Re: Where to download free Fujitsu COBOL compiler



tlmfru wrote:
HeyBub <heybub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:aOCdna8BId_-> >>
Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts.

But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not
anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player
with XP to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that
wanted to SELL a media player. From the consumer's perspective,
FREE is better than PAID.


Look, dolt, by your very own words there were other companies
involved in the market. Therefore MS did NOT have a monopoly at the
time. If MS is as benevolent as you seem to think, they would reduce
the consumer cost of their products to the cost of production; after
all, FREE is better than PAID.

I never said - or even hinted - that MS was benevolent. It's a clever trick
to attribute something to me just so you can knock it down.




Possibly, but the CONSUMER still benefits. Capitalism is NOT about
choice. There are three things that go into the creation of a
product or service: Capital, Labor, and Raw Materials. Capitalism is
the PRIVATE control of the first of these.

And the tax breaks, incentives, interest-free non-repayable loans from
government? Oil companies are paid bonuses to go out and drill
exploratory wells, did you know that?

Hmm. I'm in Houston. I've worked in the oil business and oil-related
industries for over four decades*. I've never heard of anyone being paid to
drill an exploratory well (well, not exactly, a drilling company might be
paid by the owner of a minerals lease to poke a hole in the ground, but I'm
sure that's not what you had in mind). Who in your universe was doing the
paying?


How about gasoline? Is there any other reason that the cost TO THE
CONSUMER nearly doubled before the recent crash when the cost of
rpoduction barely wobbled, that monopoly power (cartel in this case)?


The seven major oil companies have been investigated some fifteen times by
the Congress since the Carter years with a view toward discovering how
complicit they were in manipulating (gouging, price-fixing, withholding,
etc.) oil and its products. There has NEVER been a showing of anything other
than normal market forces at work.

We get less than half our imported oil from members of OPEC.

In the case of Microsoft, their biggest competitor is Microsoft. If
they don't produce a better next-version, their revenue stream dries
up! It is to their advantage to create a better product at a lower
price.

Hogwash. If they didn't have some sort of competition, feeble as it
is, they'd have software maintenance contracts and be charging each
customer for individual bug fixes.

Huh? What makes you think that 7% of the market is responsible for
Microsoft's marketing strategy? Seven percent is not even noise.


And the taxes that were going to subsidize the service either went
away or were diverted for other purposes. You did get a significant
tax reduction, didn't you?


Of course not. MTS was profitable, providing some funds to provincial
general revenue.

So, to recap: The government sold an enterprise to the private sector. The
taxes formerly used to prop-up this government venture were diverted to
other purposes instead of being rebated to the taxpayer. The government,
moreover, was able to tax the now-private industry, generating even MORE
revenues and the poor taxpayer took it in the shorts. Incredibly, some
taxpayers think this is a good idea.


I remain astounded by your blithe evasion of facts. Unless you have
something sensible to add I'm dropping out of this discussion. You're
evidently a doctrinaire man and there's no point in argiuing with a
fanatic.


Hoista ya legga.

But one last suggestion. Look up "Microsoft Derangement Syndrome."

There's probably a twelve-step program available somewhere.

------
* I've worked for Shell Oil, Western Geophysical, and Petroleum Information.


.