Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Nov 2012 21:36 UTC
Microsoft Bart Eppenauer, Microsoft's chief patent guy, in an interview with The Verge: "We believe our patent laws have served the country very well." Loosely translated, this reads: "This system that gives me my six-figure income and is a fine anti-competitive tool for my company have served me and my company well, the damage to the industry be damned."
Thread beginning with comment 541600
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by strim
by skpg on Fri 9th Nov 2012 09:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by strim"
Member since:

As I understand it, Vista sold better than XP, in a given timescale. It didn't bomb in terms of sales, just critically. Of course the PC market was much bigger then when XP was launched, and when you're an effective monopoly, it's easy to sell stuff regardless of whether it's any good or not.

It would be great if geeks could affect how everyday customers make their computer buying decisions, but we can't. It's mostly fashion driven now, and even if you could dissuade a user from getting Windows 8 or whatever, what is he going to get instead? GNU/Linux/GNOME may be fun for you, but it's not much fun for the average user. The Mac is an excellent alternative, but not everyone wants one, or wants to pay what it costs.

The Microsoft monopoly, like it or not, worked. It got rid of any viable competition. If you want people to consider alternatives, those alternatives need to exist, and for the typical user, they barely do. Only the Mac can really get the average user, but that relies on them wanting one, and wanting to pay for one.

The Microsoft monopoly did not work, it only worked for the monopolist. All the crippled desktop computers back in the 1990s and early 2000s, how did that help the average consumer? There are millions of people who are sick and tired of Microsoft windows, and they want an alternative, but every retail store sells only windows, why is that?

Microsoft's power is a combination of the network effect and the unjust copyright system. It's the copyright laws that make Microsoft a monopoly. Microsoft's main revenue is the licensing deals they have with their oem partners. Without copyright law backing them up they wouldn't be able to sell windows as a license, nor wouldn't they be able to prevent anyone from forking their software (windows and office).

Simply put there is too much copyright, and computers and copyright/patents are incompatible. When you put a copyright on software it creates monopolies like Microsoft. It creates the mess that we are in today.

Who gets hurt the most by the Microsoft monopoly? The average consumer, they don't see choices like you see in other industries (automobiles and televisions for example), they don't see any other alternatives, all they see is crippled desktops with windows pre-installed.

Edited 2012-11-09 09:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0