Canon printer and TurboPrint

[Jerry]

On Fri, 29 May 2009 15:50:45 +0200
Jonathan McKeown <j.mckeown at ru.ac.za> wrote:

>[Sorry for the excessive quoting - I couldn't decide which bits to
>take out]
>
>On Friday 29 May 2009 12:48:00 Jerry wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 09:34:36 +0200
>>
>> Jonathan McKeown <j.mckeown at ru.ac.za> wrote:
>> >On Thursday 28 May 2009 22:52:47 Jerry wrote:
>> >> Did you ever bother to consider that if the printer manufacturers
>> >> actually formed a consensus on a printer language, some third
>> >> world county or the EU would probably sue them. Nothing I have
>> >> seen in 20 years equals the audacity of the EU. As long as no
>> >> 'standard' no matter how arbitrary, stupid or counter-productive
>> >> exists, they are in theory safe from the EU. Besides, nothing
>> >> stifles development as tightly as being bound to an arbitrary
>> >> 'standard'.
>> >
>> >What a breathtakingly stupid remark.
>> >
>> >The EU has acted against two companies (Microsoft and Intel) who
>> >have used illegal business methods to protect and extend their
>> >monopolies and suppress competition.
>> >
>> >Or are you suggesting that a format or protocol which is implemented
>> >by several different companies, allowing vendors to compete fairly
>> >on other grounds (price, features, quality, ... ) while protecting
>> >consumers by making it possible for them to move from one vendor to
>> >another, is somehow a worse idea than a proprietary format or
>> >protocol which is forced into a market-dominating position by
>> >illegal tactics such as paying manufacturers extra to incorporate
>> >it, or penalising them financially for providing competing products?
>>
>> The concept behind the EU is socialism, pure and simple. It attempts
>> to create an artificial playing field that allows the incompetent to
>> compete with the motivated. It forces those who create new technology
>> to share it, usually sans monetary compensation, with common bottom
>> feeders. A free, open market is the way to encourage development and
>> new ideas and technology. Not some pathetic, socialistic concept.
>>
>> >If that's the case, why is no-one trying to use the courts to
>> >prevent the use of ODF, a published standard which is now used by
>> >several companies and Free Software projects to provide a common
>> >format for documents?
>> >
>> >Once a company dominates a particular market it's held to a
>> >different standard than other companies in that market - because
>> >the power of the monopoly can be used not only to prevent
>> >competition in the original market, but to extend the market
>> >domination into new markets, by techniques like product tying,
>> >distributing at below cost (effectively drawing subsidy from the
>> >original monopoly product) until competitors are driven out of
>> >business, and so on.
>>
>> A company has the right to disperse their product as they see fit. I
>> know a socialist like you finds that abhorrent; however, it is never
>> the less true. Tell me, if I wanted to sell you a $300 thousand
>> dollar Ferrari for $10, would you: A: complain to the police or what
>> ever legal authority you feel so fit to complain to; B: slam $10 in
>> my hand in a heart beat? I think we know the answer. You are a
>> hypocrite.
>>
>> Has it ever occurred to you how a company grows and becomes
>> successful? I know, in your world it is by using the Government to
>> squash competition; however, in a truly free society, it is by hard
>> word and giving the consumer what they want at a price they are
>> willing to pay. Basic business 101.
>>
>> >Microsoft has been convicted of doing all these things, in US
>> >courts, in courts in Asia, and in courts in Europe. These are
>> >matters of fact, not opinion.
>> >
>> >Intel has been convicted of many of these things in courts in Asia
>> >and in Europe.
>> >
>> >The fact that the US system is too supine to take action against
>> >these companies doesn't make the EU ``arrogant''. Let's not forget
>> >why Unix took off and expanded the way it did: once upon a time the
>> >US courts did take antitrust seriously, and prevented AT&T using
>> >its telco monopoly to expand into market domination of the computer
>> >business.
>>
>> The spinelessness of the American court system is that they do not
>> take legal action against European countries that practice reverse
>> discrimination, or the outright breach of copyright laws, etc. I
>> know, you socialists also abhor copyright laws. The concept of an
>> individual actually benefiting from his/her hard work and not having
>> to share it with every scum sucker who comes begging at his door
>> disturbs you.
>
>Whoa. I don't think that level of personal attack is appropriate or
>acceptable behaviour in a public forum. (I call it attack because you
>clearly regard socialist as a swear word. I'm not a socialist but I
>don't regard it as an insult. I do regard hypocrite as an insult which
>I choose to ignore.)
>
>Your first paragraph, the one beginning ``the concept behind the EU is 
>socialism, pure and simple'', is essentially the Microsoft party line:
>the socialist EU wants to steal our hard work and give it away to
>people who can't stand the heat of competition. The reality is almost
>the exact opposite: the EU is using competition law to try and restore
>a level playing field, despite the best efforts of companies like
>Microsoft.

Look up the definition of 'socialism'. Then look at who comprises the
EU. Their attempts to 'level the playing field' is nothing more than
unvarnished socialism. The same basic idea was tried in the US with
'affirmative action' that entitled the lazy, stupid, etc. the same
rights and privileges as those who worked their ass off. Even though
there was ample proof of this, these draconian laws were put in place.
It took decades before it was realized just how poorly they worked.
Another example could be comparing American Pro Football and its
catastrophic decision to 'level the playing field' by rewarding
ineptitude. The worse your record, the better your draft choice. The EU
is just a socialist forum attempting to reward ineptitude. You have
brought into it hook, line and sinker.

>Before we forget, the US Government did the same thing: it took
>Microsoft to court for distorting the market, and a federal court
>found Microsoft guilty, required them to publish their protocols to
>correct the damage they had done to marketplace competition, and
>imposed a supervision order to check their compliance (which has
>recently been extended yet again, due to Microsoft's resistance to
>complying in any timely or meaningful way).
>
>Note that carefully: it was the US Government and the US federal
>courts, not the ``socialist'' EU Commission and courts. The only
>difference, when a similar case was considered in the EU's
>jurisdiction, was the imposition of a monetary fine - still less
>drastic than the original US trial judge's proposal to break the
>company up.

The original suit was based on laws designed to curtail the railroad
industry, actually Rockefeller. The original judge was prejudiced and
an appeals court through out most of the suit and required a hearing on
the remain portions. The suit eventually was of minimal importance.

The original suit was a bogus and transparent attempt at protecting
Netscape. Funny, when Netscape was #1, nobody said a word. Once
Microsoft surpassed them all of the socialist came out of the woodwork
and bitched.

Take into consideration that Microsoft has never surpassed Google in
the search category. It was never able to over come AOL's lead either.
Those companies, and many others make superior products, well not AOL
but you get the idea, and a free and open market place has made its
decision. You would rather usurp that with government intervention.
Typical socialist thinking. If you cannot produce a better product, get
the government to regulate them for you.

>Even a free market requires some regulation of business practices. For 
>example, most countries have laws preventing manufacturers adding
>toxic melamine to milk powder to fool protein tests and make the milk
>powder appear to be of a higher quality and therefore higher value. It
>didn't stop at least one Chinese company doing exactly that and making
>quite a lot of money before they got caught (by ``socialists'' in
>other countries testing products made with milk powder to make sure
>the manufacturers had complied with the law).

Good idea, change the context of the discussion. We are not talking
about product safety here. As far as I know, Microsoft does not produce
food products. However, I did see an article recently regarding OpenSSL
and a defect in their product. Are you saying that anyone who was
effected by the 'bug' has a right to sue the authors of that software.
Wow, layers will just love you. If that were to happen, and since there
does not exist any OS that can be certified as truly 'bug free' your
premise of suing would lead to the collapse of the software business.
Now that is a true socialist. Attack and regulate a company until you
put it out of business.

>One area where regulation is important is market dominance (or
>monopoly, or competition, or antitrust, or whatever it may be called
>in other jurisdictions). Once a company has a certain level of market
>share (75% is a commonly accepted definition of dominance) it's
>possible for that company to give up competing and simply use its
>market power to prevent anyone else entering the market and competing
>with them successfully.
>
>It can also use its dominance to take over related markets without
>ever competing for a place in those markets. For example, if you
>control the desktop client market, and you refuse to support anyone
>else's client-server protocols and won't document your own, people are
>forced to buy your server OS regardless of quality or price - you have
>leveraged your desktop monopoly into a server market dominance without
>competing.
>
>I'm not suggesting that all companies that establish market dominance 
>immediately stop competing in a business sense and start acting more
>like gangsters: but I do think there should be laws to control the
>ones who do. There is plenty of evidence in all the various antitrust
>trials Microsoft has been involved in, on almost every continent bar
>the one I'm on (you do know what a .za email address implies, I take
>it?), that Microsoft is one of them.

The basic premise of your argument is that any company or entity that is
success should be regulated. I find that concept pure socialistic
bullshit.

>To take a couple of your other points: no, I wouldn't buy your Ferrari
>``in a heartbeat''. Would you buy a set of speakers from a man in a
>van who ``had some surplus stock'' and wanted to get rid of it at well
>below market value rather than take it back to the warehouse? I've
>refused that offer a number of times. People don't sell anything at
>well below its market value without some form of ulterior motive; and
>it's not strictly true to say that
>> A company has the right to disperse their product as they see fit.

I never said the product was stolen or pilfered. Those are your
assumptions. I create a product and distribute it. It is none of the
government's business what I sell it for as long as I pay the tax on it.
And even if I were selling below cost with the ulterior motive of
someday increasing market share, so what. I am taking the risk and the
consumer reaps the benefit. I know, socialists cannot understand that
simple concept.

>For example, there are strict laws in most places governing the sale
>of goods at below cost (dumping), because the ulterior motive in this
>case is usually to eliminate competition by making it impossible for
>them to stay in business. Apart from anything else, the directors
>usually have a legal obligation to the shareholders to maximise
>profit. Sell at a loss and make it up on volume is not a business
>strategy that's likely to stand up in court in a shareholder suit.

One again, you want 'big brother' aka the government to protect you.

>I'm not sure where copyright laws suddenly sprang into the equation,
>but I can assure you, as someone who works with Free software, I'm a
>firm believer in copyright laws. I don't write much code but it's
>copyright that prevents people stealing what I do write.

Come on now. Are you saying that you do not publicly post any code
that you create for anyone to use sans payment? Or are you implying
that it is perfectly OK to steal code from any company/individual whose
profits exceed yours sans fees? Maybe I should get some government
intervention here to see what you are hiding?

>I've now spent considerably more of my working day answering this than
>I should have done. Please think about what I've written and do some
>research before you come back with another tirade of insults.

There are many truisms in business. Two of my favorite ones are:

1) No legitimate business ever benefited from government intervention.

2) You can always tell a socialist; you just cannot tell him much.

-- 
Jerry
gesbbb at yahoo.com

It's not whether you win or lose but how you played the game.

	Grantland Rice
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20090529/eac4e759/signature.pgp