Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Bush taps Clarke as CyberdefenseChief

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

Inherent to monopoly? That would be impossible to prove but Historically 
step 1 and step 2 have been repeated over and over again for about 150yrs. 
Microsoft's argument that it's different in the "internet computer age" 
fell on deaf ears in court. If the product is genuinely better that it 
creates a monopoly it's rare that it is forever genuinely better unless 
the market is so small that a genuinely better product never has any 
competition  (e.g., Zambonis) . Generally, the monopoly spends more time 
keeping its monopoly than being genuinely better.

Step 3 is the dotage phase. The monopoly becomes so far behind the times 
that eventually it collapses when it does get some competition (e.g., US 
Steel). 




Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/16/01 09:21 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Bush taps Clarke as CyberdefenseChief


I don't believe it's nessisarily inherent to monopoly.  We -could- have a
monopoly because the products were gunuinely better.  We just -don't-.

 -- noah silva 

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:

> The problem with allowing a monopoly is that not only are there no 
> alternatives but that they stiffle, smother, purchase and ultimately 
> destroy any possible one. (Step 1) Also, since the monopoly has no 
> competition, ultimately everybody gets unacceptable junk. Step 2. WRT to 

> Windows, we are clearly in step 2 right now. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 10/16/01 07:04 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Bush taps Clarke as 
CyberdefenseChief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> 
> > Now Betty, who is my mother, uses a mac. WRT to your Aunt Betty not 
> > demanding something better, what's the alternative for the PC? 
Microsoft 
> 
> > has a monopoly.....and the government isn't doing much about it right 
> now 
> > other than letting microsoft screw around and waste time.
> 
> <veering slightly off topic...>
> 
> My point isn't about wether there are alternatives at all.  To me, some
> things are acceptible, some things aren't.  If every time you drove
> somewhere in your car, there was a 25% chance it would fail, I wouldn't 
be
> caught dead in a car.  Since the chance is much smaller, it is
> acceptable.  If every time I use a PC, there's a large chance it will
> crash and lose my work, I won't use it most of the time.  Without being 
a
> computer expert, I think people should still be able to look at 
something
> and say "this is reasonable" or "this isn't reasonable".  My 
girlfriend's
> dad bought a computer around last X-mas with Win ME.  It seriously could
> not stay running for more than an hour or two at a time without having
> serious problems.  Maybe it was the computer itself, but I doubt it. 
Even
> if the car was the best thing we had, I would say 25% failure rate is
> still too high, and I would still complain.
> 
>  -- noah silva 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>