The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 4) |
| Author | Comment |
Ivo Cerckel
 Sep 22, 07 - 10:40 PM |
Microsoft, Principle of Distinctness and Heraclitus
Microsoft, Principle of Distinctness and Heraclitus 1. The Principle of Distinctness says that each being to the extent that it is being is distinct or determined. This principle is the ultimate foundation of the laws of thinking and of the logical laws, since it is the basis of the first logical principles: the principle of identity, the principle of non-contradiction, and the principle of the excluded middle. (Fernand Van Steenbergen (F.-X. de Guibert, ed.), “Philosophie fondamentale”, Longueuil, Quebec, Editions du Preambule, 1989, p. 296). “Being” is “that which is” (in Latin, Ens est “id quod est”) […] An airplane is a being. (Tomas Alvira, Luis Clavell and Tomas Melendo, “Metaphysics”, Manila, Sinag-Tala Publishers, 1991, (first published in Spanish in 1982 by the Ediciones Universidad de Navarra in Pamplona), pp. 17 and 18) A computer is thus also a being. 2. On Monday 17 September 2007, the EU Court of First Instance dealt a severe blow to the Microsoft by siding with bureaucrats in an antitrust case against the company. In its ruling, the court agreed with European regulators that Microsoft had abused its operating system monopoly by incorporating its Media Player, which plays music and films, into Windows. That would shut out rivals, like RealPlayer. The court also agreed that Microsoft should provide rival software companies the information they need to make their products work with Microsoft's server software. (Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) 17 September 2007 in Case T-201/04, http://www.curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en which summarises the legal points following from the judgment as follows: Competition – Abuse of dominant position – Client PC operating systems – Work group server operating systems – Streaming media players – Decision finding infringements of Article 82 EC – Refusal of the dominant undertaking to supply and authorise the use of interoperability information – Supply by the dominant undertaking of its client PC operating system conditional on the simultaneous acquisition of its media player – Remedies – Appointment of an independent monitoring trustee – Fine – Determination of the amount – Proportionality) 3. Article 82 of the EC Treaty provides: Any abuse by one or more undertaking of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States. Dominance was defined by the European Court of Justice in United Brands v. Commission (case 27/76) as a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the RELEVANT MARKET by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers, and ultimately of its consumers. The relevant product market is being defined by the EU Commission and Court in terms of PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION. (Josephine Steiner, Lorna Woods, Christian Twigg-Flessner, “EU Law”, Oxford University Press, 2006, 9th ed., p. 609) and must be assessed, according to the 1997 Commission’s Notice on the Definition of the Relevant Market, in terms of the product market and the geographical market. (Koen Lenaerts and Piet Van Nuffel, “Europees Recht in Hoofdlijnen”, Antwerpen and Apeldoorn, Maklu, 2003, 3rd ed., section 247) |
|
Ivo Cerckel
Sep 22nd, 2007 - 10:47 PM |
Re: Microsoft, Principle of Distinctness and Heraclitus
4. In order to decree that Microsoft had abused its operating system monopoly by incorporating its Media Player, which plays music and films, into Windows, the Court’s reasoning includes the following three sections: 912 Microsoft contends, in substance, that media functionality is not a separate product from the Windows client PC operating system but forms an integral part of that system. As a result, what is at issue is a single product, namely the Windows client PC operating system, which is constantly evolving. In Microsoft’s submission, customers expect that any client PC operating system will have the functionalities which they perceive as essential, including audio and video functionalities, and that those functionalities will be constantly updated. 913 The Court notes, by way of preliminary observation, that the IT and communications industry is an industry in constant and rapid evolution, so that WHAT INITIALLY APPEAR TO BE SEPARATE PRODUCTS MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE REGARDED AS FORMING A SINGLE PRODUCT, both from the technological aspect and from the aspect of the competition rules. 917 First of all, it must be observed that, as the Commission correctly states at recital 803 to the contested decision, the DISTINCTNESS of products for the purpose of an analysis under Article 82 EC has to be assessed by reference to customer demand. Furthermore, Microsoft clearly shares that opinion (see paragraph 890 above). The Court is thus saying that distinctness can change over time. Are we back in the Heraclitus-Parmenides debate? Is everything in flux or do we have to recognise the stability of Being, the stability of the One, which (Being, the One) is constant in reality? Yes, the central “truth” of Heraclitus is a truth of reason and far exceeds the common opinion of men who trust in everything to sense-appearance. But it is Parmenides who first lays great and explicit stress on the DISTINCTION. (F.C. Copleston, “A History of Philosophy”, Vol. I, 1962, p. 48) The Court is endorsing the theory of Heraclitus, the forerunner of relativism, who maintains that reality is pure change or becoming, thereby denying the principle of non-contradiction. (Alvira et alt., op. cit., pp. 39-40) As former president of the US central bank, Alan Greenspan, said, in the same year 1962 as Copleston published Volume I of his History, in an essay “Antitrust”, competition regulation is harmful and “ is reminiscent of Alice's Wonderland: EVERYTHING SEEMINGLY IS, YET APPARENTLY ISN'T, simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet 'too much' competition is condemned as 'cutthroat.' It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as ‘enlightened’ when initiated by the government. It is a world in which the LAW IS SO VAGUE that businessmen have NO WAY OF KNOWING whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict -- after the fact.” (Based on a paper given at the Antitrust Seminar of the National Association of Business Economists, Cleveland, 25 September 1962, Published by Nathaniel Branden Institute, New York, 1962, reprinted in: Ayn Rand, (ed.) , “Capitalism – the Unknown Ideal”, Signet Books, 1967) |
|
Ivo Cerckel
Sep 22nd, 2007 - 10:50 PM |
Re: Microsoft, Principle of Distinctness and Heraclitus
5. Microsoft's rivals welcomed the court decision: "This is a great day for European businesses and consumers. At long last, the decision opens the prospect for dynamic competition in the software industry. No more user lock-in, no more monopoly pricing," said Thomas Vinje, the lawyer representing Ecis, a group which includes IBM, Nokia, Oracle and Sun Microsystems. Do these rivals really think that if they themselves are prosecuted in the very near future, this will benefit consumers? Bloomberg said on 17 September 2007, the day of the judgment, in an article “Microsoft Loses Appeal Against EU Antitrust Order” that the ruling may bolster European Union (EU) antitrust investigations by Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. She is also probing, says Bloomberg, Intel Corp., Rambus Inc. and Qualcomm Inc., all of which dominate markets or hold key patents. Microsoft, which reached a settlement with U.S. authorities in 2002, argued regulators shouldn't be allowed to force it to help rivals. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avXd7krH958Q&refer=home EU to prosecute all software engineers. Neelie Kroes has spoken. What do the rivals think about that? As Alan Greenspan, again, said in his 1966 essay “Gold and Economic Freedom” (reprinted in Ayn Rand (ed.), “Capitalism – the Unknown Ideal”, Signet Books, 1967) An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense-perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire -- that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society. Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a STANDARD OF MARKET VALUE and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving. In the EU there is NO STANDARD OF VALUE for human action. The bureaucrats of the EU Commission and those of the EU Court of First Instance think therefore they can do whatever pleases them. Now, they have decided to destroy all software engineers. The word “law” means order. Laws are patterns of order. By destroying life, the so-called EU Competition “Law” only creates disorder. Or is Microsoft part of the US military-industrial complex? And is it because dollars can be printed without limit that the US military-industrial complex is able with these dollars to wage war and buy corporations worldwide? Did the EU Court in fact want to promote the Gold Euro which is with the Gold Rupee and others one of the fertilisators of the Gold Dinar? http://blogs.siliconindia.com/goldrupee http://forum.dinareconomy.com/ Greenspan says in his memoirs, which were published on the same day, 17 September 2007, as the judgment of the EU Court of First Instance that the Iraq war was for oil, said the Sunday Times on 16 September 2007 in an article “Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Saddam Hussein had to die because he wanted to be paid in petro-euro when selling oil through his Iranian Oil Bourse. Will we now see oil for Gold Euro, Gold Rupee or Gold Yuan? 6. At least now we know why there is no rule of law in Europe. It is because Europe denies the stability of being and the stability of the principle of distinctness. Not all beings are considered distinct or determined to the extent that they are being. This principle of distinctness is however the basis of the first logical principles: the principle of identity, the principle of non-contradiction, and the principle of the excluded middle. It is thus the ultimate foundation of the laws of thinking and of the logical laws which is being denied by the EU Court of First Instance. Everything goes when it comes to (legal) reasoning (by the EU Court of First Instance). Ivo Cerckel ivocerckel AT siquijor DOT ws |
|
Ivo Cerckel
Sep 23rd, 2007 - 7:11 PM |
Re: Microsoft, Principle of Distinctness and Heraclitus
I should perhaps have spoken about "fertiliser"/"fertilisers" instead of "fertilisator"/"fertilisators" (as in "the Gold Euro, Gold Rupee and Gold Yuan being the fertilisers of the Gold Dinar.") But the Court is saying in section 913: The Court notes, by way of preliminary observation, that the IT and communications industry is an industry in constant and rapid evolution, so that WHAT INITIALLY APPEAR TO BE SEPARATE PRODUCTS MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE REGARDED AS FORMING A SINGLE PRODUCT, both from the technological aspect and from the aspect of the competition rules. Should it not have said: WHAT INITIALLY APPEAR TO BE FORMING A SINGLE PRODUCT (Media Player included in a PC) MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE REGARDED AS BEING SEPARATE PRODUCTS? |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com