decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
high performance disruption more disruptive than the low price | 171 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Low end disruption
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 09:38 AM EDT
I would call it karmic, that MS is having what they did with IE happen to them.

And I know what got IEs competitors out of that bind, but IO don't see MS being
able to do that :)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

By law? What law is that?
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 10:05 AM EDT

What law requires this?

A director of a public company is forced to choose (b) and (c), because by law, the board of directors must maximize short term returns for share holders.

I don't believe there is any such law. I think short-term profit is driven by short-sighted shareholders.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

high performance disruption more disruptive than the low price
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 12:13 PM EDT
The low license price can't be ignored, especially for handset makers (?), but
FOSS would not have any traction without the performance. PCBSD, FreeBSD,
*buntu, Fedora, etc. would be a bargain at two to three times the price of
Windows. If changing had cost $200 when I made my switch, I would have paid it
just because of the way FOSS freed me from the headaches I was having with XP.
Apple was not an option, because I will tolerate Windows before I flush all of
my freedom down the toilet... even if Windows currently requires flushing about
85%.

I am reading more and more FUD where the propietary crowd is trying to attribute
FOSS' gains to it being freely accessible. Do people really believe that users
will abandon what they know for another option just because it has a purchase
price of $0. Sure, that applies to the hardcore techies, but some of us simply
want something that works and allows us to have at least some freedom of choice.
If Windows performed half as well as FOSS, FOSS' share would not be steadily
growing, and so many corporate servers would not be using Linux (when you need
reliability and security, Windows isn't an option.).

Regards,
mc

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A director of a public company is forced
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 02:01 PM EDT
No. He is *pressured*. Google is a public company and doesn't behave like that.

Thing is, companies with a strong leadership, usually by people with large
shareholdings, tend to do what they think best.

Companies with a weak leadership, who have no shareholding to speak of and are
primarily interested in the size of their pay-packet, tend to do as you
describe.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Low end disruption
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 03:32 PM EDT
You have it a bit backwards.

Microsoft was able to crush commercial competitors to MS Windows by abusing
their monopoly power.

The only viable competitors to Microsoft today are ones evolved using a
completely different model.

Linux is a good example. Microsoft tried everything it could to destroy Linux,
but because it wasn't a company their well-practiced techniques didn't work.
Dirty tricks such as refusing, the day before, to be on a press release if Linux
was mentioned. Or threatening to drop a conference sponsorship if Linux talks
were given in the main hall. Or offering essentially 100% product discounts if
a site quit using Linux.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )