Originally posted by Allen Akin:
Currently MS stands convicted of violating some of those constraints.
Well, as I mentioned in a previous political thread, I am opposed to all antitrust laws and consider MS to be a victim of government oppression… if MS wants to be “anticompetitive”, I say: all the more power to them.
Well… I just want to refresh something about Microsoft and their “monopoly”…
I think that many people are reading this using MS Internet Explorer, right?
Do you remember what Microsoft has done to ‘suggest’ you to use their browser…?
I think that they could do exactly the same with OpenGL… for example, if the xbox or
their new OS doesn’t have support for OpenGL, you’ll have to learn and USE DirectX, but not because you choose it, there is no other option…
You’re using the MS OS, programming with the MS compiler, using the MS API…
BTW, what happened with Borland C++?
It would be great if anybody could post a link to the archives of the OPENGL-ADVOCACY list.
MS certainly have the resources to get OpenGL support on the X-box if they wanted it.
Nobody should complain if Direct3D wins by being better. It would be natural and good if the best solution also gets most used. That decision should be made by the market, the users and not a near to monopoly company!
The problem is not that MS is doing something wrong but that the company has such a position.
Anyway, even if MS wants to kill OpenGL so do I think that it is currently the best option for the windows platform. I also think that it is a real threat to D3D in the long run.
Originally posted by mcraighead:
if MS wants to be “anticompetitive”, I say: all the more power to them.
I understand your point of view and consider myself a capitalist/oportunist/“may the best man win” kinda fella, but I also believe that lines need to be drawn and certain anti-trust laws are necessary.
In the case of MS, they often undermine their compitition instead of straight up making a better product. Undermining your compitition is all part of business, of course, but MS uses their massive market share to undermine everybody and ultimately the consumers and the industry itself suffers.
Anti-trust laws keep the compitition alive which keeps the money flowing. This is very important to our economy. It’s not just about the government singling out MS because of petty jealousy or bias. It’s deeper than that.
Funk.
Originally posted by Funk_dat:
Anti-trust laws keep the compitition alive which keeps the money flowing. This is very important to our economy. It’s not just about the government singling out MS because of petty jealousy or bias. It’s deeper than that.
This is the last post I will make on this thread, but I do have to say one more thing, to clarify…
I believe that the effect of antitrust laws is the exact opposite of what they claim. They aim to “increase competition”, but the way they do so is to make competitive actions illegal by the strong company – that’s hardly competition.
If a company sets its prices lower than the competition, it can be convicted of “dumping”.
Higher than the competition? “Abuse of monopoly power.”
Same as the competition? “Price-fixing.”
The antitrust laws are so vague that it is impossible for any company to know, in advance, whether they are following or breaking them. I quote a former justice of the Supreme Court, who headed up the Antitrust Division at the DoJ:
“It is impossible for a laywer to determine what business conduct will be pronounced lawful by the Courts. This situation is embarrassing to businessmen wishing to obey the law and to Government officials attempting to enforce it.”
And when the proposal comes up to actually specify more carefully what is legal and illegal, the objection of Emanuel Celler, who was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1950, was:
“I want to make it clear that I would vigorously oppose any antitrust laws that attempted to particularize violations, giving bills of particulars to replace general principles. The law must remain fluid, allowing for a dynamic society.”
“Fluid law”? An oxymoron if I ever heard one.
If you want to have a “market”, you have to let the market, not the government, make the decisions.
Antitrust laws prop up competitors whose companies should have failed and gone out of business. Keeping these companies alive does not serve competition. Let me remind you that it is a hallmark of socialism or communism, not capitalism, if the government props up failing companies rather than letting them fail.
Who are the companies that lobby against MS? Primarily, its competitors. Many of the companies lobbying against MS are actually doing quite well, but they know that the government stands a good chance of crippling MS beyond hope of survival with its case, by imposing ridiculously overbearing consent decrees. Why compete against MS in the market when you can just lobby the government to kill them for you?
In the end, I support the unrestricted right of private companies to make their own business decisions.
There, I’ve said it. I will not post in this thread again.
MS is a monoply and has abused there powers.
I’m not going to go over why and what they did.
That’s what you have to do.
A good starting point would be http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_testimony.htm
-akbar A.