Re: Canon printer and TurboPrint

On Fri, 29 May 2009 15:50:45 +0200
Jonathan McKeown <j.mckeown@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

[Sorry for the excessive quoting - I couldn't decide which bits to
take out]

On Friday 29 May 2009 12:48:00 Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009 09:34:36 +0200

Jonathan McKeown <j.mckeown@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 28 May 2009 22:52:47 Jerry wrote:
Did you ever bother to consider that if the printer manufacturers
actually formed a consensus on a printer language, some third
world county or the EU would probably sue them. Nothing I have
seen in 20 years equals the audacity of the EU. As long as no
'standard' no matter how arbitrary, stupid or counter-productive
exists, they are in theory safe from the EU. Besides, nothing
stifles development as tightly as being bound to an arbitrary
'standard'.

What a breathtakingly stupid remark.

The EU has acted against two companies (Microsoft and Intel) who
have used illegal business methods to protect and extend their
monopolies and suppress competition.

Or are you suggesting that a format or protocol which is implemented
by several different companies, allowing vendors to compete fairly
on other grounds (price, features, quality, ... ) while protecting
consumers by making it possible for them to move from one vendor to
another, is somehow a worse idea than a proprietary format or
protocol which is forced into a market-dominating position by
illegal tactics such as paying manufacturers extra to incorporate
it, or penalising them financially for providing competing products?

The concept behind the EU is socialism, pure and simple. It attempts
to create an artificial playing field that allows the incompetent to
compete with the motivated. It forces those who create new technology
to share it, usually sans monetary compensation, with common bottom
feeders. A free, open market is the way to encourage development and
new ideas and technology. Not some pathetic, socialistic concept.

If that's the case, why is no-one trying to use the courts to
prevent the use of ODF, a published standard which is now used by
several companies and Free Software projects to provide a common
format for documents?

Once a company dominates a particular market it's held to a
different standard than other companies in that market - because
the power of the monopoly can be used not only to prevent
competition in the original market, but to extend the market
domination into new markets, by techniques like product tying,
distributing at below cost (effectively drawing subsidy from the
original monopoly product) until competitors are driven out of
business, and so on.

A company has the right to disperse their product as they see fit. I
know a socialist like you finds that abhorrent; however, it is never
the less true. Tell me, if I wanted to sell you a $300 thousand
dollar Ferrari for $10, would you: A: complain to the police or what
ever legal authority you feel so fit to complain to; B: slam $10 in
my hand in a heart beat? I think we know the answer. You are a
hypocrite.

Has it ever occurred to you how a company grows and becomes
successful? I know, in your world it is by using the Government to
squash competition; however, in a truly free society, it is by hard
word and giving the consumer what they want at a price they are
willing to pay. Basic business 101.

Microsoft has been convicted of doing all these things, in US
courts, in courts in Asia, and in courts in Europe. These are
matters of fact, not opinion.

Intel has been convicted of many of these things in courts in Asia
and in Europe.

The fact that the US system is too supine to take action against
these companies doesn't make the EU ``arrogant''. Let's not forget
why Unix took off and expanded the way it did: once upon a time the
US courts did take antitrust seriously, and prevented AT&T using
its telco monopoly to expand into market domination of the computer
business.

The spinelessness of the American court system is that they do not
take legal action against European countries that practice reverse
discrimination, or the outright breach of copyright laws, etc. I
know, you socialists also abhor copyright laws. The concept of an
individual actually benefiting from his/her hard work and not having
to share it with every scum sucker who comes begging at his door
disturbs you.

Whoa. I don't think that level of personal attack is appropriate or
acceptable behaviour in a public forum. (I call it attack because you
clearly regard socialist as a swear word. I'm not a socialist but I
don't regard it as an insult. I do regard hypocrite as an insult which
I choose to ignore.)

Your first paragraph, the one beginning ``the concept behind the EU is
socialism, pure and simple'', is essentially the Microsoft party line:
the socialist EU wants to steal our hard work and give it away to
people who can't stand the heat of competition. The reality is almost
the exact opposite: the EU is using competition law to try and restore
a level playing field, despite the best efforts of companies like
Microsoft.

Look up the definition of 'socialism'. Then look at who comprises the
EU. Their attempts to 'level the playing field' is nothing more than
unvarnished socialism. The same basic idea was tried in the US with
'affirmative action' that entitled the lazy, stupid, etc. the same
rights and privileges as those who worked their ass off. Even though
there was ample proof of this, these draconian laws were put in place.
It took decades before it was realized just how poorly they worked.
Another example could be comparing American Pro Football and its
catastrophic decision to 'level the playing field' by rewarding
ineptitude. The worse your record, the better your draft choice. The EU
is just a socialist forum attempting to reward ineptitude. You have
brought into it hook, line and sinker.

Before we forget, the US Government did the same thing: it took
Microsoft to court for distorting the market, and a federal court
found Microsoft guilty, required them to publish their protocols to
correct the damage they had done to marketplace competition, and
imposed a supervision order to check their compliance (which has
recently been extended yet again, due to Microsoft's resistance to
complying in any timely or meaningful way).

Note that carefully: it was the US Government and the US federal
courts, not the ``socialist'' EU Commission and courts. The only
difference, when a similar case was considered in the EU's
jurisdiction, was the imposition of a monetary fine - still less
drastic than the original US trial judge's proposal to break the
company up.

The original suit was based on laws designed to curtail the railroad
industry, actually Rockefeller. The original judge was prejudiced and
an appeals court through out most of the suit and required a hearing on
the remain portions. The suit eventually was of minimal importance.

The original suit was a bogus and transparent attempt at protecting
Netscape. Funny, when Netscape was #1, nobody said a word. Once
Microsoft surpassed them all of the socialist came out of the woodwork
and bitched.

Take into consideration that Microsoft has never surpassed Google in
the search category. It was never able to over come AOL's lead either.
Those companies, and many others make superior products, well not AOL
but you get the idea, and a free and open market place has made its
decision. You would rather usurp that with government intervention.
Typical socialist thinking. If you cannot produce a better product, get
the government to regulate them for you.

Even a free market requires some regulation of business practices. For
example, most countries have laws preventing manufacturers adding
toxic melamine to milk powder to fool protein tests and make the milk
powder appear to be of a higher quality and therefore higher value. It
didn't stop at least one Chinese company doing exactly that and making
quite a lot of money before they got caught (by ``socialists'' in
other countries testing products made with milk powder to make sure
the manufacturers had complied with the law).

Good idea, change the context of the discussion. We are not talking
about product safety here. As far as I know, Microsoft does not produce
food products. However, I did see an article recently regarding OpenSSL
and a defect in their product. Are you saying that anyone who was
effected by the 'bug' has a right to sue the authors of that software.
Wow, layers will just love you. If that were to happen, and since there
does not exist any OS that can be certified as truly 'bug free' your
premise of suing would lead to the collapse of the software business.
Now that is a true socialist. Attack and regulate a company until you
put it out of business.

One area where regulation is important is market dominance (or
monopoly, or competition, or antitrust, or whatever it may be called
in other jurisdictions). Once a company has a certain level of market
share (75% is a commonly accepted definition of dominance) it's
possible for that company to give up competing and simply use its
market power to prevent anyone else entering the market and competing
with them successfully.

It can also use its dominance to take over related markets without
ever competing for a place in those markets. For example, if you
control the desktop client market, and you refuse to support anyone
else's client-server protocols and won't document your own, people are
forced to buy your server OS regardless of quality or price - you have
leveraged your desktop monopoly into a server market dominance without
competing.

I'm not suggesting that all companies that establish market dominance
immediately stop competing in a business sense and start acting more
like gangsters: but I do think there should be laws to control the
ones who do. There is plenty of evidence in all the various antitrust
trials Microsoft has been involved in, on almost every continent bar
the one I'm on (you do know what a .za email address implies, I take
it?), that Microsoft is one of them.

The basic premise of your argument is that any company or entity that is
success should be regulated. I find that concept pure socialistic
bull***.

To take a couple of your other points: no, I wouldn't buy your Ferrari
``in a heartbeat''. Would you buy a set of speakers from a man in a
van who ``had some surplus stock'' and wanted to get rid of it at well
below market value rather than take it back to the warehouse? I've
refused that offer a number of times. People don't sell anything at
well below its market value without some form of ulterior motive; and
it's not strictly true to say that
A company has the right to disperse their product as they see fit.

I never said the product was stolen or pilfered. Those are your
assumptions. I create a product and distribute it. It is none of the
government's business what I sell it for as long as I pay the tax on it.
And even if I were selling below cost with the ulterior motive of
someday increasing market share, so what. I am taking the risk and the
consumer reaps the benefit. I know, socialists cannot understand that
simple concept.

For example, there are strict laws in most places governing the sale
of goods at below cost (dumping), because the ulterior motive in this
case is usually to eliminate competition by making it impossible for
them to stay in business. Apart from anything else, the directors
usually have a legal obligation to the shareholders to maximise
profit. Sell at a loss and make it up on volume is not a business
strategy that's likely to stand up in court in a shareholder suit.

One again, you want 'big brother' aka the government to protect you.

I'm not sure where copyright laws suddenly sprang into the equation,
but I can assure you, as someone who works with Free software, I'm a
firm believer in copyright laws. I don't write much code but it's
copyright that prevents people stealing what I do write.

Come on now. Are you saying that you do not publicly post any code
that you create for anyone to use sans payment? Or are you implying
that it is perfectly OK to steal code from any company/individual whose
profits exceed yours sans fees? Maybe I should get some government
intervention here to see what you are hiding?

I've now spent considerably more of my working day answering this than
I should have done. Please think about what I've written and do some
research before you come back with another tirade of insults.

There are many truisms in business. Two of my favorite ones are:

1) No legitimate business ever benefited from government intervention.

2) You can always tell a socialist; you just cannot tell him much.

--
Jerry
gesbbb@xxxxxxxxx

It's not whether you win or lose but how you played the game.

Grantland Rice

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Quantcast