Slashdot Mirror

Ellison gets bad press for being big brother, IBM pulling ahead of Oracle, and now this. It's good to see some other players get ahead in the market. I never much cared for Oracle software. Ok, Microsoft is evil blah blah, but I think SQL Server's management tools are pretty swell. Alas, SQL Server only comes on Windows.

Then again, SQL*Plus is pretty cool ;)

I've seen some people refer to Nader's call for MS to pay dividends and to the Ford/Dodge court case that brought this issue up about 75 years ago. However, I haven't seen any details posted here.

The article I saw in January about Nader's case (argument, not legal case) makes it clear what the beef is:

By not receiving a dividend, wealthy Microsoft shareholders avoid paying the top marginal income tax rate of more than 39 percent levied on such income, Nader said. Instead, wealthy shareholders take advantage of the cash pile by selling company stock, which is subject only to a capital gains tax of 20 percent, Nader said. In the letter, Nader and CPT director James Love said U.S. tax laws contain a provision called the "accumulated earnings tax," which says companies that allow earnings to accumulate beyond "reasonable needs" of the business may be required to pay a tax of 39.6 percent on those earnings.

Regarding the Ford/Dodge case, that happened in the Michigan state court system and is summarized as part of this article I found. An extract:

The lawsuit was aimed at Henry Ford's tightfisted dividend policy. Ford Motors had become one of the world's most profitable companies and was literally piling up unspent cash that it could not invest fast enough, yet was recently refusing to pay out much more than 1 percent of its net income in dividends. Because it was the company's principal shareholder, Henry Ford, who managed the company, this was a classic case of upholding the rights of minority shareholders against the tyranny of a majority investor. [...] The court rejected Henry Ford's defense that "my ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes" (Dodge Bros. v. Ford, 1919: p. 505). While his assertion is usually taken at face value to violate accepted norms of proper business purpose, the court may well have been aware that he was speaking with dubious sincerity (Jardim, 1970).

As the author mentions in passing, there is some question "as to whether dicta from a state court decision remains influential after seventy-five years"... but I gather it's the only major case testing the same issue

Greenspan's Friday anouncment on moving stock options to the business expense coulmn.

From that article... "The seemingly arcane accounting debate would have a huge impact on U.S. companies. The Fed has estimated that annual corporate earnings growth between 1995 and 2000 was 2.5 percentage points higher for big companies because they did not have to count options as expenses subtracting from their earnings. "

Also check out this news.com article. It shows that I messed up that loss estimate but there still is a big difference.

This is defiantly still pertinant, but I do owe people an apology.

Microsoft's enormous cash reserves may constitute an illegal tax shelter. See here and here for more details.

Alan,

On the enterprise side, one of the greatest strengths of Linux has been its ability to be an extremely secure OS.
Now that Microsoft has shifted its focus to security being the top priority, and given their ability to shift gears extremely quickly and effectively (ala Internet Explorer), it is quite apparent that Microsoft will be contending for top honors in the security area within the next 2-3 years.

What impact, if any, do you perceive this having on Linux development, Linux deployment, and the Linux community in general?

You don't need to be Microsoft to predict Open Source's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Open Source faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Open Source because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Open Source. As many of us are already aware, Open Source continues to lose market support. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Red Hat is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Linux leader Linus states that there are many users of Linux. How many users of Linux are there? Let's see. The Linux counter extrapolates a figure of 125,613 registered Linux users to eighteen million actual users. A recent article put Linux at about 0.03% of the desktop market. This result and the discrepancy on the Linux counter are consistent with the fact that only about 1 in every 150 Linux newbies have successfully set up PPP.

Due to the troubles of ArsDigita, Eazel, Linuxcare, Cygnus, Aktopia -- abysmal sales and so on -- they all went out of business or were taken over by Red Hat who also sell the troubled OS. Now Red Hat is almost dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that Open Source has steadily declined in business credibility. Linux is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Linux is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. Open Source continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Open Source is dead.

Fact: Open Source is dying

There's a decent, if outdated, summary of the case here .

The problem with the whole Monsterhut situation was that they basically had a completely free hand at spamming the shit out of everyone's mailboxes, while this whole thing slowly made its way through courts. Monsterhut obtained a TRO against being shut down by Paetec for any reason, while this whole thing was playing out.

Nice, eh? A license to spam.

Well, it's all water under the bridge now. The consensus in various forums where this whole issue was discussed to death was that Paetec was making a good-faith effort to get the whole mess resolved and Monsterhut shut down. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I always had the impression that Paetec was always too eager to trot out the excuse that they are prohibited by court order from shutting down this spamming parasite, in response to every spam complaint (with a generous side-order of crocodile tears).

Anyway, I firmly believe that Monsterhut had a pink contract here, but when the complaints began to roll in, and Paetec's IP address space began to get blocklisted, Paetec began backtracking, trying to invoke their standard AUP close, and Monsterhut responded by taking them to court.

Read up on the history of the DivX codec, and you'll see it was originally called "DivX ;-)" as a gesture to make of the Circuit City technology that the others so vehemently opposed. I can't find the sites now, but about 2 years ago there was a great article about the developement of the DivX ;-) codec and I'd highly recommend reading it if you can find it.

is releasing a redigned chip in august? traditionally, nvidia has been releasing new chips in the spring and then introducint a beefed up version of the same chip in the fall. This year they are introducing a "fundamentally new architecture" only 6 months after they anounced the geforce4. my guess is that they had a feeling that ruling OpenGL 1.3 and DX8.1 isn't enough and that this next chip will keep them competative with upcoming chips like this new one from 3d labs.

but that's speculation.

I was asked to research this at work a few weeks ago - here's a few links:

News.com, December 11, 2001: "Businesses should limit these commitments to product lines that Gartner has already identified as strategically sound [...]: Compaq Proliant servers"

News.com, March 8, 2002: "At a minimum, HP will adopt the Proliant line, according to every source interviewed"

Steven Vaughan-Nichols, September 5, 2001: "the Proliant (always a troublesome line, in my experience), will gradually be phased away in favor of Netserver. I'll be surprised if there's a new 2002 line of Proliants." (...I tend to believe the opposite of whatever this man predicts.)

I was asked to research this at work a few weeks ago - here's a few links:

News.com, December 11, 2001: "Businesses should limit these commitments to product lines that Gartner has already identified as strategically sound [...]: Compaq Proliant servers"

News.com, March 8, 2002: "At a minimum, HP will adopt the Proliant line, according to every source interviewed"

Steven Vaughan-Nichols, September 5, 2001: "the Proliant (always a troublesome line, in my experience), will gradually be phased away in favor of Netserver. I'll be surprised if there's a new 2002 line of Proliants." (...I tend to believe the opposite of whatever this man predicts.)

The Davis campaign committee reported receiving the Oracle check in June, two weeks after Oracle won the lucrative state software contract, which was awarded without competitive bidding.

Without competitive bidding... And a check received from a company boasting its software is unbreakable.

No, this is not quite on a par with the W. Bush dealings with Enron. But it's getting close.

Madnick said the diagram showed how Windows was like a "house of cards" [emphasis mine] that could collapse if any of the pieces were removed.

AMD CEO Jerry Sanders admitting that he hadn't read the state's proposed sanctions, and that he'd specifically asked Microsoft to support AMD's new chip (which they have, since) (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883961.html)

University of Chicago economist Kevin Murphy admitting that he'd done little on antitrust until hired by Microsoft in 1998, and that all of his research since had been at least partially funded by them (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-885605.html)

Onyx Chief Executive Brent Frei (the former Microsoftie), who also hadn't read the states proposals, had Microsoft general counsel Bill Neukom tell him what to testify about and had to ask Neukom what "balkanization" meant. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-886341.html) (about halfway down the page).

Autodesk Chief Technology Officer Scott Borduin's, who after disparing the state's sanctions because it would put at risk the "stable, predictable" platform offered by Windows", was forced to admit that he had complained when Microsoft excluded Java from Windows XP, thus fragmenting Windows. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-886341.html)

AMD CEO Jerry Sanders admitting that he hadn't read the state's proposed sanctions, and that he'd specifically asked Microsoft to support AMD's new chip (which they have, since) (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883961.html)

University of Chicago economist Kevin Murphy admitting that he'd done little on antitrust until hired by Microsoft in 1998, and that all of his research since had been at least partially funded by them (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-885605.html)

Onyx Chief Executive Brent Frei (the former Microsoftie), who also hadn't read the states proposals, had Microsoft general counsel Bill Neukom tell him what to testify about and had to ask Neukom what "balkanization" meant. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-886341.html) (about halfway down the page).

Autodesk Chief Technology Officer Scott Borduin's, who after disparing the state's sanctions because it would put at risk the "stable, predictable" platform offered by Windows", was forced to admit that he had complained when Microsoft excluded Java from Windows XP, thus fragmenting Windows. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-886341.html)

AMD CEO Jerry Sanders admitting that he hadn't read the state's proposed sanctions, and that he'd specifically asked Microsoft to support AMD's new chip (which they have, since) (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883961.html)

University of Chicago economist Kevin Murphy admitting that he'd done little on antitrust until hired by Microsoft in 1998, and that all of his research since had been at least partially funded by them (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-885605.html)

Onyx Chief Executive Brent Frei (the former Microsoftie), who also hadn't read the states proposals, had Microsoft general counsel Bill Neukom tell him what to testify about and had to ask Neukom what "balkanization" meant. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-886341.html) (about halfway down the page).

Autodesk Chief Technology Officer Scott Borduin's, who after disparing the state's sanctions because it would put at risk the "stable, predictable" platform offered by Windows", was forced to admit that he had complained when Microsoft excluded Java from Windows XP, thus fragmenting Windows. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-886341.html)

AMD CEO Jerry Sanders admitting that he hadn't read the state's proposed sanctions, and that he'd specifically asked Microsoft to support AMD's new chip (which they have, since) (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883961.html)

University of Chicago economist Kevin Murphy admitting that he'd done little on antitrust until hired by Microsoft in 1998, and that all of his research since had been at least partially funded by them (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-885605.html)

Onyx Chief Executive Brent Frei (the former Microsoftie), who also hadn't read the states proposals, had Microsoft general counsel Bill Neukom tell him what to testify about and had to ask Neukom what "balkanization" meant. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-886341.html) (about halfway down the page).

Autodesk Chief Technology Officer Scott Borduin's, who after disparing the state's sanctions because it would put at risk the "stable, predictable" platform offered by Windows", was forced to admit that he had complained when Microsoft excluded Java from Windows XP, thus fragmenting Windows. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-886341.html)

It's about halfway down the article.

Onyx Chief Executive Brent Frei (the former Microsoftie) admitting about "balkanization" (same URL, lower down in the article)

University of Chicago economist Kevin Murphy admitting that he'd done little on antitrust until hired by Microsoft in 1998, and that all of his research since had been at least partially funded by them (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-885605.html)

AMD CEO Jerry Sanders admitting that he hadn't read the state's proposed sanctions, and that he'd specifically asked Microsoft to support AMD's new chip (which they have, since) (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883961.html)

Onyx Chief Executive Brent Frei (the former Microsoftie) admitting about "balkanization" (same URL, lower down in the article)

University of Chicago economist Kevin Murphy admitting that he'd done little on antitrust until hired by Microsoft in 1998, and that all of his research since had been at least partially funded by them (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-885605.html)

AMD CEO Jerry Sanders admitting that he hadn't read the state's proposed sanctions, and that he'd specifically asked Microsoft to support AMD's new chip (which they have, since) (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883961.html)

Onyx Chief Executive Brent Frei (the former Microsoftie) admitting about "balkanization" (same URL, lower down in the article)

University of Chicago economist Kevin Murphy admitting that he'd done little on antitrust until hired by Microsoft in 1998, and that all of his research since had been at least partially funded by them (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-885605.html)

AMD CEO Jerry Sanders admitting that he hadn't read the state's proposed sanctions, and that he'd specifically asked Microsoft to support AMD's new chip (which they have, since) (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-883961.html)

From news.com.com:

Jerry Sanders, chief executive of computer chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices, also conceded he had not read the states' proposed sanctions ...

"You've never checked to this day whether what Mr. Gates told you...was true in the remedies," Gutman challenged. Sanders agreed he had not read the states' proposals.

From the Register:

And in written testimony to the court, Sanders quotes from AMD's annual report: "If we fail to retain the support and certifications of Microsoft, our ability to market our processors could be materially adversely affected." (Remember, this is a witness for Microsoft.)

Back to news.com.com:

Gates' appearance next week would be his first in-person appearance at the trial. In the main portion of the trial, Gates appeared in a videotaped deposition. In portions of that videotape, Gates repeatedly answered questions with "I don't know" and "I don't recall." His statements were frequently contradicted by e-mails he had sent and received, and he frequently claimed no recollection of the messages.

Even Business Week, in a generally flattering review of Gates' testimony, leads with:

Is Bill Gates Doing Himself Any Favors?
He's poised and confident on the stand, a far cry from his deposition during the antitrust trial. But maybe he shouldn't be there at all

Good old news.com.com again:

During cross-examination Wednesday, states' attorney Steven Kuney brought up the issue of Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows made for gas pumps and other machines that contains the core elements of Windows but doesn't necessarily contain browsers or messaging software, depending on how it is configured.

Kuney asked Gates if Windows XP Embedded could be installed on PCs. Gates responded, "You could configure it for that."

But Gates said he didn't know of anyone who had done such a thing, later acknowledging that one reason is because Microsoft doesn't license XP Embedded for that purpose.

Back to the Register:

One of the exhibits in the previous stages of the Microsoft antitrust trial included an email from one Chris Jones, recommending to Bill Gates that the binding of IE into Windows should be such that users would find running rival browsers "a jolting experience." At the time many people, not least of them the Department of Justice, seemed to think that this and other associated exhibits were all about the anticompetitive tying of IE into Windows in order to destroy Netscape. But apparently not - MS Windows exec Chris, taking the stand yesterday, put forward an explanation of almost patentable novelty.

What he meant, he said, was that the experience would be jolting for good reasons if it occurred because of the "great innovations" that integration of IE brought to Windows. So presumably you could think about the new versions of IE Microsoft was designing as being truly wondrous, and that users would therefore find use of the comparatively stone age rival products truly unpleasant.
...
Another interesting point was brought up by States' attorney Kevin Hodges, who established that the proposed MS-DoJ settlement had less teeth to it than appears at first glance. Under this deal PC manufacturers will have the right to install rival companies' software, but it's still feasible for Microsoft to bar them from running Netscape when the computer is first turned on. Jones seems to have argued that as IE was a part of Windows, Microsoft didn't have to give OEMs the right to run Netscape. (So much for Microsoft allowing competition on the desktop.)

Now from Wired:

Several companies, as well as the nine states, argue that Microsoft adopted open technology standards only to make them proprietary later, forcing many to use Microsoft products. Sutherland said he did not study any records of Microsoft's conduct.

"You did not take into consideration Microsoft's past conduct in these proceedings?" Schmidtlein asked.

"Only as background," Sutherland said, adding that he didn't find it relevant.

And again from news.com.com:

But under questioning from the states' lawyer, Sutherland acknowledged that he knew little about Microsoft's past anti-competitive conduct and had no experience with the kind of Web-based services at issue in the case.
...
Sutherland said any company that wants to compete in the telecommunications business must make its technologies work seamlessly with other companies' services.
...
Under questioning from states' attorney John Schmidtlein, however, Sutherland conceded he had no direct experience with Web-based messaging and was only part of a small group at Qwest that is studying the possibility of getting into the business of Web-based messaging.

He also admitted the group was formed less than a month ago--nearly two months after Microsoft named him as a witness in the antitrust case.

"My intention is to offer the court an understanding of how the communications world works," Sutherland told the judge. "My testimony is not specific to Microsoft's behavior on the Windows desktop."

As someone said, if this represents the level and quality of Microsoft's legal team's trial prep, you have to wonder how much they're getting paid.

From news.com.com:

Jerry Sanders, chief executive of computer chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices, also conceded he had not read the states' proposed sanctions ...

"You've never checked to this day whether what Mr. Gates told you...was true in the remedies," Gutman challenged. Sanders agreed he had not read the states' proposals.

From the Register:

And in written testimony to the court, Sanders quotes from AMD's annual report: "If we fail to retain the support and certifications of Microsoft, our ability to market our processors could be materially adversely affected." (Remember, this is a witness for Microsoft.)

Back to news.com.com:

Gates' appearance next week would be his first in-person appearance at the trial. In the main portion of the trial, Gates appeared in a videotaped deposition. In portions of that videotape, Gates repeatedly answered questions with "I don't know" and "I don't recall." His statements were frequently contradicted by e-mails he had sent and received, and he frequently claimed no recollection of the messages.

Even Business Week, in a generally flattering review of Gates' testimony, leads with:

Is Bill Gates Doing Himself Any Favors?
He's poised and confident on the stand, a far cry from his deposition during the antitrust trial. But maybe he shouldn't be there at all

Good old news.com.com again:

During cross-examination Wednesday, states' attorney Steven Kuney brought up the issue of Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows made for gas pumps and other machines that contains the core elements of Windows but doesn't necessarily contain browsers or messaging software, depending on how it is configured.

Kuney asked Gates if Windows XP Embedded could be installed on PCs. Gates responded, "You could configure it for that."

But Gates said he didn't know of anyone who had done such a thing, later acknowledging that one reason is because Microsoft doesn't license XP Embedded for that purpose.

Back to the Register:

One of the exhibits in the previous stages of the Microsoft antitrust trial included an email from one Chris Jones, recommending to Bill Gates that the binding of IE into Windows should be such that users would find running rival browsers "a jolting experience." At the time many people, not least of them the Department of Justice, seemed to think that this and other associated exhibits were all about the anticompetitive tying of IE into Windows in order to destroy Netscape. But apparently not - MS Windows exec Chris, taking the stand yesterday, put forward an explanation of almost patentable novelty.

What he meant, he said, was that the experience would be jolting for good reasons if it occurred because of the "great innovations" that integration of IE brought to Windows. So presumably you could think about the new versions of IE Microsoft was designing as being truly wondrous, and that users would therefore find use of the comparatively stone age rival products truly unpleasant.
...
Another interesting point was brought up by States' attorney Kevin Hodges, who established that the proposed MS-DoJ settlement had less teeth to it than appears at first glance. Under this deal PC manufacturers will have the right to install rival companies' software, but it's still feasible for Microsoft to bar them from running Netscape when the computer is first turned on. Jones seems to have argued that as IE was a part of Windows, Microsoft didn't have to give OEMs the right to run Netscape. (So much for Microsoft allowing competition on the desktop.)

Now from Wired:

Several companies, as well as the nine states, argue that Microsoft adopted open technology standards only to make them proprietary later, forcing many to use Microsoft products. Sutherland said he did not study any records of Microsoft's conduct.

"You did not take into consideration Microsoft's past conduct in these proceedings?" Schmidtlein asked.

"Only as background," Sutherland said, adding that he didn't find it relevant.

And again from news.com.com:

But under questioning from the states' lawyer, Sutherland acknowledged that he knew little about Microsoft's past anti-competitive conduct and had no experience with the kind of Web-based services at issue in the case.
...
Sutherland said any company that wants to compete in the telecommunications business must make its technologies work seamlessly with other companies' services.
...
Under questioning from states' attorney John Schmidtlein, however, Sutherland conceded he had no direct experience with Web-based messaging and was only part of a small group at Qwest that is studying the possibility of getting into the business of Web-based messaging.

He also admitted the group was formed less than a month ago--nearly two months after Microsoft named him as a witness in the antitrust case.

"My intention is to offer the court an understanding of how the communications world works," Sutherland told the judge. "My testimony is not specific to Microsoft's behavior on the Windows desktop."

As someone said, if this represents the level and quality of Microsoft's legal team's trial prep, you have to wonder how much they're getting paid.

From news.com.com:

Jerry Sanders, chief executive of computer chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices, also conceded he had not read the states' proposed sanctions ...

"You've never checked to this day whether what Mr. Gates told you...was true in the remedies," Gutman challenged. Sanders agreed he had not read the states' proposals.

From the Register:

And in written testimony to the court, Sanders quotes from AMD's annual report: "If we fail to retain the support and certifications of Microsoft, our ability to market our processors could be materially adversely affected." (Remember, this is a witness for Microsoft.)

Back to news.com.com:

Gates' appearance next week would be his first in-person appearance at the trial. In the main portion of the trial, Gates appeared in a videotaped deposition. In portions of that videotape, Gates repeatedly answered questions with "I don't know" and "I don't recall." His statements were frequently contradicted by e-mails he had sent and received, and he frequently claimed no recollection of the messages.

Even Business Week, in a generally flattering review of Gates' testimony, leads with:

Is Bill Gates Doing Himself Any Favors?
He's poised and confident on the stand, a far cry from his deposition during the antitrust trial. But maybe he shouldn't be there at all

Good old news.com.com again:

During cross-examination Wednesday, states' attorney Steven Kuney brought up the issue of Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows made for gas pumps and other machines that contains the core elements of Windows but doesn't necessarily contain browsers or messaging software, depending on how it is configured.

Kuney asked Gates if Windows XP Embedded could be installed on PCs. Gates responded, "You could configure it for that."

But Gates said he didn't know of anyone who had done such a thing, later acknowledging that one reason is because Microsoft doesn't license XP Embedded for that purpose.

Back to the Register:

One of the exhibits in the previous stages of the Microsoft antitrust trial included an email from one Chris Jones, recommending to Bill Gates that the binding of IE into Windows should be such that users would find running rival browsers "a jolting experience." At the time many people, not least of them the Department of Justice, seemed to think that this and other associated exhibits were all about the anticompetitive tying of IE into Windows in order to destroy Netscape. But apparently not - MS Windows exec Chris, taking the stand yesterday, put forward an explanation of almost patentable novelty.

What he meant, he said, was that the experience would be jolting for good reasons if it occurred because of the "great innovations" that integration of IE brought to Windows. So presumably you could think about the new versions of IE Microsoft was designing as being truly wondrous, and that users would therefore find use of the comparatively stone age rival products truly unpleasant.
...
Another interesting point was brought up by States' attorney Kevin Hodges, who established that the proposed MS-DoJ settlement had less teeth to it than appears at first glance. Under this deal PC manufacturers will have the right to install rival companies' software, but it's still feasible for Microsoft to bar them from running Netscape when the computer is first turned on. Jones seems to have argued that as IE was a part of Windows, Microsoft didn't have to give OEMs the right to run Netscape. (So much for Microsoft allowing competition on the desktop.)

Now from Wired:

Several companies, as well as the nine states, argue that Microsoft adopted open technology standards only to make them proprietary later, forcing many to use Microsoft products. Sutherland said he did not study any records of Microsoft's conduct.

"You did not take into consideration Microsoft's past conduct in these proceedings?" Schmidtlein asked.

"Only as background," Sutherland said, adding that he didn't find it relevant.

And again from news.com.com:

But under questioning from the states' lawyer, Sutherland acknowledged that he knew little about Microsoft's past anti-competitive conduct and had no experience with the kind of Web-based services at issue in the case.
...
Sutherland said any company that wants to compete in the telecommunications business must make its technologies work seamlessly with other companies' services.
...
Under questioning from states' attorney John Schmidtlein, however, Sutherland conceded he had no direct experience with Web-based messaging and was only part of a small group at Qwest that is studying the possibility of getting into the business of Web-based messaging.

He also admitted the group was formed less than a month ago--nearly two months after Microsoft named him as a witness in the antitrust case.

"My intention is to offer the court an understanding of how the communications world works," Sutherland told the judge. "My testimony is not specific to Microsoft's behavior on the Windows desktop."

As someone said, if this represents the level and quality of Microsoft's legal team's trial prep, you have to wonder how much they're getting paid.

From news.com.com:

Jerry Sanders, chief executive of computer chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices, also conceded he had not read the states' proposed sanctions ...

"You've never checked to this day whether what Mr. Gates told you...was true in the remedies," Gutman challenged. Sanders agreed he had not read the states' proposals.

From the Register:

And in written testimony to the court, Sanders quotes from AMD's annual report: "If we fail to retain the support and certifications of Microsoft, our ability to market our processors could be materially adversely affected." (Remember, this is a witness for Microsoft.)

Back to news.com.com:

Gates' appearance next week would be his first in-person appearance at the trial. In the main portion of the trial, Gates appeared in a videotaped deposition. In portions of that videotape, Gates repeatedly answered questions with "I don't know" and "I don't recall." His statements were frequently contradicted by e-mails he had sent and received, and he frequently claimed no recollection of the messages.

Even Business Week, in a generally flattering review of Gates' testimony, leads with:

Is Bill Gates Doing Himself Any Favors?
He's poised and confident on the stand, a far cry from his deposition during the antitrust trial. But maybe he shouldn't be there at all

Good old news.com.com again:

During cross-examination Wednesday, states' attorney Steven Kuney brought up the issue of Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows made for gas pumps and other machines that contains the core elements of Windows but doesn't necessarily contain browsers or messaging software, depending on how it is configured.

Kuney asked Gates if Windows XP Embedded could be installed on PCs. Gates responded, "You could configure it for that."

But Gates said he didn't know of anyone who had done such a thing, later acknowledging that one reason is because Microsoft doesn't license XP Embedded for that purpose.

Back to the Register:

One of the exhibits in the previous stages of the Microsoft antitrust trial included an email from one Chris Jones, recommending to Bill Gates that the binding of IE into Windows should be such that users would find running rival browsers "a jolting experience." At the time many people, not least of them the Department of Justice, seemed to think that this and other associated exhibits were all about the anticompetitive tying of IE into Windows in order to destroy Netscape. But apparently not - MS Windows exec Chris, taking the stand yesterday, put forward an explanation of almost patentable novelty.

What he meant, he said, was that the experience would be jolting for good reasons if it occurred because of the "great innovations" that integration of IE brought to Windows. So presumably you could think about the new versions of IE Microsoft was designing as being truly wondrous, and that users would therefore find use of the comparatively stone age rival products truly unpleasant.
...
Another interesting point was brought up by States' attorney Kevin Hodges, who established that the proposed MS-DoJ settlement had less teeth to it than appears at first glance. Under this deal PC manufacturers will have the right to install rival companies' software, but it's still feasible for Microsoft to bar them from running Netscape when the computer is first turned on. Jones seems to have argued that as IE was a part of Windows, Microsoft didn't have to give OEMs the right to run Netscape. (So much for Microsoft allowing competition on the desktop.)

Now from Wired:

Several companies, as well as the nine states, argue that Microsoft adopted open technology standards only to make them proprietary later, forcing many to use Microsoft products. Sutherland said he did not study any records of Microsoft's conduct.

"You did not take into consideration Microsoft's past conduct in these proceedings?" Schmidtlein asked.

"Only as background," Sutherland said, adding that he didn't find it relevant.

And again from news.com.com:

But under questioning from the states' lawyer, Sutherland acknowledged that he knew little about Microsoft's past anti-competitive conduct and had no experience with the kind of Web-based services at issue in the case.
...
Sutherland said any company that wants to compete in the telecommunications business must make its technologies work seamlessly with other companies' services.
...
Under questioning from states' attorney John Schmidtlein, however, Sutherland conceded he had no direct experience with Web-based messaging and was only part of a small group at Qwest that is studying the possibility of getting into the business of Web-based messaging.

He also admitted the group was formed less than a month ago--nearly two months after Microsoft named him as a witness in the antitrust case.

"My intention is to offer the court an understanding of how the communications world works," Sutherland told the judge. "My testimony is not specific to Microsoft's behavior on the Windows desktop."

As someone said, if this represents the level and quality of Microsoft's legal team's trial prep, you have to wonder how much they're getting paid.

How's this for a ringing endorsement of Microsoft's products?

[Madnick] showed the judge a diagram that depicted Windows as a system made up of dozens of oddly shaped, interconnected pieces. Madnick said the diagram showed how Windows was like a "house of cards" that could collapse if any of the pieces were removed.

Emphasis mine. Source: ZDNet: Microsoft's MIT prof gets grilled by states

Mind you, this was a witness for Microsoft. Amazing. Microsoft is so arrogant, it can claim gross incompetence to avoid incrimination, and still look forward to getting away with it.

"You gotta pay for having me wearing this." - McNealy

Actually, Real does.

CNET article

An Israeli software firm has discovered a flaw in Netscape and Mozilla software that allows code hidden in a Web page to read files from the user's PC. The bug is a more serious variant of one patched in Microsoft's Internet Explorer in February.

GreyMagic Software reported that the problem affects XMLHttpRequest, which allows Web pages in the browser to send and receive XML data via HTTP, the standard Web transfer protocol. XML is an Internet language for describing just about any sort of data.

According to the report, verified by other developers, XMLHttpRequest doesn't properly check the security settings for some types of data requests in a Web page, allowing them, if properly disguised, to request data from the user's hard drive. The Internet Explorer bug required an attacker to know the name of a file on the user's PC in order to exploit that file, but the Mozilla bug also allows the contents of directories on the local drive to be listed.

GreyMagic created a demonstration of the bug that allows a Web page to display a window for exploring the viewer's own hard drive.

The bug is found in versions of Mozilla from 0.9.7 to 0.9.9 on various operating system platforms, and in Netscape versions 6.1 and higher. The flaw doesn't affect Mozilla 1.0 release candidate 1 because XMLHttpRequest appears to be broken in that release, according to Mozilla developers.

A patch for the bug was not available as of late morning on Wednesday.

GreyMagic also criticized Netscape's system for reporting bugs, saying a 24 April attempt to report the bug was not acknowledged. Following the firm's public report of the bug, another developer reported the bug to Mozilla's bug-tracking system, whose developers have confirmed the flaw. The flaw has also been distributed on the BugTraq security mailing list.

Netscape, a division of AOL Time Warner, uses Mozilla technology in its commercial browser. Mozilla itself is open source, meaning that its original programming code is freely available for alteration and re-distribution so long as any software that uses it is made available under the same terms. Mozilla software is used in other open-source browsers, such as the Galeon browser for Linux.

Netscape was unavailable for comment.

( from ZDNet )

You did read this article that states " the PlayStation 6 or 7 will be based on biotechnology".

It also states "research efforts for PlayStation 3 are focusing on distributed computing"....

-- wow a beowulf cluster of PS3's.....

Hrm, I can't think of any practical uses of scripting in emails anyway. Can anyone help me out?

Microsoft hasn't gotten rid of scripting in Outlook because it's required for nasty email viruses like Klez to spread, which in turn allows microsoft to step in and "save the day", which leads to news headlines like "Microsoft releases latest Outlook security patch", "Microsoft patch to block "Love"-like viruses", and, my favorite, "Microsoft to secure e-mail".

To the average schmoe who doesn't realize these viruses are only possible because of microsoft's stupidity, it would appear that microsoft is valiantly fighting the inevitable battle against nasty virus-writing hackers.

</conspiracy theory>

Or maybe they're really just so stupid that they think scripting in emails is such a great feature it's worth putting up with all this bullshit. If you ask me, HTML email isn't even needed. Plain ol' text usually works fine for me; most of the HTML emails I get are spam and the few that aren't usually have a text/plain version as well.

Notice that the last article I linked to sounds like a pretty solid fix: Users will be suposedly prompted before any emailed scripts do anything, and given a yes/no dialog to stop them from doing anything bad. Seems like a good idea. Unfortunetly, that article is dated June 2000, so clearly it didn't work out... Anyone know what the deal with that is?

News.com story.

I am interested in this kind of setup as well.

Grab both ad-aware and it's reference file updater to stay better protected. 'Better', because it always seems like something gets through, no matter how well you maintain your system.

Grab both ad-aware and it's reference file updater to stay better protected. 'Better', because it always seems like something gets through, no matter how well you maintain your system.

But what if I point out that the /. story talks (at the end) about how the EULA is more difficult to read than 1040 forms AND I link to the article that has a GRAPH. ooooo. . . graphs. . .

Despite all of that cash on hand, Microsoft has never paid one cent to investors in dividends.

Investors determine stock prices based on the return that they receive on the stock. This return is in the form of dividends, that is, money paid to the owners of a stock as a reward for assuming the risk of owning the stock. The reason that Microsoft's stock value is high is that there is an expectation that dividends will be paid in the future. Using the past as a model for the future, it is my conclusion that Microsoft will continue to not pay dividends. Because of that, the value of Microsoft stock should be zero.

Come the revolution, they'll be the first up against the wall -- someday Denial of Service will be illegal, and then they'll get theirs.

I'm sure the way the judge will read things like AMD's CEO testifing on Microsoft's behalf and being rewarded with Microsoft support for AMD's new 64bit Hammer processor a scant 8 days later will not be good.

You have to love it when a companies own testimony and witnesses show what that they are still willing to do all the things the were just convicted of.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-206304.html?legacy=c net

Of course 98Lite user know removing IE is possible and makes Windows 98 much faster, and have been doing it for a long time.

Cnet's news.com has an interesting story Here.

It includes some interesting tidbits although nothing unexpected.

I had a similar Problem with Buy.COM and there was a class action lawsuit and 3 years later I got a $60 coupon for my troubles. I would have liked to have gotten a $50 Hitachi monitor for th $163 dollars they promised it for.

It has been committed in history FORVER, here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&frame=right& th=5c9f98e92d07422b&seekm=36C0A7EF.7AF4%40uclink4. berkeley.edu#link1

I have had horrible experience with them as well. I won't even go into it, but they tried to do something fraudulent and were obstinate about owning up to it.

The worst part of this all is that the "new" price of $399 is horrible.

Here are a few links to show you how to find a deal on this card, Vision Tek part number 30001522 :

Pricewatch Search for 30001522

Tip on searching Pricewatch (my favorite); the url format is: [http://brook.pricewatch.com/search/search.asp?cri teria=item_criteria_here]

Streetprices Search for 30001522

Pricegrabber Search, I don't like Price-grabber, but its here to show that even a crappy Shylock engine is better than Worst Buy ©(TM)®.

BEST BUY charged with FRAUD:
Best Buy & HRS Credit Insurance Fraud to their customers. Big Ripoff Scam!

Story also covered here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/10020202.htm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/24005.html

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/19176/

http://courses.wcupa.edu/jredingt/BestBuy.htm

http://www.hardocp.com/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/24041 . tml Worst Buy Highway Robbery Inc. Trying to give only $30 bucks for mistake.

http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/

http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/articles/bes tbuy_gf4deal.html

http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/articles/bb_ arrest.html

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/24/11357/3033 .

I wonder why this is listed as a leak.
When AMD announced this at a press conference a few hours ago.

AMD nails Microsoft backing for Hammer-CNET
MS to confirm Hammer support-The Register, UK
Microsoft to Support AMD's Hammer-eWeek

I wonder why this is listed as a leak.
When AMD announced this at a press conference a few hours ago.

AMD nails Microsoft backing for Hammer-CNET
MS to confirm Hammer support-The Register, UK
Microsoft to Support AMD's Hammer-eWeek

even microsoft is pushing to not use http, merely because http was not designed for this sort of thing.

No, microsoft is pushing to not use http because http is an open standard, which they can't control and use to lock in users. Microsoft's stand on http, referenced here, was, as usual, stone-bullshit, obvious to anyone with a little technical savvy.

So, it seems to me that the music industry is already getting compensated for the sales of CD-R's. And since that's the case, they have nothing to complain about.

Transmeta Powered High-End Portable

plus Head Mounted Display?

It seems that due to this retarded proposal all the the EU is not only banning certain usefull substances in the manufacture of electronics, they are also requiring manufactures to help facilitate the disposal of any waste due to their products :/

It sure may be better for the environment but its like a tax on electronics which are where most of (imho and circumstances) the commercial innovations lay. I doubt itll really make much difference in the grand scheme of things as it will just infiltrate its added price into the component industry.

Although imho the fact that the American market is going to cost more aswell is a complete pisstake, as the Americans wont have to pay any extra.. just us Euro's.. this is just the corperations exploiting this to make a fast buck out of you yanks, which will (seeing as you out number us) probably easily gain back any costs the encounter due to this new Euro legislation!

Disgracefull :/

I've seen a few people suggest that Microsoft has enough money to donate to schools, and even a few more have suggested that such a donation would actually help spread MS software. Keep in mind that this was one of Microsoft original proposals to settle the antitrust case, to donate $500 million worth of software to schools. How that such a settlement has apparently been rejected (and rightly so), MS can go after the schools with the excuse that "we wanted to donate software to the schools, but the government wouldn't let us".