| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft to lower Office prices | |
|
||
| Time: 09:55 EST/14:55 GMT | News Source: Seattle PI | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. plans to drop the prices for its Office XP suite of business software and its individual programs by about 15 percent, starting Wednesday. The company also said it will provide free technical support to businesses that receive software upgrades under the company's controversial Software Assurance licensing program. The drop in Office XP pricing comes as Microsoft is readying its newest version, Microsoft Office System 2003, for release later this year.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 241 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
3:29:16 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/28/2003 5:59:19 PM |
|
"how the hell is it selective or discriminatory when EVERYONE can get it for free? "
It doesn't have to be selective or discriminatory to be considered dumping. "Can you explain how Linux is going to BECOME proprietary all of a sudden? " Since when does something have to be proprietary for there to be a fee attached? If you follow the rhetoric from the GPL zealots, they frequently point to this fact. "Do you actually believe that nothing will exist some day but Linux? " Do I believe it? No. Is that the purpose of the Linux Zealots... yes "Or are you just falling off the insane presumption cliff again? " No, but you are changing the subject. |
| #27 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/28/2003 6:05:44 PM |
|
Dodge, dodge, dodge...
""how the hell is it selective or discriminatory when EVERYONE can get it for free? " It doesn't have to be selective or discriminatory to be considered dumping." But you just said it was! I quote: ""it is not charging lower prices selectively and discriminatorily to impinge competition" Uhh, yes it is, jerky boy." "Since when does something have to be proprietary for there to be a fee attached? If you follow the rhetoric from the GPL zealots, they frequently point to this fact." And how does this negate the fact that the same code has to always be distributed for free? Right now, most Linuxes can be purchased for fees, and they are still free. Why are you ignoring that it is always free? ""Do you actually believe that nothing will exist some day but Linux? " Do I believe it? No. Is that the purpose of the Linux Zealots... yes" So you are making a completely bogus argument based on something you don't believe, yet you are certain of the consequence (proprietizing Linux)? "No, but you are changing the subject." I'm not changing the subject--I'm questioning the argument. You are presuming that Linux will become more expensive when it was created to provide a perpetual free alternative. Your conclusion is completely contradictory to everything behind Linux and is based on a premise you don't believe. And this is your "strongest" argument! |
| #28 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/28/2003 6:08:35 PM |
|
I can't wait the further dodges, but I thought I'd respond to your dictionary definition argument:
As I have said, a number of times, we are dealing with economic and legal terms, not dictionary definitions. But even by your own speciications: "3 : to sell in quantity at a very low price; specifically : to sell abroad at less than the market price at home" What is Linux's home? What's abroad? What is the market price of Linux? You see the definition is not at below cost: otherwise, you are agreeing that MS "dumps" a number of products. (I actually disagree with this.) However, using the Merrium-Webster definition (which I believe is ridiculous when we are discussing legal and economic issues) it is below the PRICE of the domestic market. Again, what is Linux's home market? And, again, isn't Linux ALWAYS available for FREE? How do you sell something for LESS than FREE? What market place exists anywhere in the world where they don't have access to these "dumped" prices? |
| #29 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/28/2003 6:15:20 PM |
|
jerkyboy - Nice dodge, you quoted a definition of dumping out of context. You forgot the second definition which is explicitly selling a product at below production costs.
Perhaps this will help you... http://www.tradeobservatory.org/FAQ/faq.cfm?faq_id=8#744 What is dumping? There are several kinds of dumping. The most commonly understood definition describes the behavior of a firm that charges higher prices in its domestic sales of a given product than it charges when it exports. For example, when a car maker sells a model for $30,000 in the domestic market, but only charges $25,000 for exports of that model. A more basic definition of dumping is the sale of goods abroad at less than cost of production prices. For example, if corn costs $2.50/ bushel to grow, but is sold by grain companies in world markets at only $2.00 a bushel, that would qualify as dumping, even if prevailing domestic prices were also only $2/ bushel. This past December, using arguments presented by the United States among others, the World Trade Organization judicial system ruled that cost of production numbers were a valid reference to ascertain if dumping was occurring. |
| #30 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/28/2003 6:24:45 PM |
|
I'm not dodging anything. I dismissed a purely dictionary definition, but am willing to argue on those terms. Now you return to a more economic definition, but using a page dedicated to agricultural issues.
But anyway... let's look at this def's: "The most commonly understood definition describes the behavior of a firm that charges higher prices in its domestic sales of a given product than it charges when it exports." Again, where is there a market in the world where Linux is not available at the lower costs available in other markets? You are using a definition which is purely based on international trade... this cannot be applied to Linux, nor can you say there is ever, EVER, EVER a market where the price of Linux is higher or lower than that available in any other region. "A more basic definition of dumping is the sale of goods abroad at less than cost of production prices." Okay, so here is a more BASIC definition. What is the cost of producing Linux? Who bares this cost? What individual commercial entity reaps the benefit of gaining marketshare? Where is "abroad"? You still haven't answered any of my questions are explained how Linux is guilting of dumping according to ANY of these definitions. |
| #31 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/28/2003 6:25:38 PM |
|
BTW, interesting that the tradeobservatory link talks about the US dumping agricultural products on the world market.
The basic premise for this is that the grain is selling for less than cost of production. This would be a result of the US government "subsidizing", or rather "bailing out" farmers because the Ag middlemen are not paying fair rates to the farmers for grain. Anyway, by using the same logic, any government which spends money to help cover the production costs of software such as Linux is also similarly guilty of dumping. |
| #32 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/28/2003 6:30:10 PM |
|
jerkyboy - "I'm not dodging anything. I dismissed a purely dictionary definition"
This is funny. A dictionary definition of an economic term is somehow considered wrong to jerky boy. So we wouldn't be allowed to use Black's Law dictionary to define legal terms, because well that wouldn't suit his argument.' "Now you return to a more economic definition, but using a page dedicated to agricultural issues. " No, my definition has not changed. I simply used the part of the definition which was applicable in this context, whereas you tried to ignore the existence of that definition. "Okay, so here is a more BASIC definition." Which is the definition I have been using all along. "What is the cost of producing Linux?" Good question, but it is certainly greater than $0. "Who bares this cost?" A variety of entities. "What individual commercial entity reaps the benefit of gaining marketshare?" A variety of entities. See now we're bordering into the world of collusion. "Where is "abroad"? " abroad is not required. "You still haven't answered any of my questions are explained how Linux is guilting of dumping according to ANY of these definitions. " Yes I have, you just keep ignoring them. |
| #33 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/28/2003 6:31:37 PM |
|
First, let's note that the U.S. has successfuly pushed back any judgements by the WTO against our foreign ag practices. But anyway... It's irrelevent...
Again, soda, how can you say this. You are using a definition of dumping that relates to international trade only. There is no domestic market for Linux. International trade dumping is a crime because it gives advantage to one sovereign state's product over anothers. What is the country being disadvantaged by supporting Linux? What is the country reaping the benefit? Answer just one of these questions please. |
| #34 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/28/2003 6:39:56 PM |
|
"This is funny. A dictionary definition of an economic term is somehow considered wrong to jerky boy. So we wouldn't be allowed to use Black's Law dictionary to define legal terms, because well that wouldn't suit his argument."
A dictionary definition has none of the weight or bearing of legal precedents nor does it generally capture what we all know to be a number of complex factors relating to such a judgement. I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was too general and incomplete. It becomes meaningless--as according to your logic (and again, I disagree) MS is responsible for all kinds of dumping. So what's your point--that Linux is following in the example of your beloved MS? I'd be happy to use a legal definition. "No, my definition has not changed. I simply used the part of the definition which was applicable in this context, whereas you tried to ignore the existence of that definition." What context? There is no application of international law here! There is no domestic market. There is no foreign market. "Which is the definition I have been using all along." Which is irrelevent. See above. Particularly when dismissing the domestic/foreign market issue. See below. ""What is the cost of producing Linux?" Good question, but it is certainly greater than $0. "Who bares this cost?" A variety of entities." And not one of them solely reaps the benefit. The benefit can be reaped by anyone. The cost is distributed across such a broad array of entities as to be incalcuable. ""What individual commercial entity reaps the benefit of gaining marketshare?" A variety of entities. See now we're bordering into the world of collusion." Collusion is ridiculous. Just because multiple entities benefit does not mean they are colluding. And let's point out: it's not just many entities--it is ANY entity. The point being--if no one individual entity has the unfair benefit, there is no crime. "abroad is not required." Of course, it is. You are--and I'm playing along--using a definition created for international law used to deal with disputes between sovereign countries. There is no crime if there is no originating market. No market being preyed upon. "Yes I have, you just keep ignoring them." No, this last post was the first time you answered a few of the questions. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 at 18:52. |
| #35 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/28/2003 6:54:23 PM |
|
By the way, it should be noted that this is how I see the treatment of the word "dumping."
A dictionary definition is irrelevent because it will have no legal or economic consequence for the accused company. There are two different legal applications of the word "dumping"--the international law application and the antitrust application. The international law usage is the easiest to understand--usually the products in competition are the same but a state advantages the domestic producer through subsidies or pricing exemptions to gain an advantage over a similar product in a different marketplace. This definition most definitely has to have a domestic and foreign market involved. In fact, it requires the participation of a state government and never involves just corporate parties. The antitrust usage is more complex, and I myself cannot provide a fully accurate definition, but generally relates to predation upon a market to gain advantage. I am honestly unsure whether or not there are many antitrust restrictions within the U.S. that actually use the term "dumping"; however, I am certain that the E.U. does use "dumping" as a term for predatory pricing in its antitrust regulations. These are the definitions that I have always and will always used. I do not know why softies would want to use any other definition (particularly using the international law one but saying that domestic/foreign markets are irrelevent) because they would basically be saying we are accusing someone else of something that we have known MS has done for a long time despite the fact that they don't want to raise the issue with respect to them. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 at 19:19. |
| #36 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 5/28/2003 7:54:14 PM |
| Sodablue wins this argument. And jerky wins a prize for longest-winded losing argument... started years ago. |
| #37 By 2062 (68.0.187.197) at 5/28/2003 9:44:10 PM |
|
The version of MS office XP i got cost $0, i got it at an online store called KaZaa. Can't beat that ;)
-gosh |
| #38 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/28/2003 10:01:59 PM |
|
I wouldn't say I won any argument. I just think it's interesting to push jerky boy's buttons.
I'm not really going to go either way on this, but I just think it's interesting to note that Linux is by and large given away for free with the express purpose of predation upon the market to gain competitive advantage. I don't think it's at all right to claim unfair actions are somehow right because you perceive yourself to be in an unfair situation. It certainly destroys whatever moral or ethical argument you might have towards a competitor if you are engaging in the exact same behavior you claim is unjust. Regulate the industry, make everybody play by the same rules. No more false claims, no more false advertising, no more vapor ware, no more etc. |
| #39 By 1868 (141.133.144.55) at 5/28/2003 11:14:08 PM |
|
I'll chalk this up to another wasted space of soda and jerk arguing. Yikes, you guys have way, way too much time on yer hands. Give it a rest, I don't care who "wins" its activewin afterall and may I state that we all "win" when we don't have arguments like this all over the comments section of the site..
Now go out and live a little and leave the dictionaries where they belong.....closed and on the shelves! |
| #40 By 1124 (165.170.128.65) at 5/29/2003 9:52:02 AM |
| I must say I always learn something from a good Soda vs Jerk argument. Soda always wins but Jerk alway puts up a good fight. |
| #41 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/29/2003 5:20:23 PM |
| When you argue with sodablue, everybody loses? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 241 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
3:29:16 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
