Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:37 UTC, submitted by Robert Escue
IBM Unix isn't a flashy market. But what distinction there is has been going to Sun Microsystems lately, by making its Unix-based Solaris operating system available as open-source software. Last week, IBM moved to put its AIX Unix operating system back on everybody's radar by revealing plans to create a development center on its Austin, Texas, campus to speed up AIX development.
Thread beginning with comment 76419
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: One size fits all?"
Simba
Member since:
2005-10-08

"Nonsense. "Dumping" may violate trade agreements, but you'll first have to demonstrate that such activity is happening. As far as I'm aware, there is no such evidence."

You didn't take macro-economics 101 did you? It is widely known that product dumping into the U.S. is practiced by many foreign companies. Japanese electronics companies for example, are notorious for doing it (and covering the losses through government sponsorship).

"And the anti-trust issue is a red herring as it only pertains under certain specific conditions to companies who command a monopoly position in a particular market."

No. it doesn't. Selling products below cost in order to eliminate competition violates anti-trust laws. It doesn't matter whether you are already a monopoly or not.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: One size fits all?
by cr8dle2grave on Wed 21st Dec 2005 01:12 in reply to "RE[10]: One size fits all?"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

You quite obviously have a very poor understanding of economic theory. Dumping may have been widely alleged, but it has rarely been proven. And it is almost impossible in theory to sustain such a charge in the case of something like software where the only tangible expenses are labor costs which will not rise in linear fashion along with a growing market. Engineering costs are rougly the same whether you have one customer or 100 million customers. And selling cheap on the expectation of thereby gaining a growing market share is a perfectly legal business strategy.

And you're simply wrong about anti-trust laws. Selling below cost is a common business practice in tight commodity markets. Ever heard of a loss leader? Or perhaps you'd care to quote the relevant parts of the Sherman/Clayton acts, or relevant case law, which would demonstrate otherwise.

Edited 2005-12-21 01:15

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[12]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 03:37 in reply to "RE[11]: One size fits all?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"You quite obviously have a very poor understanding of economic theory. Dumping may have been widely alleged, but it has rarely been proven."

My understanding of economic theory is quite good, thank you. But you understanding of how global business operates when they want to push products into the United States is very poor.

"And you're simply wrong about anti-trust laws. Selling below cost is a common business practice in tight commodity markets."

You cannot sell below cost when your specific purpose for doing so is to destroy your competition. Product dumping is illegal.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: One size fits all?
by on Wed 21st Dec 2005 03:26 in reply to "RE[10]: One size fits all?"
Member since:

Selling products below cost in order to eliminate competition violates anti-trust laws. It doesn't matter whether you are already a monopoly or not.

Really makes me wonder how microsoft is selling the xbox 360 at a $120 loss, or how the playstation 3 is going to be sold at a ~$150 dollar loss...

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[12]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 03:48 in reply to "RE[11]: One size fits all?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Really makes me wonder how microsoft is selling the xbox 360 at a $120 loss, or how the playstation 3 is going to be sold at a ~$150 dollar loss..."

It's not the same thing, because in both cases the losses are being made up by the fact that accessories sold for the same product turn them a profit.

This is different than IBM dumping typewriters on the market to drive other typewriter makers into bankruptcy. Or Kia dumping automobiles on the U.S. market just to drive U.S. automakers into bankruptcy.

Reply Parent Score: 1