Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message 
news:863bmsakgp.fsf at bhuda.mired.org...

>>>>     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.

> In that case, we hav an *awful* lot of unjust laws, because laws
> seldom disallow "precise" behavior.

    That is true. A law *must* put a reasonable person on notice of 
precisely what conduct it prohibits and what it does not. At the "fringes", 
the tie goes to the runner, that is, the conduct is not illegal. The law is 
not supposed to care about things that are trivial. (Except in genuine 
private entity versus private entity non-criminal cases, where the law 
really is about the slightest tip of the scales and there is no presumption 
for either party.)

>Which is the only rational way for
> a system of laws to work. Requiring that the law predict *everything*
> that someone might do to harm others and explicitly listing all those
> cases is silly.

    That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking that the law *clearly* put 
people on notice of what conduct is prohibited. That's very easy in 
legitimate laws, because we all know what it means to punch someone or to 
rob them. It becomes very difficult in illegitimate laws, because there is 
no reasonable test to decide whether something is a 'monopoly' or not. This 
burden makes it harder for the government to pass unjust laws, and that is a 
good thing.

> Instead, you outline a class of actions and tag them
> all as illegal. That's why we have laws against assault and battery
> and unsafe driving. And laws against exercising monopoly power in an
> unfair manner.

    Interesting how you, again, equate a gun and an argument. It is very 
important to you to justify responding to arguments with guns. However, I 
reject that premise at its roots, not just in your application of it.

    DS