Microsoft and Barnes create new subsidiary

What montezuma said. Some people just like to push the envelope.

This is history, not politics.

That it gets labeled politics because some people don't like it is what causes friction.

@jdixon:true,it worked out bad for most them in the long run.In the short run they took the millions and prospered in that way.

@montezuma:well put.I would also dispute bobrobertson's summary,but I understand that his libertarian philosophy (which I'm not unsympathetic to) may hinge on monopolies being a nonthreat,and I wouldn't want to start that political firestorm here!

LxGuest, nonono, please. I agree completely that a monopoly is a destructive thing. This has nothing to do with "libertarian philosophy".

My disagreement is that 10% of a market constitutes a "monopoly", or that market domination by a firm that continually innovates and thus out competes the other players is anything like a "monopoly" at all.

The economic definition of "monopoly" is the ability to charge higher prices through restriction of competition. The legal definition depends on who is asked, and when.

My salute to the successes of Standard Oil match my salute to the successes of Microsoft. So also {insert} do I condemn {/insert} any depredations SO or MS reap(ed).

What, please tell me so I can not do it again, does ANY of this have to do with politics?

Edit: I realized later my error was in saying anything good about Standard Oil. Doing so has been perceived as "political", since it is generally accepted that no one would have said anything good about Standard Oil otherwise. I long for the day when truth is more important than ideology.

Bob,

The interpretation of history is greatly coloured by political perspective. Surely you realise that. That does not make it uninteresting (far from it). It does however make it a flammable topic for Lxer where people have very different political outlooks. I bet for example that the two of us have very different narratives concerning the Great Depression and its causes. Untangling fact and fiction and interpretation in history is a very worthwhile endeavour but without fail it will cause a heated political discussion.

I enjoy such discussions when people are listening to each other at least. Seems like however it is not appropriate for this forum. There are plenty where it is however.....

Then I'll just have to continue as always, waiting for Caitlyn to decide what is or isn't political.

She says my talking about Standard Oil is, so my talking about Standard Oil is out. Oh well.

Bob,you are saying that MS and SO are not using their monopoly (the lazy term I use for "dominant market position") to further that monopoly?So removing rebates from OEM's who don't sell a sufficient proportion of Windows machines,or disallowing pre-installed dual-boot,or fast-tracking their bogus office format with standards bodies to undermine the new ODT standard and preserve their office monopoly,or dumping cheap licenses into the netbook/education/developing nations markets where Linux would need to try to start to build a critical mass,or using market share to push proprietary standards on the web or hardware,or literally buying share through hundreds of millions transferred to Nokia/Yahoo/etc,or dumping billions into ecosytem products like gaming hardware with ability to sustain losses until market domination is achieved,or dumping products like browser or videoplayer to kill software companies who might support other OS or even consider producing an OS themselves,or pricing OS arbitrarily high because they are the only PC OS being sold and hence receiving a tax-like revenue on virtually every pc so as to finance hiring of the most expensive talent and financing dirty-tricks/patent attacks/gifting/social engineering/r&d, are ALL nothing to do with their monopoly,and hence not threatening?

@lxerguest, all that in one breath, I'm impressed.

LXerGuest,

"you are saying that MS and SO are not using their monopoly (the lazy term I use for "dominant market position") to further that monopoly?"

I said no such thing.

"...are ALL nothing to do with their monopoly,and hence not threatening?"

This is what I said:

"My disagreement is that 10% of a market constitutes a "monopoly", or that market domination by a firm that continually innovates and thus out competes the other players is anything like a "monopoly" at all."

I also said:

"My salute to the successes of Standard Oil match my salute to the successes of Microsoft. So also to any depredations SO or MS reap(ed)."

I see the problem, and will correct it in the original. I condemn their depredations just as much as I salute their successes.

@tracyanne,heh heh,I think it's because it all wells up at once like a bad flashback.

@bob_robertson,cool,I know what you said,but I'm curious if you agree or not with my (long) question?

Sorry,that should be:I understand you are not attributing all their success to their innovation in the marketplace,but do you agree that their market dominance has given them an unfair advantage,which they have been able to abuse,in the ways I mentioned,among others?

I'll reply in direct message, since positive statements about S.O. have been declared political.

Don't say anything positive about the Roman Empire either; that might be considered political.

Nook a mediocre product?

Like hell.

Nooks are awfully nice for what they do. Nicer than Kindles, depending on your needs.

@bob_robertson,no just answer here on the MS issue since it's Linux-related,and I don't feel like digging up my old Standard Oil docs!

I'm sorry, LG. Since your question pivots on the idea of "unfair advantage", I cannot answer you publicly.

Bob,my you are an ornery one.How about:game called on account of darkness?!

> Bob,my you are an ornery one.

As a notable song once said: Once bitten twice shy. He has his reasons.

Quoting:game called on account of the Prince of Darkness?!

FTFY.

"Prince of Darkness"

Good movie.