Matt Gingell wrote:
> >Sorry, MS doesn't own your computer, or anyone else's. The proper
> >analogy is that its like forcing GM to offer their customers the option
> >of having a Chrysler or a Ford engine in their Chevrolets, making them
> >to design and build the car without an engine, and have motor mounts
> >installed to allow the installation of anyone else's engine, possibly
> >even require that the consumer buy the car with all three engines
> >installed at the same time.
> I think this analogy fails because GM doesn't have the same power in the
> auto market that Microsoft has in the software market. If they did, then
> I'd probably support some kind of restriction.
GM alone doesn't (though it once did, and 'what was good for GM, was
good for the country'. GM and the UAW do, or just the UAW alone. GM
controls over 50% of the US automotive market.
> >> Of course freedom is important, but competition and choice are important
> >> too. The task of government regulators is to draw an optimal, principled
> >> compromise between the two.
> >Competition doesn't come through the use of government stormtroopers.
> Property doesn't exist without government stormtroopers. They're
> already there - the issue is what we do with them. We invent
> ownership rights because they're so useful. If it becomes useful to
> impose restrictions on the rights ownership confers, we have every
> right to do so. It's a meme, not a divine right.
Absolute fucking bullshit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:07 MDT