Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message 
news:86k6g59ke6.fsf at bhuda.mired.org...

>>> Neither I, nor you, nor the government of any nation, should care a
>>> monkey's toss specifically for Microsoft's success. Microsoft is one
>>> special interest, out of a potentially unbounded number of possible
>>> players in the economy of a country and the world.

>>     No, not at all. It is the gravest act of self-contradiction to 
>> maintain
>> that one should be allowed to pursue one's own interest while denying 
>> that
>> same right to others.

> Not at all. No one is denying anyones right to purssue their own
> interest. What's being denied is the right to use illegal means to do
> so. If MS restricted themselves to legal means, no one would have a
> problem with them.

    The conclusion that the means were illegal is predicated on the 
definition of the relevent market as "desktop operating systems for 32-bit 
x86 computers". Conduct is not illegal unless some law puts people on 
adequate notice that their conduct is illegal. What law put Microsoft on 
notice that the relevent market would be defined in the bizarre and almost 
nonsensical way?

>>> Unless you or I are specifically shareholders in Microsoft, we should 
>>> not
>>> care about their specific success; and the government should be entirely
>>> agnostic about who are the winners and losers in an economy.

>>     We should certainly care that Microsoft be allowed to pursue their 
>> own
>> success. The government should be agnostic about who the winners and 
>> losers
>> are, but must respect each entity's right to attempt to be that winner.

> Nice thought. Unfortunately, the government doesn't work that
> way. They believe that a practical monopoly is a bad thing, and limit
> the things such a company can do, and have been known to disassemble
> companies they believe are harming the economy in general.

    In other words, they believe the rights of Microsoft to do what they 
please with what is theirs is subservient to some general obligation to help 
the economy as a whole. I am saying that Microsoft has no obligaiton to the 
economy as a whole but instead has an obligation to its stockholders. It 
would be the gravest dereliction of that obligation for Microsoft to 
sacrifice itself for some general benefit.

>>> The
>>> government's role should be to ensure a level playing field, and minimum
>>> levels of health, safety and environmental standards. There is no place
>>> for government giving special-interests like Microsoft favours.

>>     The problem is, people complain when the playing field is in fact 
>> level.
>> For example, Microsoft's "exclusionary" Windows agreements didn't ask for
>> more than Windows was worth (or nobody would have agreed to them). Yet 
>> they
>> are considered examples of the playing field not being level.

> No, they didn't ask for more than Windows were worth. They tilted the
> playing field against MS competitors by causing consumers to pay MS
> money for products they didn't receive. In most countries, taking
> money from unwilling victims without giving them anything in exchange
> is called "theft".

    It is not theft if you can simply say "no" to the deal and all that 
happens is that you don't get the product. Your argument is preposterous. If 
you accept arguments that equate guns with arguments, the next step is that 
using a gun is a rational response to an argument one doesn't like. Oh wait, 
you're already there.

>>> Microsoft's behaviour over-all has been just as anti-social,
>>> anti-competitive and harmful to the over-all running of the economy as a
>>> hypothetical Walmart or Safeway that regularly parked their trucks in 
>>> the
>>> middle of the main road for a few hours while they unloaded.

>>     The problem is, the government does not own the economy. So it does 
>> not
>> get to manage it the way it gets to manage the roads it in fact owns.

> Sorry, but you're wrong. The government *does* own the econnomy.

    If you believe that, then there is no reaching you with reason.

> Who
> do you think originally created all the money that is flowing through
> it?

    The government created a medium of exchange, but that is not the same as 
saying it created the wealth that money represents. The government created 
the money simply as a stand in for the wealth that was created by others.

> The government charges you for the privilege of participating in
> their economy - it's called "income tax". 2000 years ago Christ knew
> who owned the economy, and said "Render unto Ceaser that which is
> Ceasers."

    The government charges you, notionally, for the services it provides. It 
is somewhat silly to phrase as this as charging you for the privilege of 
participating in *their* economy. I am familiar with just about every theory 
for justifying government power, and I know of none that justifies a claim 
of complete government ownership of the economy other than those that lead 
to Communism or Totalitariansm.

>>> Maybe, just maybe, if Mom & Pop's Corner Store tried it once or twice, 
>>> we
>>> could afford to turn a blind eye, especially if the disruption caused by
>>> towing their delivery van was greater than the disruption caused by 
>>> their
>>> double-parking. Thousands of people break the law by double-parking for 
>>> a
>>> few minutes, and society doesn't collapse. But something that we can
>>> afford to ignore when done by M&P's Corner Store becomes a serious 
>>> problem
>>> if done by somebody with the economic power of Walmart, with their
>>> thousands of deliveries by 18-wheelers every day across the country.

>>     Again, the analogy fails. You are comparing the government's right to
>> manage its own property with the government's "right" to interfere with
>> other people's right to manage their property.

> Sorry, but nobody but the government actually owns property. In most
> places, you can't make non-trivial changes to "your" property without
> permission from the government. They even charge you rent on "your"
> property, only they call it "property tax".

    I see you are a totalitarianist or perhaps a communist. If you want to 
live in America and discuss things that are relevent to America, let me 
know.

>>     When a criminal willing to use force points a gun at your head, you 
>> lie
>> to him.

> You sound like an anarchist to me. This wasn't a criminal, this was
> the government. Lieing to random individuals isn't a crime. Lieing to
> the government is.

    If the government prosecutes people for crimes wherein there was no 
notice whatsoever that their conduct was criminal, it is acting criminally 
itself. Apparently, in your world the only alternatives are that the 
government owns everything or that the government owns nothing. As soon as I 
claim anything is beyond the government's power, I'm an anarchist in your 
book.

>>> In any case, even if you are right that Microsoft had no ideas... so 
>>> what?
>>> Ignorance of the law never has been an excuse for criminal behaviour. It
>>> has always been every individual's responsibility to make sure that they
>>> do not act illegally, and that goes for companies as well.

>>     I am not saying Microsoft did not know the law. I am saying that no
>> rational person could have expected the law to be applied to Microsoft 
>> that
>> way it was. The law *must* put a person on notice of precisely what 
>> conduct
>> it prohibits. However, in this case, the law's applicability was 
>> conditioned
>> on an abritrary and irrational choice of what the relevant market was.

> MS has a long history of dancing with the DOJ, and has been repeatedly
> warned about the legality - or lack thereof - of their behavior. No
> rational person who knew of that history could expect the law to be
> applied to MS in any way other than the way it was.

    Since when does the DOJ get to make the law? (George Bush's claims to 
the contrary not withstanding.) The issue is whether the *LAW* put Microsoft 
on notice. A just law must itself put people on notice as to precisely what 
conduct constitutes a violation of that law.

    DS