OS stability - was Re: [X Newbies] Crashing of text editor?

[Charles Martin]

> From: Alex <alist at sprint.ca>
>> You have, of course, documentation of which state has passed such a
>> law ...
>
> Easily available. Simply check the history of House Bill no. 246,
> introduced in the Indiana House of Rep's by Rep. T.I. Record in 1897.
> (Incidentally, it wasn't 3.0 -- a little more complicated, but equally
> preposterous).
>
Well, look -- just about every state has a fair number of preposterous 
laws on the books (North Carolina forbids you to walk an elephant down 
Main Street, and Florida forbids even married couples from engaging in 
certain common sex acts). I don't think that the existence of a few 
"silly" laws undermines my point ... the fact that one has to reach 
back two centuries for an example sort of proves my point.

>> [...] It actually wasn't the "government" (ie the executive or
>> legislative branch, the part of the government that passes laws) that
>> did that, it was the court system [...] and yes, the courts establish
>> facts and enforce the law based on those facts.
>
> Perhaps we should stick to Mac issues. Because, when it comes to
> politics, apparently some have missed their citizenship classes (or
> whatever they're called in the US). Consulting
> <http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html> might help.
>
Perhaps some others should go back to reading-comprehension class. I 
didn't say that the courts were not part of the government -- but the 
OP tied the monopoly ruling to the legislative branch ("it's great when 
government passes laws that make facts"), and I was disputing his 
contention that it was that branch of government that took the action 
that branded Microsoft a monopoly. I probably should have said 
"judicial branch" rather than "court system" in the passage above, but 
I didn't say the courts were not part of the government.

> As to courts establishing facts, here's what the US District Court for
> the District of Columbia found as fact in Civil Action No. 98-1233
> (TPJ):
>
>     "[...] the package of hardware and software comprising an Apple PC
>      system is priced substantially higher than the average price of an
>      Intel- compatible PC system. Furthermore, consumer demand for
>      Apple PC systems suffers on account of the relative dearth of
>      applications written to run on the Mac OS.[...]"
>
> I hope in future, as a good citizen, you won't ever again debate these
> facts.
>
That judgment was absolutely correct at the time it was issued (1998), 
but does not presume to be true forever. Likewise, the finding of the 
courts regarding Microsoft may not be true forever either, but they are 
certainly true today. If Microsoft goes out of business, is it still a 
monopoly? No.

Judgments establish facts for use in determining proper enforcement of 
the law, as you yourself quote above. They are applicable at the time 
of the judgment and for as long as the conclusions stand, which is not 
and has never meant to be for all time. That's why we don't write 
judgments in stone. :)

> Actually, in my opinion you confuse (1) the difference between the
> colloquial, technical, and legal definitions of terms such as
> "monopoly", and (2) the distinction between de facto and de jure
> monopolies. If your local electric company has a monopoly but isn't in
> trouble, it's not because it doesn't abuse it, but because it is a
> legally established (de jure) monopoly.

No, it's because monopolies in and of themselves ARE NOT ILLEGAL.

_Chas_

"George W. Bush is ... the kind of politician who would cut down a tree 
and then climb on its stump to give a speech about conservation." -- 
John Kerry
http://www.johnkerry.com