Slashdot Mirror

Meanwhile under the table: Psst...Hitachi... want to sell another Windows box ever again? No BEOS in our BIOS, please.

WinFS was touted as the next big thing in Longhorn/Vista. They couldn't even do it when they stole the code .. link

From He Who Controls the Bootloader : End of an Era :

• "it became clear that Microsoft had no intention of co-existing with a rival OS vendor peacefully, Gassée recanted, saying, "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense -- I deserve it.""
• "...the "Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" to when installing Windows. This license is not available online. This is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and computer vendors. You and I can't read the license because Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret.""

Be's complaint :

• BE INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 02837MEJ Defendant.

From Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret :

• "The OEM allegations are supported by the findings in United States vs. Microsoft, specifically the findings regarding the coercion of OEM manufacturers not to change the web-browser. However, the findings regarding the installation of another OS are only vague with regard to "modifications of the boot-up sequence" (which is necessary in order to install another OS), and a lot of relevant material is redacted from the transcripts."

>...between Windows 95 and XP did you EVER have the option of buying
> a PC that was dual boot ... beOS ... AND Windows?

Yes. In 1999, Hitachi sold a desktop computer that had both BeOS and Windows pre-installed on the hard disk. To run BeOS for the first time, however, the user had to install the BeOS boot loader using a BeOS bootup floppy disk. Anti-competitive actions by Microsoft prevented Hitachi from pre-installing the BeOS boot loader on the hard disk. Source:

http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:3N2lD1CwqlMJ: www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf

They settled for about 23 million dollars. Read about it here.

Not that easy. A is already taken by a popular TV series.. The same series actually consumed the letter T. B is unusable, as it used to be associated with a failed operating system. C is, obviously, a popular programming language. Now, we could settle for D, but I think it could be confusing for chemists, who use it to describe chiral isomers. E would be a bad idea, as e- is one of the most hated prefixes of the present day. F obviously if out of question, as it stands for a chemical element, and G would create too many lame slashdot jokes related to clitoris. I could actually go this way through the whole ASCII table, but I'm too lazy for it.

Slashdot didn't pick up the story when it happened a couple of weeks ago, but Be, Inc. has settled its antitrust suit against Microsoft for $23 million. Microsoft, as usual, admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement.

Readers may recall that Be brought their suit against the Microsoft back in February 2002. At the time this suit was brought, it was becoming obvious that the US government's antitrust suit against Microsoft was not going to result in any significant punishment for the convicted monopolist, and in fact time has borne this out -- Microsoft is arguably more powerful today than ever before.

Some observers felt Be's claims that Microsoft's vendor contracts excluded competitors from the market was a stronger case than the browser bundling aspect that the US department of justice pursued, but in the end it seems that Be no longer had the resources to complete the trial.

With the Be lawsuit abandoned, the best hopes for a remedy to the Microsoft monopoly now seem to be in the European courts, or with a possible regime change in the USA in 2005.

Microsoft may have gotten away with murder, but at least we've got people nursing the corpse along, as stories like the current one illustrate. *sigh*

link with why BE sued

I reckon Be should have applied for an ongoing pay out, eg $23 million per year, since Microsoft's actions effectively forced Be out of the market even though the Yahoo/Microsoft statement says that Be went belly up had nothing to do with Microsoft. Crap. That's why Be sued in the first place.

These things shouldn't be solved by civil law cases, they should be solved by criminal law cases. How often does a criminal case get settled "out of court". I guess plea bargaining counts but it usually doesn't allow you to buy your way out of jail if you were bad/provable-guilty enough.

The PC vendors asked Microsoft out on a date... After dating for a while, a new girl shows up (Be), and some PC vendors ask her to dinner... decide they prefer Microsoft, so they leave Be to go patch things up with MSFT.

You have it about right, except for the fact that Microsoft violated at least a half dozen laws in the process. Microsoft is that psychotic girlfriend who makes making illegal threats to anyone Be works with, illegally sabotages the strip-mall where Be gets a job, and who illegally interferes with Be's bank affairs.

Try reading the legal complaint. Hell, Microsoft has already been convicted on most of these charges. It's more like the movie Fatal attraction with the added bonus that Glenn Close is a prison babe on parole and Michael Duglass decides to marry the psycho bitch to avoid getting killed by her.

-

The complaint filed by Be basically centres around the fact that they had a number of manufacturers willing to distribute Beos as a dual boot System. In particular it describes how they had an agreement with Hitatchi to distribute Beos Pre-installed alongside windows. Apparently Microsofts big wigs turned up at Hitachi and gave them a good ticking off, apparently the OEM license prohibits Windows being installed in a dual boot configuration with any other operating system.Hitachi got a right royal bollocking from the big boys ... and eventaully offered be the option of allowing the customer to boot and install manually via a floppy disk (which as you can imagine is a waste of time idea !)

As If you needed to be reminded about just how much Microsoft are evil bastards one more time the pdf, makes a good case.

That press release BTW is a microsoft one, Its only natural that they would'nt admit any wrong doing.

> they certainly weren't a government granted monopoly like AT&T once was

oh, really?!?

which part of monopoly was the justice department not ignoring during the MS antritrust lawsuit when Be, Inc. filed ?

they only used Netscape's browser infringement plea, blatantly disregarding evidence of monopolistic clauses in OEM contracts, which were (if I recall) disallowed as evidence in the case.

I believe their monopoly of the OEMs goes like this: you cannot ship Windows with *any* other OS, therefore vendors must choose rather than allowing their customers to do so - the result is less differentiation and coordinating market dominance.

Hmmm, Backfire on MS? Or am I reading this wrong?

AtheOS
BeOS
Amiga
atari's os
Ecomstation (fka OS2)

those are the *easy ones*... there are probably 500 more...

More details on the BeOS issue from their press release:

MENLO PARK, Calif. -- February 19, 2002 -- Be Incorporated (NASDAQ:BEOS) announced today it has filed suit against Microsoft Corporation for the destruction of Be's business resulting from the anticompetitive business practices of Microsoft. The lawsuit alleges, among other claims, that Microsoft harmed Be through a series of illegal exclusionary and anticompetitive acts designed to maintain its monopoly in the Intel-compatible PC operating system market and created exclusive dealing arrangements with PC OEMs prohibiting the sale of PCs with multiple preinstalled operating systems. Be has retained the law firm of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. on a contingent fee basis to represent Be and to seek recovery of damages for the benefit of the company and its stockholders. The suit has been filed in the United States District Court in San Francisco.

Here is a link to the filing brief (pdf file): http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf

I *highly* recommend reading the lawsuit filing brief, as it outlines in great detail exactly what MS did to Be, ranging from restrictive OEM deals to manipulation of the market for Be's stock that would make Martha Stewart look like a saint.

Huh? I thought Be was already dead.

People didn't have the problem with M$ doing what Apple does because M$ didn't. The problems that were lodged against M$ involved bundling (and making it impossible to remove) applications from the system and bullying OEMs to prevent competitor distribution (read the BeOS lawsuit writeup [warning PDF]).

Also, people don't nessesarily have to be consistant. Things should be judged on a case by case basis. It slows down judgements sure, but not all cases that look similar are the same.

Compaq repeatedly assured Be of its enthusiasm for the project, and stated that only BeOS could meet the project's technical, cost, and delivery timeline requirements. Compaq assured Be that Windows CE was not suitable for the device.

In October 1998, however, Compaq informed Be that it had disclosed information about the Be Internet appliance project to Microsoft. Later that same month, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates visited Compaq CEO Eckhard Pfeiffer as part of a "Digital Appliances Review."

In early November, under pressure from Microsoft, Compaq informed Be that it was no longer interested in licensing BeOS.

But lets be honest: if something goes wrong, she's going to have to get down and dirty - and thats not acceptable by "consumer" standards.
Well, asuming the alternative is Windows, what regular user is able to fix a problem with Windows? They all call their nearest computer geek.. I get called down to my former teacher when the toolbars in Word gets rearranged.

They have choice - even if they don't know it.
Take a look at the Be case. Read their filing - it's quite fun a read, actually. Plain english, not the usual legal blah-blah. Users don't have the choice. Users do not want to research, download and install Linux or FreeBSD or any other operating system by themselves. They want to get into a store, buy a computer, and have it work. Period.

Be's case is mostly concerning their dual-boot strategy. Be figured out, quite correctly, that replacing Windows overnight is rather futile. So they wanted OEMs (original equiment manufactureres, here: the folks that's selling computers) to sell computers with dual-boot, BeOS and Windows. BeOS would then slowly have a greater market share and larger user base (as BeOS is a great OS), and more application would have been made, and the ball would roll. But Microsoft's tactics on OEMs is.. what to say? Unethical. Anti-competive. Illegal. Read the PDF at http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdfIt 's a really interesting read, and not written in usual advocate-language. Plain understandable english.

I was about to say "may you rest in peace", but I don't want BeOS to rest in peace. Most of all, I want it to raise again, but it doesn't seem possible.. Next thing I wish is that BeOS will set an example for the future. That people would say "look at Be! Don't let that happen again." I want Be to win their case.

Come back when you have something that works for real work that isn't just a theory, and if it's better than X without losing any of the benefits or extensibility
Well I would say BeOS and Directfb Fits most of that, but still people like "10 years of binary compatibility" better the a gui that feel 10 times as fast ;-)

Just for the record, Be sold all its assets to Palm except the right to litigate; we (I'm a proud stockholder) are sueing, not Palm. I haven't sold my stock & don't intend to. Have you read the case? People have odd perceptions; they think a company like Microsoft (or Enron) can't fall just because it hasn't so far. This is 90% of the power they wield.

But back to AMD, my point about game theory was this: giving in to coercion in a case like this dosn't remove the threat, it simply defers it 'till the next time they want something from you. Whereas exposing the fact of the threat often makes it impossible for it to be carried out. If someone threatens to kill you and make it look like an accident unless you do as they say, your best bet is to publish far and wide the facts of their threat, so that the cost of acting on it becomes too great. Often (but not always) your chance of successfully beating the coercion gambit fall with time, since one of the main things the bully will do with their power is make it harder and harder for you to resist. So at any given point in time, you are better off resisting than going along and hoping things get better.

Case in point, if Microsoft has implied that they won't support AMD products in in their software (or break things, as they've done in the past, say with Digital Research & others), AMD should announce the fact.

-- MarkusQ

as noted here, why would Be want to hold onto an OS it doesn't want to sell? It will become as irrelevant eventually as Dr. DOS

If you want to read the best example and case of this, go to Be's website and read about their lawsuit againts M$. The official complaint is availible in PDF format and though a little long in the legaleese, reads like a story book.

The OEM Licensing agreement you are refering to is considered a trade secret. NOBODY but the legal teams at the OEMS are allowed to read it. Your idea assumes that the licensing agreement doesn't explicitly exclude the "loophole" you described.

Okay, giving your idea the benefit of the doubt, Microsoft's OEM licensing agreements are contingent on the whim of Microsoft. If an OEM, and I'm not talking about Joe OEM, I'm talking about the big names, Gateway, Compaq, Dell, even look at Microsoft crosseyed, Microsoft may yoink their OEM license agreement, which would subsequently mean immediate death to said OEM. They can't afford to sell computers if they aquire Windows at a retail price. This means that Microsoft has a lot of leverage outside of their exclusionary licensing agreement that does not leave a lot of room for OEMs to be "creative".

This topic is what Be's complaint is about. When Compaq announced that they were going to market a Internet Applicance running Be's BeIA, well, read this quote from Be's complaint:

51. In October 1998, however, Compaq informed Be that it had disclosed information about the Be Internet appliance project to Microsoft. Later that same month, Microsoft Chairman
Bill Gates visited Compaq CEO Eckhard Pfeiffer as part of a "Digital Appliances Review."
52. In early November, under pressure from Microsoft, Compaq informed Be that it was no longer interested in licensing BeOS.

Microsoft used monopoly illegaly (tried and convicted by the highest appeals court). Their control over OEMs extends past their written contracts.

The OEM Licensing agreement you are refering to is considered a trade secret. NOBODY but the legal teams at the OEMS are allowed to read it. Your idea assumes that the licensing agreement doesn't explicitly exclude the "loophole" you described.

Okay, giving your idea the benefit of the doubt, Microsoft's OEM licensing agreements are contingent on the whim of Microsoft. If an OEM, and I'm not talking about Joe OEM, I'm talking about the big names, Gateway, Compaq, Dell, even look at Microsoft crosseyed, Microsoft may yoink their OEM license agreement, which would subsequently mean immediate death to said OEM. They can't afford to sell computers if they aquire Windows at a retail price. This means that Microsoft has a lot of leverage outside of their exclusionary licensing agreement that does not leave a lot of room for OEMs to be "creative".

This topic is what Be's complaint is about. When Compaq announced that they were going to market a Internet Applicance running Be's BeIA, well, read this quote from Be's complaint:

51. In October 1998, however, Compaq informed Be that it had disclosed information about the Be Internet appliance project to Microsoft. Later that same month, Microsoft Chairman
Bill Gates visited Compaq CEO Eckhard Pfeiffer as part of a "Digital Appliances Review."
52. In early November, under pressure from Microsoft, Compaq informed Be that it was no longer interested in licensing BeOS.

Microsoft used monopoly illegaly (tried and convicted by the highest appeals court). Their control over OEMs extends past their written contracts.

45. Microsoft attempted to prevent the Internet appliance from developing into a fully functional platform that might compete with Windows-based Intel-compatible PCs by means of a strategy it referred to internally as "embrace, ex tend, extinguish." According to this strategy, Microsoft publicly embraced industry-standard cross-platform protocols and programming languages, such as Hypertext Markup Language ("HTML") and Sun's Java. It then extended those standards, often subtly or secretly, when implementing them in its own products such as the Internet Explorer browser, so that applications and Internet content created according to the standards as extended by Microsoft would only work with Windows or Windows-based browsers. The resulting fragmentation of the extended standards eventually resulted in those standards becoming extinguished as tools for easily developing cross-platform applications and content. This further reinforced the applications barrier to entry, and with it, Windows's dominant position in its own market.

But hey, it couldn't have been too bad of a move for the company, they're stock shot up 20% today (to 0.12/share... but still ;).

Pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement, Be retained certain rights, assets and liabilities in connection with the transaction, including its cash and cash equivalents, receivables, certain contractual liabilities under in-licensing agreements, and rights to assert and bring certain claims and causes of action, including under antitrust laws. Be is in the process of investigating the merits and potential value of pursuing the retained claims and causes of action. Be has not yet brought any such claim or cause of action. Under the terms of the plan of dissolution, if, notwithstanding the approval of the dissolution and the adoption of the plan of dissolution by the stockholders of Be, the board of directors of Be determines that it would be in the best interests of Be's stockholders or creditors for Be not to dissolve, including in order to permit Be to pursue (or more easily pursue) any retained claims or causes of action, the dissolution of Be may be abandoned or delayed until a future date to be determined by Be's board of directors. Regardless of whether Be dissolves, Be will not continue to exist as an operating entity.

Of course he is. Dan Johnston, longtime general counsel for Be, is now the CEO (and receptionist, and IT staff).