Microsoft and the concentration of wealth
Microsoft's Sacred Cash Cow
From the article:
- Why are Microsoft products so endlessly frustrating to use? Even techno-geeks like me get annoyed by Windows. I’m tired of spending the first 10 minutes of my day rebooting just so I can get to work. Microsoft Outlook 2003, the latest version of the company’s e-mail and calendar software, hangs for me about once a day, requiring me to restart my PC. I also have a problem with Word 2003: Whenever I bullet a line of text, every line in the document gets a bullet. Asking Windows to shut down is more of a request than a command—it might, it might not. And recently, Internet Explorer stopped opening for me.
I know I’m not alone. If you’re like me, you’ve invested in technology to become more efficient and productive but mutter about the many frustrations of the digital lifestyle. Technology is my hobby as well as my job, so I regularly ponder why software giant Microsoft Corp., which has more than $56 billion in cash, hasn’t solved more of these problems.
- Microsoft’s attempts to diversify into consumer businesses have yet to pay off: 68 percent of its revenue still comes from Windows and Office sales—more than 80 percent if you include the Windows server software used by so many businesses. The company must protect these core products. “The prime directive at Microsoft is to protect Windows and get customers to buy Windows and upgrades to Windows,” says Matt Rosoff, lead analyst at Directions on Microsoft, a Kirkland-based newsletter.
Microsoft clings to this strategy because it has to. Its stock price relies largely on the continued strength of Windows and the Office suite of applications (Word, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, etc.). But Microsoft’s dominance is an aberration in an otherwise competitive technology industry. Windows, Office, and the Internet Explorer Web browser all have greater than 90 percent share of their respective markets. To protect the cash cows, Microsoft must do things that no other software company would be doing right now. It’s a victim of its own success.
Microsoft hasn’t solved many of the software problems I described earlier in part because of the lack of competition.
See also this post on Microsoft.
2 Comments:
X-BOX GATES
CONTAINER SOFTWARE
ALL HILLS
ALL BILLS’
ELEMENTS
BOX "IT" ONLY
"In...competitive...price is equal to cost & each seller knows his own cost."
WHAT EVER IT IS IT MUST = THE COST OF USEFUL LABOR TIME IN THE THING OR SERVICE SERVED TO THE WE PEOPLE -
IT IS THE CORE CONTRACT TERM MATERIAL - SHOW WE THE NUMBERS & PEGS:
A) COST STUDY
B) THEN SETTING
C) BEFORE SHIFTING
D) OR ITS VOID, @16722
E) OBLIGATIONS NOT TO
"...interference...is unlawful per se."
OLIGOPOLY PARALLEL PRICING
THE REASONS RULE IS FELONY MURK
If...reasonableness...would ...become an issue ... its philosophy—supplanted by one—alien to a system of free competition; ...not... the charter of freedom ...intended (& promised)."
THE CORE
REALLY BIG FIBBIES
They say that circumstantially (interdependent pricing) is A) legal & B) lacks any identifiably forbidden acts, which, if true, makes it impossible to regulate. It is a flat intentional lie. The taboo three element standard is “sought, obtained & used,” 393 U.S. 333 (’69). It is the only reasonable extension of three big cases, e.g., Container, Goldfarb, & Rice v. Board of Alcohol, all direct evidence cases, all in “sought, obtained & used accord.”
DEFENDING IT IS A
CRIMINAL ACT IN FACT
If one exhumes the briefs filed in connection with these & other cases one would learn that fulsome lawyers, solo to huge, have another name for this felony behavior: pro-competitive, i.e., ensuring the best available technology & drugs at the lowest available cost, e.g., & creates more jobs AT better pay!
Reality is exactly the opposite, & that is an undeniable fact. Just like they reverse engineered the word NO to mean YES IN THE “NO … CREDIT” CLAUSE, Article 1:10.
Esquires defectively legitimize it because they do exactly the same thing, for big money, carving out for themselves & their clients an expressly banned “preference of commerce.” Article 1:9 (NO).
One un-kosher black & white issue is to this, head-on:
INTERDENDENT PRICING
(EXACTLY LIKE 393 U.S. 333, DIRECTLY XD)
VS.
INDEPENDENT PRICING (LIKE 99 CENT STORES)
INDEPENDENT PRICING (LIKE THE DOLLAR STORE)
INDEPENDENT PRICING (LIKE THE GOOD WILL STORE)
INDEPENDENT PRICING (KNOWN @REQUIRED COURSES)
To cheat cost caps, for bigger top pay scales, e.g.:
A) They get “IT” by CONTRACT;
B) They marry “it” by CONTRACT; &
C) They furnish “IT” by CONTRACT
IT = THE
HOLE (E-3)
A) EACHOTHER’S PRICES;
B) EACHOTHER’S UNITS SOLD; &
C) EACH OTHER’S REVENUE POOLS
They move up & down in sync, by locking onto each other, always above equilibrium. How else do you think cartel pirates operate? It is old, old stuff – there is no magic to it.
I talk to people at Walmart. Walmart is doing price checking just the same as the supermarket company. They are going into supermarkets; they are going into drug stores; they are checking target and K Mart. Its impo.tant.
Important? Yes, it is the only way to cheat cost caps, to keep huge executive pay, to meet forecasts for the rich, underwriters, senators & judges stock portfolios, to insure ancient caste systems - all these judgers know it!
Who do you think gave money to ALL STATE JUDGES POLICAL CAMPAIGNS? WHO DO THEY OWE FAVORS TO?
ALL (E) PROS
WEAVE & BOB-SEE
ALL (A-E) PRODUCTION
EDITED BY
PRODUCED BY
“Like many constitutional provisions written in general language, the … acts must be interpreted in light of …the context of changing conditions of society.”
THE COVETED KEY SCRIPT
DODGED BY TOP 33-34% MASON+
"In ... competitive [operations] ... price is equal to cost & each seller knows his...cost."
Q. And that's something you quote in a number of your articles, isn't it?
A. Yes. …the most famous quotes in economics.
MR. ADAM SMITH
THE SECRET WEAPON
Q. When it comes to economics - he's like the founding father, he's like Thomas Jefferson to economists, isn't he?
A. Thomas Jefferson, the economist.
…
Q. He is … Jefferson to an economist. He is the … father of it all, right?
A. Like … to the extent we can pinpoint … our discipline, most … identify it as Adam Smith, yes.
10 out of 10 unbiased e-contract doctors agree:
"[P]rice [meaning billings or charges] is [to] equal … cost & each seller knows his...cost."
It is a very strict rule – “at cost contract charges” – that is exactly what the founder of contract liberty, Adam Smith, calls natural as opposed to artificial pricing:
“The real price of everything, what everything really costs…is the toil & trouble of acquiring it.”
“Labor … is the real measure of…value….”
“Equal quantities of labor, at all times & places, may be said to be of equal value….”
“labor … was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things.”
“Labor…is alone the ultimate & real standard by which the value of all…can at all times & places be estimated & compared. It is the real price….”
REAL VERSUS ARTIFICIAL
CHARGES – RATES & REVENUES
It’s that simple. Is the charge, price, fee, rate or whatever, real, by defined measures, or not. If not, it is a void charge held in constructive trust by the charger & all of it is owed back when properly claimed. The value of all things, a synonym for which is price or charge, reduces to real simple numbers, based on the useful people time embodied in it, by time clocked, time sheets, for example.
Various forms of the cost equals price rule are reflected in the equation known as MR=MC. IT translates into many dimensions of the same global rule: revenue equals costs, both short & long run – there is nothing to puff about, because:
A. You … determine the price of [all things] … based on the [cost] characteristics of the [thing]....
Mother natures’ edict is supreme protocol – the MR=MC hammer rule:
Price is too critical … to allow it to be used even in an informal manner to restrain [cost] competition.
[M]aturity … requires increased capability to measure costs on individual [services &/ or] items & to [set a singular] price accordingly.
It’s real simple, & all costs, including collections, are included:
A) Adding all your direct costs up, of serving others, to live comfortably, vacation, accidents, medical & save for retirement;
B) Divide by the number of hours you need to work to comfortably meet those goals, 25 hours a week, for balance; &
C) Set a single salary & charge accordingly.
All other forms of charging & paying are per se illegal.
DEFINED - WHAT SUPPLY &
DEMAND FUSION RULES MEANS
You can’t just change the price because you can get away with it – that is unconscionable. Only changes in adding the costs up & dividing, by different permutations of the study, based on guesswork in hours sold, units sold, overhead, expenses, whatever, triggers a charge shift, backed up, honestly. That is what supply & demand means, defined. It is all simple numbers.
Here is an iron footprint of the rule: pricing may not be dependent upon anything but:
[T]he interplay of the … [COST] forces of supply and demand. [aka, of supplying demand at all costs]
THE POSION FRUIT METAPHOR – ADAM & EVE THE POISON IS GETTING SOMETHING FOR NOTHING
How to cheat cost caps – it’s pretty simple really:
The first step to cheat the isolated, like in solitary confinement, measure my own private & business cost rule & charge accordingly, is:
A) Looking for;
B) Finding; &
C) Using.
Those three steps, in lieu of doing the math, licks them all, by supreme definition. There are a lot of synonyms used to fudge the real simple verbs, but it was best articulated this way:
SOUGHT, OBTAINED & USED!
Spending time & money looking for, finding & using another way to set up a charge, to lift charges higher, &/or to keep charges from dropping, alone supremely defines the verbs that identifies the felony criminal behavior.
3 simple steps, by one acting alone, cements the unfaithful act that renders an entire contract void, unenforceable & every penny owed back, times three – no judge is permitted, by supreme edict, to give any offset, to negotiate, to cut it down the middle. All three steps are either uniformly confessed to or must be taken judicial notice of, which means all courts are required to make the factual finding of strict liability, when properly motioned:
Q. Why do you seek rival prices?
A. To set prices [charges, rent, e.g.].
There is no magic to how Martha Stewart, Bill Gates & Ron Burkle & every single other “business man” who is not an Article 1:8 “Author” (Musician, Artist, Scientist, e.g.) made their bullion.
Without coming out of the closet, another eminent Ivy pro dancer, Richard A. Posner, no friend of strict trust enforcement, got a little closer to the MR=MC code creed:
“The form of the verification … (aka, check= exchange) depends on factors irrelevant to its effects….
The fact that … it may be feasible to communicate price information by issuing … lists … published or otherwise circulated widely does not immunize the act from legal sanction….”
THEY ALL DANCE AROUND THE KEYS
THEY ALL DISTORT THE VERBS TO MASK IT THEY ARE ALL, AT CORE, YALE BONES & SKULL-MASONS & KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
The key cure – the kinked demand curve: it’s really pretty simple – it means when you come across others price or charge data, through the grape vine, not through organized staffing & paying of rival charge recon teams, that drives charges & prices down, based on revised cost studies, to insure that price never exceeds costs:
THE SOLE LEGAL WAY TO
USE OTHERS CHARGE DATA
Now you should have an idea about why rental prices go up, never down. The controllers – judges, legislatures et all – they are land lords, their friends are land lords, their Mason brothers are land lords & so forth.
SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE, XTRA LARGE & JUMBO
REVERSE LAW ENGINEERED, POINT BLANK
References: Roger Noll, Stanford PHD, Lynn Dallas, University of San Diego e-con-tract Law Profs, Mark Anderson & J. McDonald, University of Idaho, e-con-tract Law Prof
Post a Comment
<< Home