Why don't you just give Gates a blowjob on national TV, W?

[ModernRonin2]

It'd be more honest.

I mean, what the fuck? I say again: what the fuck???

I like to consider myself a Libertarian. But I am highly opposed to monopolies. A monopoly is called a "market failure" for a reason - it's because this is not the way the free market is supposed to work. I realize your brain is pickled with alcohol and clogged with coke, man, but jumping jesus on a pogo stick this is just SO FUCKING BLATANT. Which part of the courts ruling: "Microsoft is a predatory monopoly" did you not understand?

So why don't you just give Bill a blow job on national TV? Hm? Do you think the people of this nation have any respect left for you? Well, they don't. So just get on your knees and suck it, you fucking corporate whore. And when Bill's done, he can wipe his dick on your cheek. Because that's what you deserve.

Your party impeached Clinton for lying under oath about who he slept with. (And I have no doubts, he DID lie.) When it came time to remove him from office, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" test written into the constitution showed that the charges leveled against him were not worth the paper they were written on. I wonder, W, whether selling justice to the highest bidder would pass that same test. Hm... maybe we should try it and see?


-Ben

[labdude]

[bill gates voice]
'suck it, suck it. yea! who's my bitch. ohh yea, go all the way down. i paid a millon bucks for this so ya better make me like it.
[/bill gates voice]

[friedo]

Originally posted by ModernRonin2
I like to consider myself a Libertarian. But I am highly opposed to monopolies. A monopoly is called a "market failure" for a reason - it's because this is not the way the free market is supposed to work. I

I suppose your argument would make more sense if Microsoft was, in fact, a monopoly.

I think they are certainly guilty of unfair and generally asshollic business practices, but they are not a monopoly, and do not deserve to be split up like Standard Oil or AT&T.

(And no, just because some luddite judge says they are a monopoly does not make it true.)

[Tuckerfan]

Does W spit or swallow?

:d&r:

[capacitor]

The federal court agreed in part, that MS is a monopoly. Note it is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to engage in abusive business practices that are anti-competitive, as Microsoft was found to have done.

Hmm, I am not gay, but I sure like too see Steve Ballmer do more of that monkeyboy William Gates gets his pipes cleaned.

[hansel]

The federal appeals court said that Microsoft is an abusive monopoly. This is the same court that greased up for them before, several times, and were virtually begging for a reason to let them off the hook. Even then, they didn't do it.

Not a monopoly, my ass. Oh yeah, and they're innovative, too.

[capacitor]

...monkeyboy as William...

[Stoid]

Hey Ronin... I just want you to know you have shot to the top of my list of favorite posters.

stoid

[waterj2]

...Thus proving that you are capable of swearing at George W. Bush really well. Better than most of us, as a matter of fact.

[Dijon Warlock]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
Does W spit or swallow?

:d&r:

Rumor is, he snorts.

[elucidator]

"Landslide" George publicly demonstrates poor grammar, a small vocabulary, a meager grasp of world politics, and now you want him to perform the worst hummer ever? Have you considered the geopolitical implications? They are heady, indeed.

That little bitch Saddam Hussein will throw a fit!

And who's going to explain all this to Laura?

The French, of course, will sever all relations with the US immediately "But, le merde, zee fucking Germans give better knob that that! Sacre bleu..."


And what impact will all this have on the Pacific Rim?

You really have to stop and consider how this will go down in history.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally posted by ModernRonin2
I wonder, W, whether selling justice to the highest bidder would pass that same test.

Boy, I bet Jack Welsh is pretty fucking pissed, he gets stuck with spending a half a billion dollars to clean the Hudson, and Gates get's off scot-free.

I guess ol Jack wasn't quite the highest bidder.

Or maybe the White House is taking these things on a case by case basis, one or the other.

[ModernRonin2]

I'm not in favor of breaking up M$. Don't get me wrong, I don't like them - I hope my rant made that abundantly clear. However, I firmly believe that breaking them up will not stop them from abusing their monopoly, hence it's not a useful remedy. If I were in charge, there would be much
more... "interesting" punishments for M$. Like open-sourcing every last line of source code they own! Bah, ha, ha, ha, HA!!

Anyway, glad that those of you who enjoyed the rant enjoyed it. Those of you who disagree, that's okay with me too. I dunno, maybe this is worth spawning an IMHO thread over. Yeah, it's been done before, but in light of current events maybe there will be a new round of thoughts on the whole thing.


-Ben

[Aodoi]

"I did not have sexual relations with that multi-billionaire, Bill Gates..."

To be fair, Clinton pardoned the rich, Bush is perhaps just more pro-active.

Not that I necessarily think Bush is even involved. Despite what people think, the president isn't involved in EVERYthing.

[Chas.E]

Originally posted by elucidator
And what impact will all this have on the Pacific Rim?

You really have to stop and consider how this will go down in history.

The Pac Rim is utter economic carnage. Just as they try to recover from the "Asian Flu," now there's a recession in Japan. Just as an example, Gateway Japan laid off their entire company and closed shop, throwing away an estimated 10-15million dollars worth of assets. They didn't even sell their assets, they just dumped the whole division. Major Japanese manufacturers like Hitachi and Toshiba are reporting layoffs from 1500 to 19,000 people, stiff measures in a "lifetime employment system." For the first time more than 50% of new college grads are only able to find temp jobs. Unemployment is at rates unseen since the WWII recovery. It's carnage. And no end in sight.
I think Bush is going to go down in history like Herbert Hoover. Just being pro-business doesn't mean that your business goes well.

[Dave Stewart]

Remind me not to invest any money in Microsoft's competitors.

"Dubya the Gobbler". Someone should make a homoerotic movie with that title.

[China Guy]

Originally posted by Chas.E

The Pac Rim is utter economic carnage. Just as they try to recover from the "Asian Flu," now there's a recession in Japan. Just as an example, Gateway Japan laid off their entire company and closed shop, throwing away an estimated 10-15million dollars worth of assets. They didn't even sell their assets, they just dumped the whole division. Major Japanese manufacturers like Hitachi and Toshiba are reporting layoffs from 1500 to 19,000 people, stiff measures in a "lifetime employment system." For the first time more than 50% of new college grads are only able to find temp jobs. Unemployment is at rates unseen since the WWII recovery. It's carnage. And no end in sight.
I think Bush is going to go down in history like Herbert Hoover. Just being pro-business doesn't mean that your business goes well.

Uh actually Chas, Japan has been in a long downward spiral since 1991. Sure there have been the odd quarters of anemic growth but the Japan problem is nothing we haven't seen pretty much every year for the past 10.

Lifetime employement system in Japan IIRC at it's peak only included about 30% of the workforce.

China actually is doing reasonably well, and they are a significant part of the Pac Rim.

Personally, if I were to blame anyone for the current malaise, it would be good old Greenspan. He had a chance to pop the budding bubble back in the "irrational exuberence" days of late 96/early 97. He fired one shot across the bows, it didn't work and he gave up.

Let me ask this. Does anyone really think that given the massive R&D and end user investment there can be two operating systems that have say a 40-50% market share each? Couldn't Microsoft be characterized as a really good poker player with deep pockets cleaning out the table rather than cheating bastards with bouncers intimidating the other players?

[SPOOFE]

Couldn't Microsoft be characterized as a really good poker player with deep pockets cleaning out the table rather than cheating bastards with bouncers intimidating the other players?

Depends on how you want to look at it. If people choose to hate something, or associate negative attributes to that something, then nothing will change their mind. My own theory is that Microsoft is an easy target for Joe Public because, A: it's big, and B: everyone else hates it.

Not to say that I consider MS to be the epitome of business sainthood... but when people go around nonchalantly accusing Bill Gates of being greedy, when he's one of the greatest philanthropists (in percentage of his money given to charity) in the modern age, it shows a distinct level of apathy about the actual facts.

[RTFirefly]

Let's see, who's Dubya on his knees for, besides Bill Gates?

The tobacco companies. (Similar lawsuit deal.)

The oil companies. (ANWR.)

The auto manufacturers. (Conserve oil? Who, us?)

The HMOs. (Yeah, more room for people to sue 'em might cost a million people their health coverage - but who's worried about the 40 million already without insurance?)

And on it goes.

And it doesn't matter if he's not directly involved. He hired a corporate boardroom for his cabinet, knowing which way they'd tilt when the public's interest and the corporate interests collided.

Blow, Dubya, blow!

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
when people go around nonchalantly accusing Bill Gates of being greedy, when he's one of the greatest philanthropists (in percentage of his money given to charity) in the modern age, it shows a distinct level of apathy about the actual facts.

WTF?

Who's talking about greed?? We're talking about abuse of monopoly power.

One thing really doesn't have much to do with the other. In fact, 'philanthropy', done properly, can be just another tool to get people to come grovel to you. (Not that I'm accusing Gates of that, but it's certainly been done.) I don't think anybody that matters has ever accused Gates of really caring about the money, per se. But does he covet power? Hell, yes.

[Turbo Dog]

My feelings on this are rather simple. Leave MS alone. It's about technology, not a commodity. This isn't a company that is preventing anyone from selling the same item, such as oil. Don't like the fact that MS is huge? Go design a better system and start selling it. There is nothing that prevents anyone from doing the same thing that Gates did. Start with nothing, and build your way up and eventually become a billionaire. I always thought that is what America was all about. But I'm sure I'll be corrected.

[lawoot]

Originally posted by Turbo Dog
My feelings on this are rather simple. Leave MS alone. It's about technology, not a commodity. This isn't a company that is preventing anyone from selling the same item, such as oil. Don't like the fact that MS is huge? Go design a better system and start selling it. There is nothing that prevents anyone from doing the same thing that Gates did. Start with nothing, and build your way up and eventually become a billionaire. I always thought that is what America was all about. But I'm sure I'll be corrected.

Well, let's see... change it to the auto industry:

Don't like the fact that GM is huge? Go design a better car and start selling it. There is nothing that prevents anyone from doing the same thing that GM did.

Doesn't sound too plausible, does it? If we were still in the days when computers were a NEW industry, I could see this happening. How many people work on Linux systems? I've heard many people state that it is a superior system, but it's not going to take over as the standard anytime soon, and probably never will. Why? Because most consumers are lemmings. Given the option to try something that is NEW versus the old reliable, they will go for old 'reliable' most of the time. Once again, look at the auto industry: GM should be rotting in a grave by now - they put out crap for years and years, but people kept buying their products out of blind brand loyalty.

[Turbo Dog]

[quote]Originally posted by lawoot

Well, let's see... change it to the auto industry:

Don't like the fact that GM is huge? Go design a better car and start selling it. There is nothing that prevents anyone from doing the same thing that GM did.

Doesn't sound too plausible, does it?

No, I guess it doesn't. Saturn must have been a fluke.

That is my point entirely. MS is not forcing anyone to buy their products and they are not preventing anyone from buying something different or creating something different. If the bulk of the population wants to buy MS, for whatever reason they wish, why should MS not be allowed to make as much money as they can?

[custard dragon]

he's one of the greatest philanthropists (in percentage of his money given to charity)

Not doubting, just curious, cite please?

Whatever the case, comparing philanthropy by percentage is like taxing by percentage. I give a far greater percentage of my income to charity than someone making $20,000 dollars a year because they are spending almost everthing they make on basic survival. This doesn't make me less greedy.

I apologize for the hijack; certainly the issues here are monopoly and unfair business practices, not greed.

[Tuckerfan]

No, I guess it doesn't. Saturn must have been a fluke.

Uh, Turbo GM owns Saturn. You also have no idea the billions of dollars GM has sunk into Saturn to try and launch the company, only to then have its sales plummet a few years later when car buying tastes changed.

Don't like the fact that MS is huge? Go design a better system and start selling it.

That's like saying if you don't like GM cars go out and design a better one. It takes a lot of money to design a car or an operating system. The days of someone tinking around in their garage and dreaming of becoming the next Henry Ford or Steve Jobs are over. Haven't you ever heard of the processor contract MS made all the PC companies sign? It stated quite simply that MS didn't care what operating system you sold with your PC (if any), but you had to pay MS a royalty for every PC you sold, regardless if Windows or DOS was on it or not.

[SPOOFE]

RTF...

Who's talking about greed??

From the other Microsoft thread, in the Pit: "As for Gates himself, I fear their is no hope, the greed is set too deep." And that's just one example from one thread.

One thing really doesn't have much to do with the other. In fact, 'philanthropy', done properly, can be just another tool to get people to come grovel to you.

Perhaps, but the only evidence that's ever offered up about this is that Microsoft is a big company. And most people, who are all-to-willing to Bash The Big Guy, play along, until it's accepted as fact.

But does he covet power? Hell, yes.

Doesn't everybody?

Custard Dragon...

Not doubting, just curious, cite please?

Well, just a quick Yahoo search revealed these sites...

http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html

In January, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation edged past Britain’s Wellcome Trust to become the largest in the world, with assets of $21.8 billion. Even the greatest philanthropists of the past did not give away as much in real dollars over their entire lifetimes as Gates has at the age of 44.

According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Andrew Carnegie made gifts amounting to $350 million before he died in 1919 -- a sum that would be worth about $3 billion in today’s dollars; and the $540 million that John D. Rockefeller dispensed before his death in 1937 would amount to more than $6 billion today—less than a third of the Gates total so far.

Gates has always said that, like Carnegie, he will give away most of his fortune before he dies.

Whatever negative things you can say about the man, you must admit that he's given a shitload towards charitable areas... even if the majority of it was to his own charity organization (of course, it then siphoned the money down to other sources, instead of having him donate the money directly).

NOTE: The B&M Gates foundation is just where the majority of his donations went... not all of it.

[SPOOFE]

Oops, forgot to add this: I'm not saying that his philanthropy automatically makes him exempt from criticism of his company and/or business practices. I just think it's ridiculous to assume he's "greedy" because he has a lot of money. I call that assumption the "Scrooge Factor".

[Tuckerfan]

SPOOFE, I might be wrong in this, but I think that Gates didn't start donating money to charitable causes until people in the mainstream didn't start to question how big MS had gotten and that perhaps there was something a little monopolistic about it.

And I'll add that IMHO, Gates really isn't donating all that much money relative to his actual wealth. Okay so he's dropped a couple of billion (not all of the money in the B&M Foundation is his) on various efforts (the two most prominant ones being an AIDS vaccine and the Polio Vaccine), but the guy's worth, what? Fifty billion on a bad day? He could donate forty nine billion to ONE cause (say AIDS or cancer), still have a billion left over, and probably rack up another fifty billion in the next ten years. (Not to mention, he'd get one HELL of a tax deduction for doing so!) I mean, if he gave up the vast majority of his fortune today, its not like his earning power has stopped and he'll have to live off of crumbs for the rest of his life ("Oh, the shame of being only a billionare!" ).

It is his money and he does have the right to do with it whatever he choses, I just think that people shouldn't say he's a great philanthropist because he decided to empty his change jar one day and help out a group of less fortunates.

For the record, were I Gates, I wouldn't be spending my money in the manner in which he's doing, but I would be spending it. All of it, just about. Why? Because what's the good of having that much money if you can't blow it? (And, no, I wouldn't be spending on new cars, elaborate houses, etc. I've already posted what I'd do with it and you can go to this thread to find out if you're interested.)

[custard dragon]

Thanks for the cite. It makes me feel better to know that all of that money is doing some good. One small nitpick: except for the last, none of these referred to the donations as a percentage of Gates fortune, and the last is merely pretty vague.

It is a hell of a lot of money, though.

[Turbo Dog]

GM owns Saturn? I didn't know that and thus stand corrected.

I still don't see the problem here. This is not a company that kicked in a door and cornered the market. Some kid tinkers around a bit one day, nobody is interested in his work, he forms his own company, 20 years later he rules the scene via good business moves and decisions, accomplishes the American dream and now people are pissed about it. You snooze, you lose. There was equal opportunity for anyone to have done the same and gotten in on the ground floor. He did it better, and is enjoying it. Companies that could have bought his work and chose not to, are now upset that he's putting them out of business? Companies that could have competed 10 years ago but didn't put the same amount of effort into it as MS did are upset now? Tough shit for them.

It takes money to start up any business, but I refuse to believe that it's impossible to create a business from ground up, even today. If I design a new car, and it doesn't go anywhere, it's not GM's fault. If I come up with a new way to make great burgers and my business fails, it's not McDonald's fault. Linux came out of nowhere, and as was mentioned, most who use it report that it is much better. Why is it MS's problem if the world doesn't want to switch to it? MS is not stopping anyone from getting it.

MS gets royalties on all PC's. What's the problem with that? How were they "forced" to sign the agreement? Again, sounds like nothing more than a great business move. There wasn't anything illegal about it.

I do not own any stock in MS or know anyone who does, so I do not benefit in any way by defending them. I just have never seen a legitimate reason why they should be broken up, just a lot of other companies crying about their inability to produce something better, market it as well, or compete in general. The general population didn't care about MS one way or the other, until the whole "monopoly" thing came up. Suddenly the bandwagon is overflowing with people against MS. I'm willing to wager though, that 90% of the people suddently supporting the "monopoly break-up" are running MS on their puters though, when they could have Linux. Why is that?

[Tuckerfan]

Turbo Dog, you seem to know very little of how much it costs to design and build an automobile. GM and the others spend literally billions to design ONE car! That's with the infrastructure already in place to be able to do so. Imagine if you had to try and do that from scratch (assuming, of course, you were trying to develop a car which would go up against any of their models), WITHOUT that infrastructure in place. Your cost would probably be in the neighborhood of $5 billion or more ($5 billion is what GM allocated to pay for the start up of Saturn, the final cost once they got a car off the production line was much higher). If you want an idea of how hard it is to try and start you're own car company watch Tucker: The Man and his Dream or talk to Roy Gullickson who's trying to relaunch Packard. He'll tell you it ain't easy, even when you're dealing with a market segment currently ignored by the big automakers. Were they to decide tomorrow that they wanted that segment, they could shut him down in less than a week, no matter how poor of an alternative to his car they might be offering. Money equals power and the US Constitution has put limits on the amount of power our politicians can hold, perhaps we should do the same with corporations as well.

Gates was never a geeky kid working out of his garage. Gates was a Havard student who was approached by IBM to develop an operating system for their new line of computers. Gates cut a deal with IBM and the rest is, as they say, history.

As for MS not kicking in the door and cornering the market, that's a matter for debate. Call up Compaq and ask if you can get a PC without Windows installed on it. They'll tell you "nope"! And even if they were to sell it to you, you wouldn't get it any cheaper. Why? Because they've still got to pay for that Windows royalty. Why should you have to pay for something you're not going to own or use? Kind of sounds wrong to me. (Besides what's good for business, isn't always good for America.)

Linux may be better than Windows. I don't know, I've never used it. I don't have the time to learn it. I use a Windows based machine because when I bought it I needed a computer and I could get a PC cheaper than I could a Mac (however, since I've heard what's going to be going on with XP, I'll keep this machine until I can afford a Mac). I don't use a lot of MS software, and I've had a bitch of a time finding much of it. Most people aren't willing to put that kind of effort into it when the machine they buy comes preinstalled with all kinds of things from MS.

[SPOOFE]

SPOOFE, I might be wrong in this, but I think that Gates didn't start donating money to charitable causes until people in the mainstream didn't start to question how big MS had gotten and that perhaps there was something a little monopolistic about it.

Well, that's sort of a self-fulfilling statement, isn't it? It wasn't until he had become wealthy and his company had grown large that he was able to put together such a massive charity organization.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, as is often mentioned in Gun Threads...

And I'll add that IMHO, Gates really isn't donating all that much money relative to his actual wealth.

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "actual wealth". Sure, estimates of his money go in the $50-$70 billion range, but how much of that is liquid capital? The vast majority is in stock, and he can't very well sell that off and maintain a significant ownership of his own company, can he? Then a lot of it is tied up in savings bonds and property holdings. Very little of it is actual cash.

What, you thought Bill Gates has a giant vault, a la Scrooge McDuck, where he swims around in money all day? When it comes right down to it, Gates doesn't have nearly as much money as you think he has. Hell, it'd be impossible for him to.

I mean, if he gave up the vast majority of his fortune today, its not like his earning power has stopped and he'll have to live off of crumbs for the rest of his life

He'd also lose control of his company that he worked so hard to build.

Methinks you're being very generous with someone else's money.

[Billdo]

Originally posted by Turbo Dog
That is my point entirely. MS is not forcing anyone to buy their products and they are not preventing anyone from buying something different or creating something different. If the bulk of the population wants to buy MS, for whatever reason they wish, why should MS not be allowed to make as much money as they can?

Actually, what the court found, in essence, was that Microsoft was forcing people to buy their products and preventing others from buying something different.

Because of their monopoly power in Windows (which nobody is really objecting to), they have effectively forced Windows sellers and users to use their IE browser, preventing Netscape and other potential competitors from selling competing browsers.

[Turbo Dog]

I'm quite aware of how much it costs to design a car. I'm also aware of the fact that I can't afford to design a car. That's why I chose a different career rather than start my own auto corporation. I don't blame GM for that. I have watched "Tucker", and it's a shame what happened to him. But that's business. Beating out the competition just kind of happens.

As for kicking the door in, my point is that MS did not conquer the world upon being formed. It was a gradual process that was, up until recently open for anyone else to do so. If someone gets in ahead of you, you lose.

When I was with the government, every so often we would have to put out a contract for ammunition to be manufactured for the military. By law, we had to offer bidding opportunity to known "mom and pop" manufacturers, even with the knowledge that they were logistically unable to produce the required amount for a decent price, on time, and at required quality levels. Naturally, they would lose out. On nearly every contract award, we would wind up in court against the "mom and pop" bidder spending much money and time explaining why the small company lost, when they knew why they lost, knowing that they would lose, and why, even during bidding. Why? Because time and again, the little guys simply felt it was unfair that they couldn't get a contract worth a couple of million dollars just like the big guys, even though they weren't capable of doing the job as well, simply because they started their companies too late and weren't able to build up fast enough to get the capital for continued investment for improvement. It's not the fault of the big companies, that's just the way it is sometimes.

If you put up a hot dog stand on a street corner, do well enough to put two more up after a couple years, and I come in with one for the remaining corner, is it your fault that I can't compete with you, an established vendor? No, it's mine for trying to break in on your area expecting to make the same amount as you.

[SPOOFE]

In other words, Turbo Dog, "that's capitalism", yes?

[Tuckerfan]

It wasn't until he had become wealthy and his company had grown large that he was able to put together such a massive charity organization.
Correlation doesn't equal causation, as is often mentioned in Gun Threads...

SPOOFE, what I meant was that there wasn't any mention of Gates doing charitable work until after the government launched its first investigation into Microsoft. That doesn't mean he wasn't donating money to charity before this, he may have been and was just keeping quiet about it. It could be that his foundation (and BTW, don't you think that's a bit egotistical to name a foundation after yourself?) was set up long before this and his lawyers suggested that he make it better known once the investigation was announced to show Gates in a better light. Or, it could be that it was set up by his lawyers after the investigation was launched to try and put him in a better light. I don't know. I think that he only started it after the investigation was launched, which leads me to believe it was merely done for PR purposes. (Gates's father's a pretty savy lawyer, judging from the interviews I've heard, so I'm certain that Gates would hire ones equally as good.)

I also know that most of Gates's wealth isn't liquid, but I seriously doubt that if he shed most of it, he'd lose control of MS. After all, he built it up to be one of the most successful companies in the world (if not the most successful), I doubt that if he decided he wanted to spend most of his money anyone would seriously try to oust him. Why kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

You didn't mention, but I'll toss it out here anyways, that Gates couldn't unload his entire fortune at one time, either. If it was all in MS stock (which I doubt), it'd destroy the share value of the stock. With it being spread out all over the place (as I'm sure it is), he'd no doubt depress the stock prices of so many companies that it'd make the Crash of '29 look like a minor dip.

Despite his success with MS (or maybe because of it) Gates hasn't proven himself to be all that astute of a businessman outside of the PC realm. Are you familiar with the Iridium debacle? Gates, Motorola, Intel, and a few others got together and decided that they wanted to get into the satellite phone business and Iridium was born. The idea behind Iridium was that you'd be able to make a phone call from anywhere in the world using a sat phone. Great idea, but the execution was flawed. The software in the phones was crappy (don't know who wrote it), and the airtime rates were expensive and confusing. A call could cost anywhere from a few dollars a minute to almost eight dollars a minute. Compare that to the Inmarsat system, which until Iridium was the only other sat phone system out there. With Inmarsat phones, you paid the same rate no matter where you were in the world. Plus for a few dollars more a minute, you could surf the web at 64K, something impossible for an Iridium phone to do. Gates, Intel, and the others all bailed out of Iridium, the company went bankrupt and was brought back to life only after a group of investors received a $72 million contract from the US government (this is after they paid a mere $25 million for a company it had cost billions to create). The new owners cut the price of the airtime, lowered the per minute rate, improved the software for the phones, and have been raking in the cash ever since.

[hansel]

Originally posted by Turbo Dog
Go design a better system and start selling it.

Until Microsoft perceives you as a threat, or just decides that you've opened up a delicious new market, and they want it. So they knock on your door and offer to buy your company; you refuse. So they add some lines of code to Windows that breaks your product; they go to their OEM resellers (Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP) and say "don't bundle this hot new software with your computers, or we'll increase your Windows licensing fee by 50%"; they create a competing product that's not as good, at least for the first few versions, and put it smack dab on the desktop, so that Windows users already have the basic program, and don't bother downloading the demo, or paying for a better version when they've got a free one that's basically the same.

But you've designed a better product, so no problem, right?

None of that's illegal when you're not a monopoly; when you're a monopoly, it's illegal because they can push you out of the market, regardless of the merits of your product or their competing product. The natural action of the market regarding competing products can't occur because of outside factors that are controlled by the monopolist.

Everything I've mentioned above as an MS action has been upheld in a court of law, including the federal appeals court that is blatantly pro-Microsoft.

[Tuckerfan]

Turbo, I have no problem if you beat out the competition by selling a superior product. If, however, you beat out the competition by bribing judges (I'm not saying Gates has done that, BTW.) or strong arm tactics, that's wrong and the government should step in and prevent it.

One of the reasons Standard Oil was broken up was because in areas where its marketshare wasn't 100%, it would cut its prices to the point in those markets where it was selling gas below what anyone else could do, in the markets where its share was 100%, it'd raise gas prices to compensate. That's totally wrong, IMHO.

Oh, and don't think that government bidding is an entirely fair process either. One of the reasons the original Packard car company went under was because the military contracts it had were suddenly cancelled. Why? Because Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense felt that Packard wouldn't be able to fulfill them. Those contracts were awarded to GM. Funny thing is, Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense was a former GM executive. Guess that's "just business."

[hansel]

Originally posted by hansel
Everything I've mentioned above as an MS action has been upheld in a court of law, including the federal appeals court that is blatantly pro-Microsoft.

Let me rephrase that: everything I listed as an MS action above, MS has been found guilty of doing in a court of law, including the federal appeals court, etc.

[China Guy]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
Gates was never a geeky kid working out of his garage. Gates was a Havard student who was approached by IBM to develop an operating system for their new line of computers. Gates cut a deal with IBM and the rest is, as they say, history.
[/b]

Do you have a cite for this? Gate's book the Road Ahead would contradict your assertion that Gates was a) still at Harvard and b) started Microsoft at the behest of IBM. Admittedly, the book was written by Gates but I'd like to see some contradictory evidence.

[China Guy]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
Gates was never a geeky kid working out of his garage. Gates was a Havard student who was approached by IBM to develop an operating system for their new line of computers. Gates cut a deal with IBM and the rest is, as they say, history.
[/b]

Do you have a cite for this? Gate's book the Road Ahead would contradict your assertion that Gates was a) still at Harvard and b) started Microsoft at the behest of IBM. Admittedly, the book was written by Gates but I'd like to see some contradictory evidence.

The automobile analogy is perhaps a good one. That industry is consolidating from IIRC hundreds of makers down to not a lot of global players in the mass market. Look at Daimler-Chrysler, Ford-Mazda, and the Korean producers. If this progression continues, in 10-20 years, there will only be a handful of merged players.

As for copying other peoples products, well, remember how if you bought a word processing program like say Word Perfect, you had to buy a seperate spell checker and later grammer checker. Now, a spell checker and grammer checker are standard functionality. Guess what, those niche guys that came up with the spell checker program are out of business. Bad monopoly, bad monopoly.

Which is not to say I think MSFT is a knight in shinning armor. They are a damn big company, highly profitable and extremely aggressive. I personally don't see how there is room for 2 competing and mutually exclusive operating systems given the high R&D cost and user investment.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by China Guy

Do you have a cite for this? Gate's book the Road Ahead would contradict your assertion that Gates was a) still at Harvard and b) started Microsoft at the behest of IBM. Admittedly, the book was written by Gates but I'd like to see some contradictory evidence. [/b]

Sorry, just something I saw on a PBS special one time (don't even remember the name of the show). Also, I didn't say that he started Microsoft at the behest of IBM, but that IBM wanted him to write the operating system for its new line of computers. It was that job which led to Gates starting MS, because IIRC Gates' contract with IBM was that he got to keep control of DOS, even though he was developing it on IBM's dime.

[waterj2]

What about BASIC, though? That's what got Microsoft noticed by IBM. My understanding was that Gates was somewhat the geeky kid working out of his garage to get Microsoft started, BASIC developed, and all that. Then he gets an incredible stroke or two of luck, and gets hired to develop an operating system for IBM's entry into the PC market. Afterwards, he relies more on his business skills (and ruthlessness) than his abilities as a programmer.

[SPOOFE]

SPOOFE, what I meant was that there wasn't any mention of Gates doing charitable work until after the government launched its first investigation into Microsoft.

Well, do you remember when the government started its first investigation? I was younger at the time, and as such didn't pay much attention... I don't recall much brouhaha around the days of Win3.X, however. For the record, the William H. Gates Foundation was started in 1994, before Win95 came out. Again, my memory may be skewed (I was 13 in 1994), but that wasn't exactly when the shit hit the fan for Microsoft, was it?

Or I may be wrong. Perhaps there were government investigations in Microsoft since the late '80s. But the big ones centered around the bundling of Internet Explorer to Windows 98, which would have followed the inception of the charity organization by four years.

Make of that what you will.

[SPOOFE]

Here's where I found that info....

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/t...ing981216.html

[Beehive]

If you wanna talk about suckin off "dick" how about suckin down XP.
It seems that there are more problems with XP than being up river without a paddle for us web developers. Apparently, any web published code you create with XP, microsoft reads through and automatically replaces any non-affiliates of ms with their own as you know. (What about us?) Although one of the anti-trust accusations decrees that m.e. had the ability to send ms info on the software used by your home pc, XP reads what you have on your hard drive and sends this info to ms(why?)...If you upgrade your hard drive, XP must be reinstalled and upgraded in some instances. There are no crack codes for XP, any piracy inactment will be placed within manufacturing constituates in foreign countrys. Basically Bill has made it almost impossible for anyone whom had hopes of developing new computer based interprises to succeed. The man is now worth half trillion dollars god damnit! What has our population sucked in itself from this guy? I know from what little I have learned about ms at 24 years of age, I'm not impressed. I'm disappointed.
I'm a college student learning "the best" computer integrated system technology. So far what I have found is that ms cannot keep up with itself. My textbooks for this semester came a month late because we switched to office XP. Know what we got for text? We had to buy cheap print outs of what the text was suppose to be like. We have yet to recieve the whole text for office XP. Sure ms promised to to "give" away all corosponding text relating to office XP. But what the fuck? My graduating class and I can hardly read what we have from cheap print smug. Boo Hoo I know.
My neighbor is a manager at DELL. He is a devout christain with a gun. heeheehee. Although he and I don't see eye to eye most of the time, his opinion is(rather silly)that ms is the beast. These are his words, "One world government, mark of the beast, could very well be the prophecy is being fulfilled." Although I do not share his system of belief, I think we are fucked for now. What of ms becomming our only source of personal information, buisness practicality, system development, educational forgivness, God(sarcasium), and of course money?
In the mean time I will be writing code for servers that accept affiliates and flavors that do not fuck with my hard work, untill the horrible terror(Bill)decides to bite us again...All the while he sucks off the world for some more cash.

[kaylasdad99]

Hey, you guys, go bash Gates on your own thread. I want to read the nasty things people can say about Dubya.

[SPOOFE]

Apparently, any web published code you create with XP, microsoft reads through and automatically replaces any non-affiliates of ms with their own as you know.

First time I've heard that one. Cite?

XP reads what you have on your hard drive and sends this info to ms(why?)...If you upgrade your hard drive, XP must be reinstalled and upgraded in some instances.

This is due to their anti-piracy efforts. It's meant to keep people from casually making dozens of copies of Windows and passing them out to their friends.

And just a quick suggestion (not a criticism)... press the "Enter" button a bit more often. Large blocks of text are difficult to read.

[hansel]

Originally posted by SPOOFE

First time I've heard that one. Cite?

I think he's talking about smart tags, which don't "read through and automatically replace" anything; they scan the text of a page displayed in IE or Office, and create diferently-marked links (without disturbing any that are already there) to whatever MS provides as the target.

Beehive, Microsoft critics have a hard time being taken seriously by guys like SPOOFE. It doesn't help when you're a complete loon.

[Monster104]

Not to mention Smart Links are not being shipped in the final product.

Pretty much everything Mr. Beehive ranted oh so coherantly about is completely innaccurate.