From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:07:56 GMT

In article <8326@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>.... Gateway 2000 can choose to put MS-DOS and Windows on all their
>computers if they wish, but it's not right for MS to force them to...yet
>that's exactly what's happening.

Microsoft did not FORCE Gateway to choose to put MS-DOS on all their
machines.  Gateway CHOSE to do so.  Gateway is CONTINUOUSLY choosing to do
so.  They can, at any given timeframe, simply say "well, MS-DOS+Windows is
not selling as well as it used to--too many customers are asking for OS/2,
so let's start shipping machines with OS/2 instead.  Betty get me the number
for IBM..."

As I've posted before, exclusivity is NOT new to the world.  Soda pop
companies "force" (to use your terminology) large fast food chains to sign
exclusivity agreements.  That's why you won't see pepsi in Burger King or
McDonalds...  But the fast food restaraunts can always switch companies
IF THEY DEEM IT PROFITABLE TO DO SO--Burger King made headlines when it
switched to Coke... but the FTC didn't go near ANY of the transactions.

So puh-lease be a little objective.  Microsoft does a lot of things that
many of us don't like... but the only reason we let them get away with it,
when all is said and done, is because they do make products that work for
a majority of people.

Let IBM do the same.

>
>>Of course.  But he doesn't have the right to do it at any arbitrary price
>>he wants.  In a just and fair society, if you want something that someone
>>else has, you're going to have to cut a voluntary deal with them.
>
>True. The problem is the coercive nature of the deal MS wants you to cut with
>them.
>

Dammit.  If you want to ride the Matterhorn, ya gotta go to Disneyland.  And
if you think the entrance fee is "fair" you obviously don't have a family
of six (like I do).  If you want MS-DOS or Windows you gotta go to Microsoft...
there just is no way you can get those products otherwise.  Is this the
"coersion" you're talking about?

Sure, you can argue that there are other amusement parks than Disneyland--but
there are other operating systems than Dos and Windows.  It's just that if
your kids demand to go see Mickey Mouse, they won't be happy at Magic
Mountain.

Likewise, vendors are out there selling MSDOS and Windows because their
clients WANT MS-DOS and Windows.  And because so many of them want it,
the vendors find it profitable to get the best deal they can on it.  This
leads to cheaper prices for the vendor, cheaper prices for ALL of the 
clients, and bigger profits for the developer.  The only people that aren't
happy are a minority that can't get it through their heads that the 
resulting price of the system is usually CHEAPER than if the vendor never
signed the agreement.

>>That's like saying that I'm trying to exercise undue control over a house
>>I didn't build when I forbid you from filling your living room with my
>>furniture.  If you want my furniture you'll have to buy it from me--and
>>if I say that you must fill every room with my furniture or I won't sell it
>>too you that's my business, not the FTC's.
>
>No, that's restraint of trade, and coercion, and wrong, and illegal.

One can choose ANY agreement that doesn't infringe upon your rights as a
citizen.  If you really wanted my computer system, I can sell it to you
on the grounds that you never erase the data on the hard disk.  If you say
"No" I can always refuse to sell it to you.

>-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can


From: Kurt.Westerfeld@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Kurt Westerfeld)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP