🚀 go-pugleaf

Larry Elmore wrote:
> 
> rj friedman wrote in message ...
> >On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:03:34, "Larry Elmore"
> ><ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> >
> >�>That's not really true. It takes a lot of doing to wind up
> >�>in court. Before that happens there is all kinds of fact
> >�>finding and negotiations between the DOJ and the company in
> >�>question. Most of the time they work together to come to an
> >�>understanding. It's only when a company digs in its heels
> >�>and takes a (quoting Steve Ballmer), "To hell with Janet
> >�>Reno," attitude that they wind up in court. It really is a
> >�>last resort action on the part of the DOJ.
> >
> >�That's true, but doesn't the situation bother you? Just because the DOJ
> >�hasn't exploited its potential in this area too egregiously doesn't mean
> >�that it can't or won't in the future.
> >
> >And just because the sky hasn't fallen, doesn't mean that it
> >can't or won't in the future. Better run and tell the king.
> 
> Read much history? Probably not, or I doubt you'd be so blase about bad laws
> and the (sometimes misguided) power of government. I'm not saying we don't
> need any of those laws, I'm saying that what we've got now is a hideous,
> self-contradictory mess of anti-trust law.
> 
> >�>�Sun and Netscape are no angels of the business world, either...
> >
> >�>They may or may not be angels - that is beside the point.
> >�>Abuse of power to dictate to the entire market is the point.
> >�>Having the power to `cut off the air supply' of *anyone* who
> >�>threatens their goal of 100% mindshare (mind domination, is
> >�>more like it), is the point. Stifling innovation and new
> >�>technologies in order to protect a monopoly position, is the
> >�>point.
> >
> >�I'm not aware of any outstanding cases where Microsoft has done that.
> >
> >Ah - I hadn't realized till now that your purpose here was
> >to stooge for MS. No point in going on with this. Sorry for
> >wasting my time.
> 
> Pray tell, what technologies and innovations has Microsoft stifled?

Intel's Native Signal Processing (NSP) which puts DSP like functions in
the cores of CPU's.

The question is not what have they stifled... The question is better
put:

"Where would the world be, user interface wise, had Microsoft no used
it's OS market share
as a hammer to control the applications realm?"

 IBM has
> a lot more responsibility for the relative failure of OS/2 in the
> marketplace than M$. Incredibly, Commodore made even more stupid decisions
> marketing the Amiga (which was a great little machine for back then -- a lot
> of fond memories). Apple kept everything to itself, and was greedy with
> ridiculous profit margins and kept the computer "for the rest of us" out of
> most people's budgets. Now Linux is thriving along with other Open Source
> software, possibly beginning a transition to a different way of doing things
> in the world of software development. M$ won the desktop OS war almost by
> default, which is a shame because OS/2 is technically superior (I happily
> used OS/2 2.1 for almost a year before _having_ (definitely not _wanting_)
> to switch to Windows because the (Win32) software I needed to run wasn't
> available for OS/2 because IBM did so very little to promote their product
> compared to M$. Today I mostly use Linux, with Win95 used primarily for
> games and internet access (because my computer came with one of those
> accursed "WinModems" that Linux can't use and I won't have the money to get
> a "real" modem in the foreseeable future). But back to the original
> question -- specifically, what technologies and innovations has M$ stifled?
> 

How many startups have not gotten the requisite capital funding because
they were
competing against Microsoft??


> They've played fast and loose with the rules and gone over the edge a number
> of times, and should be slapped down hard for it, but it's always been my
> perception that M$ attempts to buy up good ideas and put them into their own
> products -- a mighty strange way of stifling innovation...

What good ideas have they bought?? most of what they buy is a business
decision,
not on technical merits.. You don't think Bill Gates got rich by writing
checks,
do you??

-Dan