HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:58:39 GMT

In article <1hqe98INNsef@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:

|> If one company has deep pockets and no controls,
|> the potential exists for that company to dump the product (software) for a
|> period of time until the competitor goes out of business and then
|> raise the prices again.
|> 
|> Has MS done this?  You bet.  How much was OS/2 1.0?  Answer: $325.
|> Why so much?  No competition.  How much was the original OS/2 PDK? 
|> Answer: $2600.  Same reason.  Did IBM go along? Yup. They were
|> partners, not competitors then.

Wait a minute--how was this an example of a company dumping a product,
getting a hugh market share, and then charging outragious prices?


|> Dumping of any product at such a low price to put competitors out of
|> business or prevent them from entering the business hurts the
|> consumer.  Look beyond today.  If competitors are eliminated, we all
|> lose. 

By "Dumping" I assume you mean selling something below what it costs to
produce it.  However Microsoft hasn't been doing that--even when you factor
in the cost of developing Windows--selling a million copies of it a month
at $8 a copy still isn't selling it below cost.

|> Look beyond today.  If competitors are eliminated, we all
|> lose. 

With OS/2 and NeXTSTEP (both of which can run DOS _and_ Windows programs)
Solaris, and Pink, I don't think Microsoft has faced as many competitors
in its history.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:13:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.104711.22331@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
> 
> OK, worst case scenario--Bill Gates drives every single OS vendor right into
> the ground.  Windows rules forever in a brave new world of point and click right?
> 
> The minute that Microsoft starts charging more for Windows than it would
> cost for someone else to write a clone or a competing OS Microsoft would
> have competetors again.  

uh oh.....I suspect some facile argument is about to ensue.....

> 
> Case in point:  How many brands of Salt are there out there?  Morton's pretty
> much has the market to itself.  Not completely, but they dominate the salt
> market far more than Microsoft dominates the OS market.  Why arn't we paying 
> more for salt than Gold? After all you'll eventually die if you don't get any 
> salt.  Is it because Morton's executives believe that Americans have a
> god-given right to cheap salt?  Hardly.  They realize the best way to keep
> their market share is to keep the price as cheap as possible.

Yep! There it is. Look, salt is a commodity. You can make your own (try it!).
It is lying around all over the place.
 
Operating systems - sufficiently sophisticated to compete - require years of
training and experience to write. People who write operating systems can't be
dug up out of the ground on demand. They must be developed over many years.
The knowledge required to write these OSes is private, commerical information.
You can't look it up in the library. It is no accident that the number of
major operating system vendors is very small. 

Steve


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: OS/2 v2 on 'Another World'
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:49:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.220905.7380@zooid.guild.org>,
Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>You read it right. I was going through the TV channels today and
>suddenly I saw the WPS on the TV screen. As it turns out, the soap
>"Another World" was featuring IBM's OS/2 2.0 running on a IBM PC.
>It was running a chess program, which I never seen for OS/2. I
>believe it was a custom program just for this show as it evolved
>around some chess game. Hmmmmm, OS/2 2.0 already appearing on TV.
>Not to mention that a few weeks ago, the show "Americas Most Wanted"
>was featuring IBM's ValuePoints which are used for criminal
>investigations.
>
>Best Regards,
>Mark K.
>

     Not only that, but I saw on National News (Probably NBC) a
program which 'ages' the faces of missing children running on... You
guessed it, OS/2!  (Maybe even the same sort of thing they were
showing on Americas Most Wanted).

Timothy Miller

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:50:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.135034.6025@pcatsc.UUCP>, palmer@pcatsc.UUCP (Doug Palmer) writes:

|> You're still lost.
|> 
|> Let me try to put it in a way you might understand:
|> 
|> 	You propose an "agreement" with your girlfriend that you may
|> 	date other women. She agrees just so long as she can accompany
|> 	you on any such dates.
|> 
|> 	You may not mind -- but is it fair to the other girls? Better
|> 	yet -- is it fair that the other girls get the reputation of 
|> 	dating some guy and his "other girl" and have no choice about
|> 	going out on the date in the first place?

Well I think that this is very analogous to the Microsoft/Clone/End User
situation.  I accept your analogy.  In fact, it breaks my heart just
thinking about all of those girls who won't be able date me without
dating my "anticompetitive" girlfriend too.  :-) :-)

Lets go a little further.  Suppose Suzy _really_ wanted to date me without
my girlfriend tagging alone.  Suppose Suzy's Uncle Sam likes Suzy and
passes a law which says that Suzy's brother Biff, a policeman, can force 
me at gunpoint to date her without my girlfriend tagging along.

Would you consider such a law Moral?  Right?  Decent?  Just?  Fair?

Surely you would agree that the agreements I make between myself and 
my girlfriend are the business of only me and her.  Actually, the agreements
I'll make between me and my future wife will be downright monopolistic.
*sigh* Yes, this does mean that thousands of other women will be "hurt"
because their hopes of sleeping with me will be forever dashed.  
But my wife will have a "trust" in me that no "antitrust" legislation
could erase.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:58:38 GMT

In <29103@oasys.dt.navy.mil> jwhite@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Joseph White) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.193928.8003@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>     How about professional baseball or football in the U.S.?  Neither
>>was government created - both are monopolies.

>But both had anti-trust exemptions granted by the government!  So
>while the government didn't create them, they have certainly helped
>them continue.  

Only to the extent of not prosecuting them as monopolies.  I thought
the argument was over whether monopolies could come about in a free
market (minus government protection of the monopoly position), not
over whether there could be a monopoly that goverment could not
prevent from coming about if government chose to act.

So if government interferes (regulation, etc.) it is creating a
monopoly and if it DOESN'T interfere it is also creating a monopoly
(or helping one to continue)?  Yes, under that kind of definition, it
is impossible for a monopoly to exist without government help unless
you eliminate government, since the supposition seems to be that no
matter what the government does or does not do, it is helping the
monopoly to continue.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:11:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan2.221112.21578
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan02.094926.14462@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>>
>>>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>>>some NEW Merit!
>>>
>>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
>>>
>>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>
>>     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
>>similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
>>Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
>>DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?
>
>If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
>disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
>certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.
>If it finds too little room, it should just say so, not
>indicate anything as a potential problem. It is silly to
>give messages like, X detected. If there are many X's which
>one would be the problem? If there are no X's then what to
>do? No piece of software should be a smartass, let the user
>decide what he does and does not need.
>
>Erik
>-- 

One of the features that I am aware of is a STACKER like operation
that does on the fly compression of disk files. If this is the case
then it might cause OS/2 some serious angst trying to deal with
compressed files, where before there were none.

I have a serious problem with software that compresses my binaries
and anything else on the disk I have not asked for specifically. Is
there a way to permanently disable this feature ? If so, great. If
not, I'll stick with a pure DOS 5.0 with my OS/2.



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 14:07:13 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec29.224332.15462@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Microsoft owns Windows.  That means that if you want a copy, you've got to
>do it on their terms.  You may not like their terms, but the world doesn't
>owe you the kind of terms you want.

...but it DOES mean that MS can't use their marketing to generate a monopoly
position in the market. Monopolies are a Bad Thing. MS is trying desperately
to put Windows in that position.

>For the life of me, I can't understand why someone would use the word "force"
>to describe what is going on.  If someone offers me a deal which will put
>more money in my pocket and I accept it, have I been "forced?"  Economic
>"force" means that I get richer if I comply--physical force means that I
>get my brains blown out if I don't comply.  Dudes, the difference couldn't
>be greater.

You're once again missing the point: if MS sells me Windows for $8 if I agree
to pay for a copy for every machine I sell, but triples the price if I don't,
then that's force. I have no economically sound choice but to give in to their
extortion; after all, the alternative is a tripled cost and the likelihood
that they'll sue me to death if they can find an excuse - like, say, they
think (independent of reality) that I've shipped copies I haven't paid for;
the cost of the litigation and audits alone could ruin a company...
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:15:38 GMT

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>In article <BzoytD.H4p@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>What you fail to understand is the psychology and actions of some 
>entrepreneurs. If you want to have successful entrepreneurs you have
>to look at what drives them. Otherwise, they may just disappear. Maybe
>you are not bothered by this, but many people do.

>BG is not doing these things because he does not have enough money
>for living. He does it because for him it is a game that _involves_
>money. It is fun for him to develop new software. But to play
>a game and enjoy it, you must have some fixed set of rules. Otherwise,
>even playing chess would not be fun. 

The rules are fixed an BG broke them. The anti-trust laws have been around
for a long time.

>From a programmer's point of view there is no real separation between 
>applications & system software. Almost every application involve
>some interaction with the system or system calls. This separation 
>exists only in the mind of the FTC. Now, when entrepreneurs start

This seperation also exists in Microsoft advertising. *They* advertised
DOS and Windows as being *open* systems with a *published* interface.
They are the ones who claimed that they were opening up the interface
so everyone could program to it. They lied.

If they had claimed from the begining that it was a proprietary system
there wouldn't be a problem, but they didn't. They said one thing and
did another.

>the game, they usually have some long-term goals. They dont know 
>ahead of time that some government committee is going to enter into
>the picture later on and arbitrarily change the rules. If that
>occurs too much in new areas they will simply not start to play 
>the game. 

Anyone who bothers to research corporate law knows the rules. Microsoft
just thought they could get away with bending them. The fact that the
FTC is invesigating them can't be a big supprise to them.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:18:57 GMT

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 ?

Yes I support this position. No one has absolute rights to to whatever
they want. Any persons individual rights have to be ballanced against
the rights of other people. When what you are doing affects other people
there are limits to your rights.

For example, I am not allowed to sell alcohol to children. This is limit
on my rights to sell my property.

You seem to forget that we all live in a society composed of many
individuals. What one person does can have an effect on many other people.
Because of this we sometimes have to restrict an individuals freedom
for the good of society as a whole. Ballancing the good of the individuals
and the good of society is not easy, and many people will disagree on
where to draw the line. However, I think most people agree that some
trade-off has to be made.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:26:53 EST
From: James Justice <JAY@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Distribution: usa

Computer World December 21,1992
-------------------------------
Following complaints from several British hardware manufactures, the UK
government has moved to investigate Microsoft Corp's DOS licensing practices.

Member of Parliament Nigel Griffiths, the Labour Party's spokesman on
consumer affairs, confirmed last week that he will pass a dossier on
Microsoft's UK activities to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) government
department.  OFT is the UK equivalent of the US Federal Trade Commission,
which is winding down its own investigation of Microsoft.

Griffiths, who has received complaints from vendors, had previously
tabled two written question in the House of Commons asking the government
to investigate Microsoft's supply and charging practices.

Microsoft formerly sold MS-DOS to its UK customers through two channels -
a high-end licensing scheme for large OEMs and in units of 20, 50, or 100
to smaller IBM PC clone makers.  Late last month, more than 400 UK
companies received letters inviting them to join the Microsoft Easy
Distribution plan.

The Microsoft plan commits vendors to paying royalties for every Intel
Corp. based 80286, 80386. I486, or Pentium PC they ship, whether they are
DOS machines or not.

If they decide not to sign up, they face paying more for DOS because
Microsoft will change its UK pricing from pounds sterling to US dollars.

Griffiths likened the arrangement to a scenario in which a company that is
paying a 5-cent-per-bottle royalty on every Coke sold in the UK is suddenly
asked to pay 5 cents on every other bottle it sells, even if it contains
milk or fruit juice.

"This is the back end of a bad monopoly." said Mark Travers, production
manager at Edinburgh based Datalink Computer Systems.  "It's like Microsoft
wants a percentage of every PC in the world, whether or not you're
using the company's software on it."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.222355.0200785@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
> In article <28DEC199212022792@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
> >In article <1992Dec22.234828.0203999@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
> >>  
> >> Besides the 1983 promise to allow ME to use more than 640K on my AT still
> >> is waiting to be filled by MicroSoft.  
> >
> >Why should MS be responsible for IBM's promises?
> If I am not mistaken, IBM Contracted for MS to produce DOS to their 
> specifications, therefore MS is/was contractually responsible for
> IBM's promises.

And IBM sets the parameters of what functionality they want in their OS. You
don't really think that IBM contracted for a protected mode DOS, Microsoft
didn't deliver, and then we didn't hear about it :-)  I will blame MS to the
extent that they have shown little interest in a protected mode DOS
(multitasking or not); but rather, have always had their eye on a multitasking
GUI like OS/2 or Windows.  Now why didn't DR pursue a DOS-AT?


> And since MS was the producer of SCO-Xenix
> I don't think they come off lilly white there either. 

Actually MS is (or was) a minority shareholder of SCO.  I don't know if they
had any hand in the actual development of XENIX.  My impression was that they
simply resold a relabeled 80x8x version it as MS-XENIX.

I think that there should have been a protected mode DOS-AT released with the
AT that broke compatibility with the existing DOS (REAL mode has never been a
strong selling point for the 286).  On the otherhand, IBM was coming off a
string a market failures (PCjr, portable PC and XT/370) so they may have been
gun shy in trying to move too far too fast.

> Have Fun and a Happy New Year.

You too!

--rick
From: czmax@cats.ucsc.edu (Max C. Pritikin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information Week: OS/2, one of 1992's Top Products
Date: 25 Dec 1992 05:06:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

	[ a bunch deleted as there have already been lots of comments]

>>>a DOS file by modem to their home offices in one window while
>>>simultaneously writing a letter in a Windows word processor.  The OS/2

>>	A windows user can do the same.  

>If he's lucky, and the programs that he's running are well written,
>and/or if he's using a *real* multitasker, like DESQview, underneath
>Windows.  Otherwise, this will usually be true, but cannot be
>guaranteed.  :-)

Hmm, not that i would guarantee that DESQview could do it.  Or that
os2 could do it, or that unix could do it or that...

A lot of this depends on the hard ware; I'm running OS2 on a
386-40 w/ 20 megs of memory and can't really use my 14,400 modem
with any luck.  I'm lacking one cheap $10 part - a 16550.

(now in my case i know what wrong and how to fix it AND what the diff.
will be, AND that it doesn't matter what OS i run for this problem etc.)

	[more stuff deleted (hmm, i'm not ramblind on enough, maybe
	i shouldn't post. :) ]

this post was brought to you by the letters,	
>Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Imaginary guitar notes [...] exist only
>xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |  in the imagination of the imaginer" --FZ

and the numbers,
	-max
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11442 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3627