[vox] OS/2 and Linux, why has IBM changed?

[Don Werve]

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 01:29:34PM -0700, Tim Riley wrote:
> Ken observed that Microsoft tried to hinder OS/2's growth by forcing an 
> exclusive contract with IBM. Whereas this may seem like a monopolistic 
> action, I think any company would refuse to sell to a competing company 
> its products at wholesale.

Ah, but the difference is that only a monopolist can leverage their
advantage in forcing vendors to not supply competing products.  If I
don't hold a monopoly, than I can't stand the risk of telling my vendors
what they can and can't sell -- I need all the vendors that I can get to
sell my product, and if my product is good, sales will take care of
themselves.

Using monopolist powers to prevent vendors from selling what they choose
provides an unfair advantage against other companies in the marketplace[1],
and is quite illegal to boot.

[1] This actually goes against capitalist ideals; e.g., the 'ideal'
    capitalist wants his products to stand on their own merits -- if he
    needs to use force to promote them, then he deserves to be kicked out of
    the marketplace.

-- 
Don Werve <donw@examen.com> (Unix System Administrator)

Yorn desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue,
Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn bork! bork! bork!