HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:26:45 GMT

In <1992Dec31.034703.2036@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <8262@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>|> You cut out the part where I explained the difference: MS isn't selling
>|> anything that gains from being shipped just in time. Your analogy is fatally
>|> flawed.

>I appologize if I cut out something vital to your argument.  I've tried to 
>scrupulously include everything.  Mea Culpa.

>|> Further, I've worked for manufacturers who practiced Just in Time inventory
>|> control without depending on a sole source for the items purchased. That is
>|> not a central feature of the technique.

>No sole sourcing isn't a vital feature of the technique, but a JIT inventory
>control agreement between you and a supplier does put a new upstart supplier
>at a "competitive disadvangage".  My point wasn't that Microsoft is practicing
>JIT, my point (which admittadly was badly worded) was that _if_ a business
>agrees to have a single source for a component, often the supplier of that
>component can agree to offer it for a much reduced price, especially in
>the context of a long-term JIT type of arrangement, because they know that
>they will have a steady and stable customer.  _That_ of agreement between
>a customer and a supplier is, as you say, "A Good Thing", and shouldn't be
>made illegal no matter if the supplier is Ace nuts & bolts or Microsoft.

Your misconception of JIT results in a VOLUME-BASED discount.  This is
legitimate.  What MS does isn't, because the volume of MS product you
'receive' and 'ship' is irrelevant.  It is YOUR product that the
royalty is based on, with accepting THAT royalty arrangement as the
justification for the price break.

Since it is not volume based (on the MS product), it is predatory in
that it creates an artificial barrier to entry.  Note that
*ARTIFICIAL* is part of that requirement.

-- 
"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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: roberts@cognos.com (Robert Stanley)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Summary: Histroy repeats itself
Organization: Cognos Incorporated, Ottawa CANADA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:11:52 GMT

In article <22DEC199210144769@moose.cccs.umn.edu>
           rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (Richard Hoffbeck) writes:
>
>Until recently Apple GAVE AWAY their OS -- how hard is it to compete against
>that! That's right ... Apple also produces applications software and there have
>been grumblings from other developers that Apple isn't always up front with
>them.  Does anyone have the number for the FTC enforcement group? :-))

Until the late '60s every computer manufacturer gave away their system
software.  IBM (remember them) started the trend for selling the system
software in a move that was known as unbundling.  Every other manufacturer
of the day was quick to follow suit.

Apple does NOT produce applications software.  Apple very carefully spun
all their applications software off into a separate entity named Claris,
where it remains to this day.  Claris is an independent company, sets its
own agenda (to the point of serious disgruntlement for many Mac users),
and even has MS Windows versions of some of its products!

More importantly, while Apple holds a monopoly on system software for the
Mac, the Mac does not represent a monopoly in the healthily competitive
desktop marketplace.  Microsoft may well be able to use exactly that
argument in their own defence.  It will depend if their restrictive
practices in the IBM PC portion of the desktop marketplace can be
construed as unfair practice in the desktop marketplace as a whole.

As someone has already pointed out, all this discussion is pointless.
Microsoft are a large and powerful company, and will undoubtedly field
an army of lawyers to protect their profitability.  If they decide that
it is in their best interests to alter their business practices they
will do so, and if not they won't.  Sit back and enjoy the ride, because
all the net discussion in the world is not going to alter the situation.

If clone manufacturers are objecting to the terms under which Microsoft
will or will not let them ship systems with MS system software on their
boxes, they can make a big marketing issue about selling cheaper naked
hardware, with the buyers free to purchase just the software they want.
If it catches on, the free market will have spoken, and Microsoft will
find its business changing under it.  If it doesn't catch on, the free
market will have spoken, and endorsed Microsoft's position.

All you as an individual can do, should you be anti Microsoft, is to
refuse to buy a system that comes with MS software pre-loaded, and
make sure that the dealers are clear why you are refusing their product.
And if you are pro Microsoft, do the opposite.

Robert_S
-- 
Robert Stanley   UUCP: cognos!roberts                 | "This must be Tuesday,
Cognos, Inc.     INet: roberts@cognos.com             |  I never could get the
(Research)      Alice: (613) 738-1338 x3387 (EST/EDT) |  hang of Tuesdays."
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10988 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3452
From: JAY@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (James Justice)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:49:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.144612.18117@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu
(Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) says:
>
>Only the US law is coersive, if it uses _force_ to limit MS from
>selling its property as it chooses to whoever chooses to buy it.
>
....
>If property rights are not absolute, then they are not absolute
>for the competitors as well. It is then appropriate for MS to
>use "predatory tactics" ( your favorite phrase ).
>
If I remember my history correctly, the US had decided before it was very old
that "Freedom of Speech" was not absolute, no one has the right to yell FIRE
in a crowded theater!

The constution itself makes it clear that property rights are not absolute!
The state always has the right to condemn property for public use and pay the
owner a fair price as determined in a court of law.

I would love to see CRAY try and claim that it has absolute property rights
to its computers and since Russia or China wants one it is going to sell them
one!  Or maybe some American company wants to sell an F16 or B1 bomber!

The anti-trust stuff is just one aspect of the basic concept that no
property rights are absolute!  You don't even have absolute right to your own
body.  You can't put certain drugs into it, you have no authority to kill
yourself, and selling sex is illegal in most places.

Come on give us a break with this absolute right to do what ever you want
with your property argument.  No government or human society has ever
given any individual absolute right to any property!  No government or human
society ever will!  All you have to do is something the society does like
with your property and you quickly find out how many absolute rights you
have.
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
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:22:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.091821.7707@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
|> > 
|> > AT&T was only a monopoly because it was illegal to compete with it.  In fact,
|> > I can't name a single example of a monopoly which wasn't created by
|> > the goverment.
|> 
|> Groan.....you don't know of any monopolies because the FTC has been breaking
|> them up since the 1920's.......(doesn't anybody read history anymore?)

Yes I do read history.  Read on......

|> Standard Oil (You know, J D Rockefeller) was broken up because it bacame an
|> effective monopoly. IBM was very nearly broken up. There are numerous
|> instances of too-powerful companies being forced to relinquish control over
|> markets.

BZZZZZT!!!!  Thanks for playing.  
Standard Oil at its height was _never_ a monopoly.

If Standard Oil is the best example of a monopoly that you can come up with
then we have nothing to fear from monopolies.  When they were broken up
by the Sherman Antitrust act in 1911 they only had 66% of the Market.  Not
even the great John D. Rockafeller could make a monopoly.

Please try again:  Can you name a real, genuine, monopoly in _any_ country 
at _any_ time (before or after antitrust legislation or in a country without 
antitrust legislation) that wasn't created by a government?  You can't
do it because there never has been such a beast.  Markets which the goverment
stays out of are very harsh on monopolies.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Subject: ftc and ms
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:37:30 EST

-> describe what these people are doing. The pure, market theorists
-> don't recognise this....which is why much of modern economics is a
-> crock...especially the New Right variety.

So that those of us in the centre can distribute the blame equally
in both directions, one should add that people act as individuals,
not as instances of a particular economic class, anymore than they
are Rational Actors in an economic sense.

-> > At least in this case there is no shred of evidence for
-> price-fixing.

I haven't been following this thread all that closely, but I
don't recall you making the allegation that MS was involved
in price fixing.  This isn't too suprising.  Typically a
company doesn't jack up the prices until _after_ it has its monopoly
locked up rock solid and, while MS is getting there, it hasn't
quite arrived.  This doesn't mean that MS isn't engaging in
anti-trust type activities designed to bring about conditions
where it will be free to inflict large price hikes on a captive
market.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:10:40 GMT

I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET (CUNY/Spartacus) writes:
>In article <19142@mindlink.bc.ca>, Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright)
>says:
>>
>>Looks like IBM & Novell are going to get together BIG TIME!  Nobody wants
>>a product that is incompatable, especially purposely so, so everybody will
>>toss Dos 6.0 off to the side, and move to Dr. Dos 7 instead anyways..  And
>[stuff deleted]
>
>    Hm, that's a thought.  Why not sever IBM's and Microsoft's
>relationship completely and replace DOS 5.0 in OS/2 with
>Novell's Dr-DOS 6.0 (7.0?).  From what I've heard from Dr-DOS
>users, its superior to MSDOS.  A built-in Dr-DOS would make
>OS/2 all the more better, no?  Or is IBM under some long-term
>contract with Microsoft that would prohibit IBM from doing so?
>Just a thought.
>-------
>                                                       .  .  .  .   .  . . .
>------------------------------+ All The Best in '93,. .  .  . .  *  . . .   .
>Reply To:                     |                       . . .  .  /oc . . .  . .
>     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    | Edward Galarza,          .  .  / o c  .   .
>     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      | Brooklyn College Of The     . /o  o c   .   .
>     IRC: Spartacus           | City University Of New York  /o  o o c   .  .
>------------------------------+ "Que viva el OS/2!"   __________| |__________
>                                                      #######################


If the report is true, IBM is working on a Mach DOS version. This is not
confirmed.

As far as DR DOS, it is superiour in many areas. What will be interesting,
this time Novell will wait until Gates releases his DOS. This way
Microsoft will/can not steal any ideas. This will be interesting...

Best Regards,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sorourke@lonestar.utsa.edu (Sean J. Orourke)
Subject: Re: Can anyone recommend a GO
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 09:42:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.134556.28804@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <3373.942.uupcb@almac.co.uk> mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson) writes:
>
>>JF..Anyone happy with windows will never be happy with os2 because their
>>JF..satisfaction level is low;
>
>>Can't really disagree with that. However, what's irritating is some
>>people's insistence in comparing a glorified DOS menu/front end like
>>Windoze 3.1 with a real-life Operating System like OS/2.
>
>And here we go again.  Afer your description of what Windows is,
>perhaps you should just describe OS/2 as 'god' (note the small 'g' --
>we must be humble here)?
>
Ok.. let's at least say that DOS is an OS, OS/2 is an OS, and DOS+Windows is
and OS with the ability to run Windows programs tacked on?

>>JF..2 win comm programs, neither of which are good. Does anyone know of a good
>>JF..os2 32 bit program? I'd appreciate knowing of a good one.  Thanks
>
>>Well I don't know about 32 bit but have a look at TE/2 - it isn't exactly
>>bursting with features but it works.
>
>Now THERE is a glowing recommendation.  Gee, an OS/2 program that
>works.  The way you say it, it sounds like you think that that's
>unusual.

It sounds to me like he means that it does everything he waants/needs it
to do.



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tpurves@sygnus.uucp (Timothy Purves)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: None
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 19:12:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.182909.25352@jmb2.jmb.com> sstern@jmb2.jmb.com (Steven D. Stern) writes:
>It's been said in this thread, over and over again, that MS enjoys some
>advantange due to it's dual role as an app- and OS-developer.  However,
>I received the Win 3.1 beta SDK probably about the same time the apps
>group did at MS (and I don't believe the one they got was any less buggy).


Lets not forget that major portions of Windows come from the Applications
group. Like DDE, OLE, 3dControls. The Excel Applications Group has made
many contributons to the evolvment of Windows. If we force the division
of the two groups Windows will not evolve as quickly as it has. And even
if the FTC does split them, how in the hell do you think they can enforce it?

The FTC should just go and disolve themselfs. Look what happended to AT&T...
it the best thing that could have happened for AT&T. I have been in meetings,
where the spokesperson was literly having  orgasms on the stage, talking about
what they were going to do, and what they could now get away with!.

-- 

    Timothy Purves          linx!sygnus!tpurves@vela.acs.oakland.edu
    Waterford, MI
    USA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,fido.os2
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot and NT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:48:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.164345.16936@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>
> >Any comments? Stuffed disk? or more crippled software from MS?
> > 
> >Steve
> >
> Well, yeah, it's crippled, I'm sure.  It's part of the Microsoft Evil
> Plan for Total World Domination(TM) (also known as "Domination at your
> Fingertips"(SM)) -- there's a hallucinogen that's released whenever you
> try to boot NT; NT doesn't actually work (it's really OS/2 is disguise,
> hence all your problems), but the drug usually makes users think they're
> onto something New and Improved!  They're calling this their new "Drug
> and Drop Technology"(R).
> 
> I think Microsoft has a great future in releasing crippled software!
> Look how far it's gotten IBM! 
> 
> Hey, it just occurs to me that IBM's stock hasn't really tumbled into
> the pits, it's just more of the Microsoft Marketing Magic(SM) at work! 
> 
> [Note for the humor-impaired: note the impaired humor.]

Har Har har.......
 
I remember Windows refusing to intall with DR-DOS....now NT won't install with
OS/2.....is that far-fetched for NT to not run on "unsupported" cpu's?
 
I know this means I'm humour impaired.....but then yer post weren't really all
*that* funny.....:-|.
 
As for OS/2.....it runs very well on my machine and NT won't run at all. I'd
hate to make predictions regarding MS stack values......they have been falling
lately, haven't they?

Stone-face Steve, the humourless Zygote from Hell.
 

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |    -cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | 
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
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:18:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.040611.43046@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

|> 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?

*sigh*  Why do you think the world "owes" you the deal that you want?
If you don't like any of the deals which are being offered that's not the
fault of the companies involved.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10754 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3357
From: cm@cmm.ovum.ka.sub.org (Christoph Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 20:24:24 CET
Distribution: world
Organization: Christoph's PC, Karlsruhe, Germany

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

> In article <BzHGFA.Boo@utdallas.edu>, goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writ
>
> |> 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.
> 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.
>

Yes, guys, go for it! Destroy your software industry. But don't expect
others countries to follow that example.  Or has anybody heard of the
MITI to complain against Nintendo preventing competitors from making
games for Nintendo computers (Just one silly example).
Again... Go for it!!!

---Christoph, Germany    ---   cm@cmm.ovum.ka.sub.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dysklaemours?  What's that?  How do you spell that?  Do I need that?
I  *AM*  the  SYSTEM,  the  EMPLOYER,  and  the  ORGANIZATION  !!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dhaliwa@ecf.toronto.edu (DHALIWAL BIKRAM SINGH)
Subject: OS/2 Commercial
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:18:21 GMT

At the beginning of Star Trek (broadcast nightly here in Toronto at 
7:00 pm) IBM had a OS/2 commercial on.  The commercial revolves around
a pool table with balls being pocketed as the announcer espouses all
of OS/2 virtues (ie. true multitasking, GUI etc.).  I agree it is
attention getting, and I think it is effective in its simplicity. 
If anyone else has seen the commercial, what do you think?

-- 
 
.............................................
 Bikram Dhaliwal (dhaliwa@civ.toronto.edu) 
 Toronto        (dhaliwa@ecf.toronto.edu) 
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11458 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3633
From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 21:16:50 CST
Reply-To: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas)
Organization: Prime Time Productions Aurora, Illinois

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>      BTW, I have evidence that Elvis is alive and well and
> living in my refrigerator.
> 
>                               -Phil

	Present your evidence or be gone sir! I will not have the kings name
tread upon in my presence!! :->!!


-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
|jim@jimmc.chi.il.us   |   ...And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft wet  |
|Prime Time Productions| kisses that last three days...good night...OH MY! |
|Aurora, IL. 60504     |        -crash davis to annie savoy in BULL DURHAM-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:54:04 GMT

In article <8238@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> 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.

Monopolies arn't necessarily a bad thing--for example, most people have no
beef against their water and electric utilities.  What's bad is when a
monopoly tries to charge too high of prices.

And yes, MS is trying to grab as much market share as it can, but so is
IBM with OS/2, Apple with the Mac, Sun with Solaris, etc etc.  EVERY company
in the world is trying to get as big a piece of the pie as they can.

|> >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. 

So if I think that the $8 deal is better than the $20 deal and I take the
$20 deal then I'm being forced?  Hey guys you can force me to save money
all day.

*sigh* Dudes, offering two different choices to a buyer isn't force.  Am
I forced into buying two hamburgers if I got a coupon which says buy one
get one free?  If some hamburger chain promises to sell me hamburgers at
50 cents each if I go there for lunch for three years amd I being forced
into eating those hamburgers?

I would advise you to look at the practices of your own company.  You'll
probably find many many examples of where your company does the same thing.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy