Re: On RC4 in C

[William Hugh Murray <whmurray@optonline.net>]

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "William Hugh Murray" <whmurray@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3A9BF442.7E840E64@optonline.net...
> Getting off-topic here ...
>
> > I was with IBM when the DoJ was even more unhappy with their business
> practices
> > than they are with Microsoft's.  There was never a final judgement in
> IBM's
> > case but my reading of history suggests that the issues are, for the most
> > part,  moot.
>
> Moot now, yes. Not in the 1970s.
>
> >  DoJ abandoned its requests for relief and IBM never achieved the
> > kind of dominance which the DoJ seemed to fear.  Some have suggested that
> that
> > was because, if IBM ever dreamed of such dominance, it took its eye off
> the
> > ball while it battled the government.
>
> IBM used to have 70% of the computer biz. IBM did change its business
> practices significantly as the result of its various antitrust legal
> difficulties.

The question remains as to whether or not that had anything to do with their
change in fortune.  I will grant you that we are all better off in that they no
longer dominate.  It is less obvious to me that there is a causal relationship
between or prosperity and their loss of it.  I will  grant you that we will
probably be better off when, rather than because, MS no longer dominates.  I
still question whether litigation and regulation are a necessary or efficient
remedy.

> Some people argue that the rise of Microsoft was only possible because
> IBM was restrained.

Perhaps.  I would argue that IBM's change of fortune was rooted in

* failure to recognize the reasons for the success of hardware competition from
Digital, Apple, Prime, and Compaq
* investing where its revenues were at the expense of investing where its growth
was (mainframes v.  small systems)
* continuing to sell at the top as the scale of computers changed and decision
making moved down in the enterprise
* selling exclusively to the enterprise and ignoring the consumer
* investing in OS/2 at the expense of Windows, SNA/SDLC and ISO/OSI at the
expense of TCP/IP, token-ring at the expense of
    ethernet, host-guest at the expense of client-server, etc.
* investing  in closed/proprietary  systems (e.g., AS/400) at the expense of
open/industry-standard systems (e.g., Unix)

In other words, they were protecting their market rather than growing it,
protecting their advantage rather than innovating.    I argued some of this at
the time, certainly the first two,  but most of it is easy to see in
hind-sight.  They shot themselves in the foot.  They were driving over a rough
and windy road while looking through the rear-view mirror.  With this aim and
vision, they needed no help from DoJ and were ill prepared to deal with
Microsoft.  (Speaking of MS, does any of this remind you of them?)

> >  I await the final judgement of the
> > courts in the Microsoft case, though I might prefer a settlement.  However
> the
> > battle now joined ends, I hope that MS is not guilty of such an error.
> However
> > it ends, I doubt seriously that it will make anybody, much less everybody,
> > happy with any, much less all, of Microsoft's business practices.  (Does
> that
> > sentence scan?) On the other hand, I also doubt that, at least in the long
> run,
> > it will make any difference.
>
> Perhaps, but the MS lawsuit has already had the effect of curbing some
> MS business practices. Companies from AOL to RealNetworks have
> prospered as a result.

(Notice that many already complain about the dominance and business practices of
both of these companies.  We seem to have a penchant for attributing to
predatory practices the results of wise, not to say courageous, investment and
novel business models.)

Having been through this once, I have more faith in the markets and competition
than in litigation and regulation.  Time will tell.  In any case, this too is a
discussion for another day and another forum.  Perhaps over a glass of bubbly
some time.