Re: [tlug] Re: [OT] Say _no_ to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

[Godwin Stewart <gstewart@example.com>]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:34:03 +0900, "Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>
wrote:

> As Godwin pointed out, they have repeatedly broken (and been convicted
> of breaking) antitrust laws.
> 
> Whether antitrust laws are good laws is a completely separate
> discussion, but one I would be more than willing to have at a nomikai.

Can't make it to a nomikai so we'll have to have part of the
diuscussion here :)

Antitrust laws are all about giving end-users the choice of what they
purchase, so we have a chicken-and-egg situation here. Most PC users
don't even know that Windows isn't actually part of the PC they use.
Giving them the choice between Windows/Linux/*BSD/Solaris/whatever for
their shiny new PC is only going to confuse them. This said, it's
merely a question of edumacation. Once the lusers are edumacated to the
fact that there are alternatives to Windows that might suit them better
from a technical and/or economical point of view, it becomes safe to
offer the choice. Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen as long as
M$ is still pushing Windows down people's throats, hence the usefulness
of antitrust laws.

The same applies to Windows Media Player within Windows. If people
don't know that there are alternative media players they're going to
get confused when someone starts talking about RealPlayer, WinAmp and
the slew of OSS players out there. Stop M$ shoving WMP down their
throats and people can learn about other pieces of software and make an
informed choice.

Those who actively *want* to use M$'s offerings are being more than a
little self-centred in decrying actions pursuant to antitrust laws,
claiming for some reason that *all* users are complete half-wits unable
to make informed choices who should be given Windows and WMP and have
done with it, and that offering more choice is going to push the price
of *their* (the complainants') preferred software packages up.

To the first point, I say: "bollocks". If the case was brought in the
first place it's because the "I want to choose" movement has gained
sufficient momentum for the courts to stand up, take notice *and* agree.

To the second point, I say: "who cares?". For one thing, the prices are
already so artificial and geodependent it's a joke. M$ raising them
even more would just be obscene. Secondly, people still have the choice
to switch to something less economically harsh, and this should, in
turn, drive M$'s obscene prices back down again. Everyone's happy.

Finally, the same software running on such a huge percentage of
'Net-enabled machines is responsible for the ridiculously low
signal-to-noise ratio of e-mail today (about 97% spam, 3% ham here
now). The only way to have a chance of fragmenting such monocultures is
to enforce antitrust laws.

Of course, when the only thing you can see is the bottom line, it is
detrimental to allow anyone else to have a slice of the cake. Antitrust
laws are only bad for the entity that the book is being thrown at.

-- 
G. Stewart - gstewart@example.com

If money doesn't grow on trees then why do banks have branches?

Attachment: pgp2HRViVoiUP.pgp
Description: PGP signature