Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Actually, if your competitor had about the same number of resources as you then your statement about copying would be true. However, there are few software companies with the economic resources to match MS. So instead you get MS putting 10 times the resource behind an idea that someone else has already developed and crushing their effort. They benefit greatly from you creating the first on by:
1. They don't have to make the same software design mistakes you did. i.e If you could the second time around you would probably do something different we all do.
2. They have a good idea as to what the market sucess will be since you did that homework for them.
3. They have at least as good an idea as you of what users like or do not like and what new features they want - since you created the first one they get to ride your efforts.

So other people's efforts really lower the cost of entry for MS. Given their marketing clout and seeming willingness to literally buy a market - something a startup cannot do (e.g. paying a highly visible customer massive amounts of money to switch browsers) It makes it very difficult to compete and stifles innovation.
Jim

Arvin Meyer wrote in message <7gvkoa$el0$1_at_esinet2.esinet.net>...
>I disagree with your assessment of Bill Gates and Microsoft. To say that
>they are not avaricious, would be a joke. They assess the market and buy or
>build if they see profit. Don't we all?
>
>In fact, for me at least, they have created opportunity, which I take
>advantage of. I make more money now than I ever have, not in spite of
>Microsoft, but because of them. (And I'll bet you do to.)
>
>Yesterday, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board stated in
a
>speech, that for the past 7 years, the US economy has grown through
>increases in productivity to a degree that's never been seen before in its
>history. Is it merely coincidence that also 7 years ago, this month,
Windows
>3.1 became available? I think not.
>
>I am competitive too, and as long as I have the tools, DOJ be damned, I
will
>remain that way. Go ahead and copy my work, (it's been done before) it
>doesn't matter, because the time you spend reverse engineering what I am
>doing, I will be spending building something even better. I will always be
a
>jump ahead, and you will be supporting old technology. Or is it that you
>think that technology won't keep driving onward? BTW, if I ever build
>something so great that the market looks that good to Microsoft, I'd bet
>they would buy it rather than copy it, for the same reasons (i.e. it's
>cheaper to buy a good idea than to build one)
>-----
>Arvin Meyer
>onsite_at_esinet.net
>
>Carl at CPAccess wrote in message <37344136.100219765_at_netnews.msn.com>...
>>An apt comparison is Gates and John D. Rockefeller. The arrangements
>>Rockefeller developed with railroads, to the exclusion of competitive
>>petroleum companies, were legal at the time.
>>
>>Gates, with help from his dad, a patent attorney, has pirated alot of
>>intellectual property. A recent idea is the web browser, a billion
>>dollar concept to be sure, but the pattern goes way back.
>>
>>Gates once commented that anything that was publicly displayed, such
>>as at a trade show, could be cloned unless the developer first made
>>him sign a non-disclosure agreement.
>>
>>To Gates, a show like Comdex is a candy store.
>>
>>The Justice Department has no concept how to deal with this level of
>>piracy. In the browser situation, they focused on the fact that
>>Microsoft gave away its browser, causing injury to the originator
>>which needed the revenue to continue in business.
>>
>>However, the market is very close to imposing a limit. Venture
>>capitalists are not funding Windows developments because the risk is,
>>if it succeeds, MS will steal it without compensation and give it away
>>in direct competition to the originator.
>>
>>The MS Empire could run out of ideas to steal, and Gates could have
>>the same level of public relations problem as Rockefeller in his
>>waning years.
>>
>> - Carl
>>
>>On Thu, 6 May 1999 12:56:01 -0400, "Arvin Meyer" <a_at_m.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>dgallardo_at_my-dejanews.com wrote in message
><7gsdqh$2mi$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>>>
>>>>With regard to the more academic argument, of course, there is no
>question:
>>>>Oracle is way better than SQL Server. And Microsoft is an evil empire,
>>>Bill
>>>>Gates is the AntiChrist, and there is no hope once you've been
>assimilated.
>>>
>>>I doubt that Oracle is *better* than SQL-Server. Each tool has its niche.
>>>
>>>For an AntiChrist, Bill Gates sure gives away a lot of his own money for
>>>charitable purposes.
>>>
>>>I am assimilated <g> (richer and happier too <vbg>)
>>>-----
>>>Arvin Meyer
>>>onsite_at_esinet.net
>>>
>>
>>- Carl Dick
>>
>>949-261-2694
>>800-997-7944
>>cpaccess_at_usa.net
>>www.cpaccess.com
>
>
Received on Sun May 09 1999 - 12:40:26 CDT