HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: One small item about the FTC
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:04:15 GMT


With all of the discussion and the problems Microsoft is about to encounter.
Keep in mind, Bill Gates political contributions in 1991 were US$3000. This
doesn't buy you to many friends in the political arena.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:43:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.002428.13319@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <8285@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec31.040712.3797@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>|> >     Jay, this tactic of branding everyone who doesn't agree with you
>|> >as "trying to work for MS" is getting really tiresome.  If you can't
>|> >address the points made in the posts, why bother to post this kind
>|> >of drivel?


	Agreed--it's just plain stupid.



>|> Because I cannot fathom why someone would leap to the defense of sucvh
>|> obviously bad, monopolistic practices as MS engages in unless there's
>|> something in it for them. You're hardly an unbiased judge of the situation.


	The only clearly anti-competitive practices that MS has attempted
	to engage in was the DRDOS6/Win31 problem, which was a simple
	fix (MSwindows looked for DRDOS and wouldn't run with it.  There
	was no *compatibility* problem.)

	This nonsense about the "all for all" contracts that bill 
	companies for all of machines sold are *possibly* anti-competitive,
	but VOLUME DISCOUNTS are not.  

	Just so I know, all of you people who are out there blasting
	MS--what do you think of Intel's kickback that they give companies
	for advertising Intel Inside?  It effectively reduces the cost of the
	company's advertising enough that the price difference between
	Intel chips and AMD/Cyrix chips is little enough that companies
	just go with Intel. 



>Remember the statement "when they came for me, there was nobody left to
>stand up for anybody?"  Its in _everybody's_ best interest that the goverment
>stays out of the marketplace.


	What a mangled rendition/simplification of the quote.  Still,
	it sort of applies.



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:23:06 GMT

In article <23DEC199212080445@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:

>Maybe up until Win 3.0 companies figured that if the customer wanted a 
>computer with a Macintosh interface, then the customer would buy a 
>Macintosh ;-)  And please identify any type of work which _requires_ 
>Windows 3.0 to accomplish.

Ask the customers who bought it, not me. I did not purchase WIN 3.0.
Why are you so patronizing to people ?

Dov
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11138 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3527
From: gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca (Gord Tulloch)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 13:08:51 GMT
Summary: SCO XENIX is Microsoft's
Followup-To: gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca
Organization: Cyberspace Online Information System
Keywords: XENIX

In article <29DEC199209503697@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.222355.0200785@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:

[ stuff deleted ]

>> 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.
>

Microsoft developed XENIX and sold it to SCO - for shares and $$$ probably.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
==  Gord Tulloch           |     Voice: (204) 775-3650 (work)     ==
==  173 Antrim Road        |            (204) 663-7941 (home      ==
==  Winnipeg, Manitoba     |     Data : gordt@grpwest.muug.mb.ca  ==
==  R2K 3H9                |            gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca ==
==                         |     FIDO : 1:348/207@fidonet.org     ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------
==                    Official IBM OS/2 Ambassador!               ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
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 01:55:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.191705.7069@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

|> 	Let's go with your logic and say that Standard Oil was not
|> a monopoly.  Let's say it existed today and only controlled 60% of the
|> market.  60% of a multitrillion dollar market is frightening.  

What's so frightening about that?  As long as no one is forcing people
at gunpoint to buy their products, they could be put out of business
overnight by their customers.  

|> 	Let's change the situation to be more like the Microsoft situation,
|> let's say that not only did Standard Oil control 60% of the market but
|> they also made all the drilling equipment that could be had.

If they started charging outragious prices for drilling equiptment then 
someone else would start making drilling equiptment and get a piece of the
action.  The only way that I can imagine that Standard Oil could possibly
have all of the drilling equiptment is for them to produce it cheaper than
anyone else could, in which case who cares, or for them to use guns, either
theirs or the goverments, to stop any competitors, in which case we've got
a problem.

|>  While
|> standard oil did not have  a virtual lock, controlling more than half
|> of the largest industry on the planet (larger than the car industry, larger
|> than anything) is frightening.

As long as you're dealings with that company are completely voluntary
then why are you scared?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 01 Jan 93 19:13:03 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec31.223910.27015@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>> In article <8239@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> >No, but it does have an obligation to those who bought, for example, MSC 7 to
>> >do OS/2 development on as an upgrade to MSC 6, which had that capability...
>> 
>>      Why would an OS/2 developer upgrade to MSC 7?  The product
>> doesn't support OS/2 - such an upgrade would be silly.
>
>So you're saying that MS will continue to support MSC 6 indefinitely?
>Thought not.

      Should they?  Should they still be supporting, say, that
TRS-80 software that got released a while back?  (BTW, I think
you can still call customer support for software that isn't
the current release.)

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11407 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3617
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 11:10:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i3t7vINN4fn
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>This is a specious argument.  Microsoft is incorporated under the laws
>of the state of Washington and the United States of America.

Microsoft is a Delaware corporation, now a Washington corporation.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:34:01 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: In article <BzHGFA.Boo@utdallas.edu>, goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:
: 
: |> REDMOND, WASHINGTON, U.S.A., 1992 DEC 18 (NB) -- Business Week
: |> magazine, in its December 28th issue, says FTC investigators have 
: |> concluded that the software company has engaged in anticompetitive 
: |> actions. The magazine also reports that the investigators are 
: |> preparing recommendations as to how to proceed against the company.
: 
: Well you can kiss American leadership in operating systems out
  goodbye.

You must mean commercial leadership..... Surely nobody would suggest
MS has any sort of technical lead?

: Once the Federal Goverment starts trying to enforce "fairness" you know
: its all over.  No matter that the entire Japanese economy is structured
: in an "anticompetitive" way.  No matter that software is one of the last
: remaining strong points of the American economy.  No matter that American
: programmers are trying to compete with programmers in Eastern Europe who
: are thrilled to work for $300 a month.  Nope--we've got to tear into and
: destroy one of our strongest companies.

Welcome to the world of the 'free market'. With this and the NAFTA
maybe the US will start to realise what Canada has been suffering
under Free Trade. Hurts when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

: How Bill Gates runs his business is nobody's business but Bill
Gates's.

Which particular planet are you from?
: 
: |> Rival software companies have complained publicly and apparently to
: |> the Federal Trade Commission that Microsoft uses "predatory
: |> practices" in selling its operating systems. 
: 
: Yep, that's the good ol' American way of doing business alright.  If you can't
: compete with someone, just get the Federal Goverment to break up their 
: company.  The real "predatory practices" going on here are those vultures
: of rival companies who are waiting to pick the bones of what's left of
: Microsoft after the FTC's guts the carcass.

No - MS's way of doing business is the "good ol' American way". Look
at the early history of IBM, look at the way ITT has behaved in the world.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:15:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.162730.0299825@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:

|> >If there was a law in Germany mandating that all Jews be killed would you
|> >said that Hitler had every right to do it, Period???
|> 
|> Very Bad Example.  The German Decree was Written by Hitler after the 
|> disolution of the Bundestag (parlement) and was an Illegal Executive
|> Order.  Not Law at all.  And even if the Bundestag has agreed, the
|> German constitution (if my memory serves me correctly) would have made
|> That Agreement Illegal.  And of course, Genocide is illegal by international
|> laws dating from before WWI.

Ok are you saying that if international laws allowed genocide it would be
all right?  My point was only that just because there is a law which
allows it doesn't mean that it is right or that the law is just.


|> >
|> >Just because the FTC has a "legal" right to steal and destroy doesn't make
|> >it right.
|> Try telling that to the IRS, they do it much better and with more verve.
|> They make YOU tell them you have sinned and then fine you for it...<grin>

Indeed.


|> >Won't you please consider what is going on from a moral standpoint?
|> >Is this really the kind of country that you want to live in?
|> 
|> Yep, this is the kind of country I want to live in.  It may be the
|> worst form of government, with the worst laws, until you consider
|> all the rest.

Are you saying that this is the best we can do?  Its pretty nice but I
think we should be above government sponsored theft.  Call me an idealist
but I don't think its too much to expect that the government and your
competators respect your ownership of your things.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,fido.os2
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: OS/2 bigot and NT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:10:24 GMT


OK. I tried to boot the now infamous NT-bearing hard disk on my 386DX/40
with 16megs of RAM. 
 
It won't start. 
 
It must have been so corrupted from all those crashes the other day
that now I must re-install it. 
 
OR......does it not like the AMD 386 CPU? Anyone know if MS and Intel
have "fixed" NT so that it doesn't work with AMD CPU's? 
I know MS has knobbled NT so that it won't install with OS/2 (though 
there is an easy work-around), so the idea isn't all that far-fetched.
 
Any comments? Stuffed disk? or more crippled software from MS?
 
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:43:37 GMT

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
: In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: 
: >And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
: >information held back by Mircrosoft?
: 
: I have had some installation problems in the past when I tried to
: install IBM OS/2 ver. 1.3 on a fully-compatible IBM clone. Should 
: I conclude that IBM conspired against the clone-makers ?

You seem to have missed the word 'if' in my original posting. I was
suggesting that there were several possible reasons for the problem,
one of which was malice on the part of MS.
--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: cd617@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen M. Brancati)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 1 Jan 1993 20:46:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd617@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen M. Brancati)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu () says:
>
>	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 -


Hmmmmm.  One has to wonder if the DOS 6.0 Beta is kind enough to warn
Windows NT users as well.  Anyone out there know?
-- 
  Stephen M. Brancati  |  The best way to ask for beer is to sing out Ubik.
                       | Made from select hops, choice water, slow-aged for
        cd617@         |   perfect flavor, Ubik is the nation's number-one
 cleveland.freenet.edu |       choice in beer.  Made only in Cleveland.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:29:43 GMT

In article <wiegand.725581697@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:
|> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> 
|> >Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
|> >than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
|> >alternatives:
|> 
|> [Stuff deleted]
|> 
|> Believe it or not, the FTC's job is not to help Novel, Lotus, etc., but
|> to protect us - the consumers. Anytime a business has a monopoly position
|> in a market the consumers are the ones who get hurt. Lack of competition
|> results in lower quality products and higher prices. While other software
|> vendors have an interest in what the FTC does with Microsoft they aren't
|> the only reason for the FTC's actions.

Can you show how Microsoft has hurt us, the consumers?
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:06:11 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec22.201103.28693@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (R
andall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.161425.0299694@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morri
son) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec22.040237.14440@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.
edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>|> >In article <Bzn0EI.D2w@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) write
s:
>|> >
>|>
>|> Lots on Standard Oil & Unfair Competition Deleted.
>
>|> MS has not kept the prices down, infact if you look at their $8 a unit
>|> for bundled Windows for Workgroups vs the $100 per station that the
>|> end user pays, you might suspect that MS is price gouging the end
>|> user shamelessly.
>
>*sigh* is anybody forcing people to buy MS DOS at $100 a copy?  Any sales
>which go on are completely voluntary between buyer and seller.  Obviously
>both parties are happy about the price or it wouldn't get sold.  If
>Microsoft and its customers are happy, why interfere with them?
>

Because *I* am the customer at the end of the line and *I* am not happy with
getting stiffed for something I don't want, need, or intend to use.  I refuse
to pay 1 penny more than I have to for my software.  I do not wish to pay
even $8 for software I have no intention of using.  Clear enough for you?

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Jerry Pournelle and Jon Udell on OS/2
Date: 3 Jan 93 10:54:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47905
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

Several people have been beating Jerry Pournelle up about his OS/2
views (and political view; this wouldn't be an OS/2 advocacy group
without a lot of political and economic discussion...).  In Pournelle's
article from the November Byte, ``Pondering OS/2'' I thought he was
quite fair. It's true that he's not a ``power user'' but I thought he
put OS/2 in a good light from an average PC user's perspective. I now
reprint his conclusions:

``My conclusion is that if you run mostly DOS programs and you don't
need a CD-ROM drive right away, OS/2 has a lot of advantages.  It's
fast, installation of DOS programs is harder to describe than to do,
and memory management is smooth and effortless.  DOS programs run just
fine full-screen or windowed, and transfer of stuff between DOS
windows under OS/2 is easier than doing those transfers in Windows.

``If you want to run mostly Windows programs,  get Windows 3.1.  That
will run DOS programs well enough and Windows programs far better than
OS/2 will.  That may change [has changed] with new versions of OS/2,
but right now it is not a better Windows than Windows.  If you do get
OS/2, Norton Desktop for Windows will make WIN-OS/2 considerably more
convenient.

``If you want to play with OS/2 and you can't live without CD-ROM and
multi-media, it's all right to install OS/2 and begin getting used to
it, but wait until you know those peripherals operate in OS/2 before
making the change permanent.

``The learning curve is steep and long.  A better DOS than DOS, yes.
A better Windows and Windows, no.''


Also in the Nov BYTE are letters regarding Jon Udell's review of OS/2.
The systems he tested OS/2 on were, and I quote, ``a 16-MB Systempro
486/33 (using a file allocation table) and a 6-MB PS/2 Model 70 (using
HPFS).''  And in his article he finds (surprise, surprise) that
file-search performance lagged Windows 3.1 by an order of magnitude.
He puts the HPFS on a computer that can barely use it and drags down a
machine that could use the HPFS very well with a FAT file system. It
sounds to me like he was stacking the deck against OS/2.  At least
Pournelle lays his cards on the table.

Francis Moraes
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11133 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3525
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:51:34 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization

In article <wiegand.725655487@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>Oh please - you can't really believe Microsoft would be selling their
>software cleaply if there was no competition. Microsoft - like any other
>company - will charge as much as they can for their products. If you
>eliminate their competitors their prices would go up *fast*.

What you dont realize, of course, are all the "hidden competition". 
That is, all those who will try to become a competition if MS raises
its prices too high. Just take a look at what happened to Intel with
the advent of Cyrix & AMD. 

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.

Dov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy