From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 09:52:17 MST
Dickey, Michael F wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alexander Sheppard [mailto:alexandersheppard@hotmail.com]
>" Do you think the fruits of Bill Gates labor is really all that $50
>billion?"
>
>Do you think that the fruits of his labor are not? If not, how much do you
>think they are worth? And how to you justify how much you think they are
>worth? Is it just an arbitrary whim? If it is, why is it more valid than
>the arbitrary whim of the millions who use the fruits of his labor for their
>own productive gain? If 1 million people all think his product is worth 10
>dollars to them, then he now would have 10 million dollars. What if 10
>million people all think it is worth $100 dollars to them? Who are you to
>argue with them? They chose of their own free will to value his product at
>$10, or $100. Would you point a gun at their head and force them to
>de-value it?
>
>The only options here is a centralized group determining how much his
>products are worth, at the end of a gun no less, or each individual deciding
>of his own free will how much it is worth to them (by buying or not buying
>his product)
>
>Michael
>
>
>LEGAL NOTICE
>Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
>
>
>
Yes. I believe that Mr. Gates has done very little of permanent worth.
He has swindled others of their wealth, but I hardly consider that a
positive benefit. The primary thing for which he deserves credit is
improving the basic language. Unfortunately, even after improvement it
is much worse than most reasonable alternative for almost all purposes.
The execption is for use with MS applications, which have been
intentionally designed so that the only control language was basic.
(This may be changing, according to reports from last year, but useing
proprietary C extensions doesn't strike me an any great achievement either.)
Yes. I believe that Mr. Gates has been a net detriment to the computer
community. He has destroyed most of the ethics in the industry. He has
monopolized. He, via his company, has engaged in multiple criminal
acts, although he was "punished" with a punishment that counts a less
than a slap on the wrist.
Yes. I believe that Mr. Gates is a net liability. His companies have
systematically destroyed competitors and suppressed improvements until
it suited their economic goals to release them. He has intentionally,
released incompatible software, extorting both money and legal
agreements from individuals. I can't count them as his customers, as
his customers only consider end-users to be customers when it suits
their legal advantage. If, however, a warrantly claim is made, then the
vendor is the customer, and the end user is out in the cold.
Yes. I believe that Mr. Gates is a criminal, and a net liability to
both the community and the world. The fact that he was able to sell
shoddy merchandise with repulsive licensing to ignorant managers does
not count as a mark in his favor. No more than it would for a con-man.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:08 MST