[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by towny

You say Microsoft are improving their product; I (and a lot of other people) say they are using a monopolistic market position to crush competition. Let us agree to disagree.

No, I agree that they are trying to cruch the competition. That is the idea of free enterprise. However, are you saying they are NOT improving their products by bundling free software that gives new functionality to the operating system??

Again, woefully simplistic and missing the point. If we were talking about the relative merits of various media players - for example, Quicktime vs Real Player - then it would be stupid of me to claim Real ought to be penalised simply for being better than Apple, or vice versa. That is not what this is about, and it's not what a regulated competitive economy is about either. What is at issue here is that Microsoft is not just building software to run on computers, it has built the very platform that software runs on. It has a built-in advantage, therefore, as it knows how best to manufacture software to run on its own platform. I do not blame Microsoft for being in that position, nor do I begrudge them it. However I do expect that in the long-term interest of consumers, they do not abuse that advantage.

Again, who are you to claim ownership over Microsoft?

Of course, we should also make it illegal for Apple to sell Quicktime with their computers.

And, Linux is not allowed to come with a file system unless it offers you the ability to choose between ext3 and NTFS.


Erm, let me think? NO.

It would plainly be stupid to expect a TV company to make quality TV programmes if the television were a patented invention and no-one but the inventor was allowed to know how the darned thing works.

Actually, it was patented, and the inventor choose to sell it to make money. That is why we have intellectual property laws. HOWEVER, if he chose NOT to sell it, and rather manufacture ALL television sets, that is perfectly fine too. How does TV programs relate to the hardware?

As a footnote, I'm not going to be persuaded of any argument simply by you quoting the ravings of Ayn Rand. So far as I can see, she is regarded as a bit of an extremist even in America. I see no reason to take her seriously.

No. Because YOU can't argue against her arguments, you'd rather succumb to character assassination and attack HER. Way to go. You can't attack the source if it is an opinion. You can only attack the credibilty of the source if it is presented as impartial and unopinionated.

May I draw your attention to the rantings of Chris Wolski, a Rand disciple writing in Capitalism Magazine:

So because one of her followers said something you don't agree with, you attack Ayn Rand? How noble.