From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:01:00 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec22.101424.22030@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (R
andall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1h4vq1INN2mj@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) wri
tes:

(stuff deleted)
>|> prices will go up.  Can it happen?  I think so.  Will it happen?  Without
>|> organizations like the FTC, I think it might.
>
>Ok, you tell me then why hasn't IBM just _dominated_ the PC clone market?
>
Because up to this point, when it came to PC's, IBM has been synonomous with
overpriced, and stupid sales tactics.  IBM shot themselves in the foot so many
times we have all lost count.  But until recently they didn't care, because
they really were concerned with their mainframe business.  You go with what
makes you money.


>|> I believe that the strength of the country is the ability for small companie
s
>|> to grow into large companies.  Microsoft is an excellent example.
>
>How many people are going to try to start a company and bust their gussets tryi
ng
>to build it into a big one if they know that if they succeed the goverment
>will just bust them up as a reward?

While I admire the clever emotional appeals here, I find little substance
behind them.  MS has the stated goal of becomming a monopoly in the software
industry.  No other company I know of has set out from the start to do this,
not even IBM.  This does not appeal to me nor a great many other people who
are in some way or another a part of this industry.  I have no problem with
competition, nor do I have a problem with companies having enormous success.
Quite the opposite in fact, I love seeing a company make it to the big time.
That is something to admire.  However, I do not like seeing a company setting
out from the start to become a monopoly, especially one I am so involved with.
The government is not in the business of breaking up successful companies.  If
that were the case, the Big Three auto makers would have been gone
ages ago. (remember Tucker automobiles?)  The government, especially the
current out-going administration, loves big business.  They are not trying to
stomp on a successful company's toes so that they cannot compete with foriegn
interests.  They are concerned with making sure that companies don't stomp too
hard on other *American* companies toes.

>
>Property rights are fundimental.  Would you buy a fancy car if you lived in
>a neighborhood where it would just be stolen?  Well the U.S. economy today
>is a place where you can get the FTC to steal trade secrets for you if you
>lobby it hard enough.
>

"Trade secrets" and property rights have absolutely nothing to do with each
other in this case.  No one is disputing MS's right to their products.
(rights to other's sure, but not their own)  The only "trade secrets" that MS
is accused of hidding are in taking advantage of hidden calls in the OS.
Things that should be documented if they are indeed there and if MS is indeed
using them.  These don't exactly qualify as "trade secrets" though.  Everyone
knows that such calls exist, though not always what they are.  The FTC is only
concerned with the possibility that MS might gain some advantage from these by
the fact that they produce both the OS and a good many apps as well.  If there
is no evidence to support their doing this, I am fairly certain that nothing
will come of it.  If there is, then MS most likely deserves what's coming to
them.


-- 
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]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy