in fair dealing in that marketplace.
>>
>>  If all MS wants to do is contemplate the beauty of their creations they
>>can exercise their property rights to their hearts content. If they want to
>>participate in the marketplace, they will have to follow the rules that
>>govern it for the establishment of good order. That is what the FTC is
>>tasked to examine and make determinations about and MS will have plenty
>>of opportunity to contest, challenge, and otherwise deal with any conclusions
>>and actions coming from the FTC as befits their right to due process.
>
>To say that a vendor cannt buy at an agreed price from a software 
>company, or that the company is allowed to display its ware but not
>sell it to whoever agrees to buy it, have property rights, is like 
>saying that one who is free to think but not to talk has freedom
>of speech.

  You are a master at raising straw-man issues. Absolutely nobody is
trying to stop MS from selling its 'wares. The issue is whether MS
treats its distributors and other sellers fairly and equally and
uses practices consistent with US law. the concept of 'agreed price'
becomes somewhat hollow if coercion is involved.

>A position like yours is not rare, and you are entitled to it, but
>at least be honset and say that you are against property rights,
>rather then using charged terms like "predatory practices".

  There you go again. I am not against property rights. I am against
the premise that they are completely absolute and god-granted.

>And to argue that the FTC is protecting the software customer when
>all evidence is the contary, and software prices are keep falling
>down all the time, is blindness at best.

   I never said it was protecting the customer. I said it was tasked
to protect the integrity of the marketplace. Sometimes the long term
goal that represents may even conflict with the short term advantages
to customers. One of these is the use of predatory pricing and
distribution practices to eliminate competition. In the short run
the customer may benefit but is likely to suffer later when the
market becomes monopolistic. Perhaps you think MS has lowered its prices
because they're such neat guys as opposed to having been pushed into it
by competition - with Borland and Lotus mainly.

   As to blindness - you seem to be deaf to the arguments presented in
this thread since you respond to most everything by prattling about
property rights as though they were unquestionable and self-evident.





-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy