From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:54:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.212355.5470@tc.cornell.edu>,
bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <BzMLLx.JtD@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>
>>     I think I'm seeing the argument from a different angle than
>>you.  I don't see people complaining about unfair business practices
>>because MS wrote DOS.  People are complaining about (as SJB so
>>eloquently put it) MS making up the rules but not playing by them.
>>MS makes OS's.  That's fine.  MS makes applications.  That's fine,
>>too.  The problem is that they are allowing their application
>>developers to use calls from their OS that other developers can't
>>use.  This gives MS applications an unfair advantage over the
>>competitors applications.
>
>Nobody is forcing any other developer to write a new OS and make
>his/her new rules. If MS changes the rules, let them suffer the
>consequences and die. Simply dont buy their products. It may happen
>with OS/2. But it is their business decision because it is their money.
>

     I don't buy their products, as I don't think they are any
better (and are often worse) than the competitors' products.  I
think that one of the consequences you refer to is the intervention
of the FTC, though.  And I agree, let them suffer and die.  (WAIT!
I'm not anti-MS, and I don't really want them to go out of business
for all of you who want to instantly flame me...).

>>     The question isn't a matter of ownership of the OS.  MS wrote
>>MS-DOS, and nobody is going to argue that (I guess it depends on
>>what I mean by 'wrote'...).  It's a question of interpreting the
>>law.  That is what the FTC is out to do.  If the law is interpreted
>>that MS is being unfair, then the FTC has every right to break up
>>the company.  Period.
>
>You are arguing circularly here. Of course the FTC has the muscles
>to affect them adversely. But does the fact that the FTC can and
>may do it, make it fair ? Do you claim that laws on the books are
>always fair ?
>

     Quite the opposite, I often think that laws are very unfair.  I
also know that fairness of a law doesn't change the fact that the
law exists, and will be enforced by the government (well,
sometimes...).

>>     And to be completely honest, I think that even if MS is broken
>>up into several smaller companies, it will be a largely symbolic
>>act.  It probably won't affect people that much.
>
>Do you claim that property should remain private only so long as
>someone is not too successful, but if one is, it should become the
>goverment's ?
>

     No, but I don't think that I'll go into analogies here, as they
tend to be ripped to shreds.  I'm not saying that MS should have to
give up DOS (even though it would probably be a blessing to us all,
including MS).  I do believe that MS knew the consequences of their
actions, and that they should be prepared to abide by the rules set
up by the government, or the government will intervene.  These rules
aren't new, and MS has always known what sort of risk was being
taken.

Timothy Miller