Oh come on.Please give your answers to the list of charges Intel has been convicted of, instead of making up your own straw-men (like 'being popular').
It's been 10 years of judicial investigation, a 500-page report, a case file comprising 'several hundred thousand pages', and you think the EC made it up?
/arguing on the internet, I know, but really....
(It's been 10 years of judicial investigation, a 500-page report, a case file comprising 'several hundred thousand pages', and you think the EC made it up?
/arguing on the internet, I know, but really....
Bee Nice |-|,
Thu 14 May 2009, 15:15,
archived)
I think it's irrelevent and unfair, yes. And that the motivation is to grab money for the EU.I think the idea that these things are crimes is made up. This is much the same as my position on people being taken to court for file-sharing. It may be true that they did the things they're accused of, but it's farcical. Like putting somebody on trial for standing in my light and casting a shadow on me, which I've arbitrarily declared to be a crime, and having a 500-page report on whether they actually did this or not.
The reason they are being attacked by the EU is that they have the money, which they got by consensual means, hence "being popular". A secondary reason is because the EU can come up with an excuse to take it, just like they did with Microsoft.
Incidentally I have two AMD PCs and have just installed Ubuntu.
(,
Thu 14 May 2009, 15:25,
archived)
The reason they are being attacked by the EU is that they have the money, which they got by consensual means, hence "being popular". A secondary reason is because the EU can come up with an excuse to take it, just like they did with Microsoft.
Incidentally I have two AMD PCs and have just installed Ubuntu.
"I think the idea that these things are crimes is made up."Yes, it is "made up" by the legislative bodies we vote into power, called governments. (As opposed to appearing on stone tablets, I suppose?)
The reason there's a law against it, is that it is bad for YOU if a company in a dominant position abuses that position. YOU don't have much power -- Intel could walk all over you if there were no laws.
But if you and me and everyone else join together as an effective market, then together we can counter-balance the power of huge corporations like Intel, and it can be beneficial for all. Do you think that's "irrelevant"? Would you rather Intel were permitted to just set a 'tax' at whatever level they deemed fit for owning an x86 CPU? Remember, you can't vote Intel out of power...
(The reason there's a law against it, is that it is bad for YOU if a company in a dominant position abuses that position. YOU don't have much power -- Intel could walk all over you if there were no laws.
But if you and me and everyone else join together as an effective market, then together we can counter-balance the power of huge corporations like Intel, and it can be beneficial for all. Do you think that's "irrelevant"? Would you rather Intel were permitted to just set a 'tax' at whatever level they deemed fit for owning an x86 CPU? Remember, you can't vote Intel out of power...
Bee Nice |-|,
Thu 14 May 2009, 15:41,
archived)
Intel are not in powerand cannot coerce us into doing anything. They can only bribe us.
You know I'm in proper argument mode when I start using "cannot" instead of "can't"
I approve of laws that prevent coercion. I presume you admit the possibility of other laws being stupid. Are you in favour of copyright laws?
I think the distance between voting to be governed by some body (which, in the case of the EU, or indeed government in general, we were never offered an option on), and the resulting laws that body imposes, is very large. And if you and everybody else join together, you can walk all over me: such is the nature of voting. (Voting for a government, I mean. If we're voting on something where participation in the thing is optional, e.g. what sandwiches to take a picnic, you can still walk all over me, but that's fine, because I can always say "I don't like your stupid picnic anyway, I'm staying at home". This is not the case in an election.)
(,
Thu 14 May 2009, 15:44,
archived)
You know I'm in proper argument mode when I start using "cannot" instead of "can't"
I approve of laws that prevent coercion. I presume you admit the possibility of other laws being stupid. Are you in favour of copyright laws?
I think the distance between voting to be governed by some body (which, in the case of the EU, or indeed government in general, we were never offered an option on), and the resulting laws that body imposes, is very large. And if you and everybody else join together, you can walk all over me: such is the nature of voting. (Voting for a government, I mean. If we're voting on something where participation in the thing is optional, e.g. what sandwiches to take a picnic, you can still walk all over me, but that's fine, because I can always say "I don't like your stupid picnic anyway, I'm staying at home". This is not the case in an election.)
I wrote "it is bad for YOU if a company in a dominant position abuses that position".Whereas you (I think) don't think those actions are bad for you, and don't think they should (if you were to write the law) be categorised as "abuses".
If that's right, let's leave it there.
I, too, approve of laws that prevent coercion. I also approve of some other laws that prevent other things. Yes, some laws are stupid. I have no opinion I wish to express here about copyright laws. I agree that voting for a government is highly imperfect, and it's frankly amazing that it works as well as it does.
(If that's right, let's leave it there.
I, too, approve of laws that prevent coercion. I also approve of some other laws that prevent other things. Yes, some laws are stupid. I have no opinion I wish to express here about copyright laws. I agree that voting for a government is highly imperfect, and it's frankly amazing that it works as well as it does.
Bee Nice |-|,
Thu 14 May 2009, 16:09,
archived)
Well, yesthe important points being that trade is entirely based on consent, and that diverse practices create knowledge [something about Hayek and information flow goes here].
I was going to mention something about early American railroad monopolies collapsing naturally, but I can't find where I read that now, and only get pages which give the impression that competition laws were responsible.
Anyway, that was an enjoyable internet argument, argument buddy. I am a bit fatigued now and want a cup of tea.
(,
Thu 14 May 2009, 16:19,
archived)
I was going to mention something about early American railroad monopolies collapsing naturally, but I can't find where I read that now, and only get pages which give the impression that competition laws were responsible.
Anyway, that was an enjoyable internet argument, argument buddy. I am a bit fatigued now and want a cup of tea.