Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft is abusive. Actually, they are more abusive than anyone I've read on Slashdot has said.

The U.S. Justice Department court case pending against Microsoft found that Microsoft was extremely abusive. This document is on the web in the Court's Findings of Fact. What surprised me about the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses was that it didn't mention the abuses that I thought were most important. The U.S. Justice Department mostly focused on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies. But Microsoft's mistreatment of small users is more destructive, in my opinion. (You can see more information about the antitrust cases against Microsoft at United States v. Microsoft, Antitrust Case Filings.)

Microsoft is abusive. Actually, they are more abusive than anyone I've read on Slashdot has said.

The U.S. Justice Department court case pending against Microsoft found that Microsoft was extremely abusive. This document is on the web in the Court's Findings of Fact. What surprised me about the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses was that it didn't mention the abuses that I thought were most important. The U.S. Justice Department mostly focused on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies. But Microsoft's mistreatment of small users is more destructive, in my opinion. (You can see more information about the antitrust cases against Microsoft at United States v. Microsoft, Antitrust Case Filings.)

Roche is definitely one company I don't feel sorry for. They plead guilty to "illegal collusive practices" (ie price fixing) in the vitamin market, and were fined $500M.

Here's the law entry for what he's charged with, and Here's the reference for the Oklahoma wire fraud law.

Well, this will likely be moderated as ``off topic'', but as it's another ``Rights Online'' case I am going to risk the karma hit, as I think this story is fairly important. I just submitted it as a story to Slashdot but for whatever reason it was rejected.

The Linux Freak site (no relation between the site and this story poster) has a rather interesting story about a good samaritan on the 'net who discovered a vulnerability on the Podeau Daily News web site, informed them about it along with tips on how to properly configure the software, only to find himself faced with felony charges. If you find your stomach tightening as you read this, feel free to contact Sheldon Sperling, the DOD prosecuting attorney behind this madness.

Back in the early-to-mid-90's, I lived the slacker life in Austin (I realize nowadays, Austin is too hip to be hip anymore, which is one of the reasons it's been overpopulated by refugees from San Francisco, and is also is one of the reasons I left, but I digress). One of my best friends was a diligent worker at Ruby's BBQ, a local barbeque joint with one location and no plans for expansion. At the time, the place was located adjacent to Antone's blues club (the blues club has since relocated to downtown, and Antone has since relocated to federal prison) and Ruby's BBQ was open until 3am on weekends. This, combined with the Texas liquor laws requiring bars to close at 2am, led to a lot of business for Ruby's, and a lot of Antones' drunken patrons vomiting up a lot of perfectly good beef brisket and sausage. Now, my good friend (I'll call him Scott) had the good/mis-fortune of working at Ruby's almost every Friday and Saturday night (bad because he didn't get off until late, and good because after he got off, he usually stayed up until dawn drinking out of Rubys' beer cooler). Well anyway, one night while ol' Scott was working the late-night shift, this young feller walks in, drunk off his ass. He's waiting in line, joking with his friends, and doing absolutely spectacular impressions of Beavis and Butthead, and Anderson (don't forget the time period this is taking place in). I mean, not only are the voices spot-on, but the observations being made in character are absolutely uproarious. This fellow gets to the head of the line, proceeds to order a combo sandwich in Anderson's voice, and moves off to wait for his order to be fulfilled. Upon speaking with the other members of his party, this fellow turns out to be a personage no less than Mike Judge himself. He eventually receives his order, goes to his table, and proceeds to regale his companions with hilarious (to the sober) impressions of the decor at Ruby's, the food at Ruby's, and the overpriced, talentless acts booked by Antone, all in the voices of the characters of America's best-loved cartoon show (Power Puff Girls were still several years away).

Well, that's pretty much the whole story. Sorry I'm not like the classic Deep South narrator (well thish-yer Smiley)...maybe you had to be there to appreciate it.

While I don't want to disagree that there are a lot of stupid decisions that have been made, have you READ the Microsoft decisions (Findings of Fact) (Appeals court)? Both Jackson and the Appeals Court (using Jackson's analysis) break down technology issues remarkably well.

They may not know it, but they're capable of learning it.

This kind of surprises me since it's been the DoJ's Antitrust Division that has consistently wanted to take this case to the Supreme Court (and bypass the hostile appeals court). This move might backfire for M$ because the Supreme Court's antitrust decisions during the Rhenquist years have not always been favorable to the defendant. In fact, there are actually some prominent pieces of Supreme Court antitrust case law that might play into the hand of the DoJ. Perhaps M$ will shoot themselves in the foot with this move.

Nice try, chief, but you ought to read Title III before spouting off. E-books are not a public accomodation, nor are they a commercial facility. Nor are they an employer, or a state or local government.

Or perhaps you'd like to discuss how publishers of traditional books are required to print Braille editions.

Don't quit your day job.

Since when is the audible reading of a e-book some sort of fundamental right?

Since July 26, 1990.

Fuckwit.

everybody should read my posts.

from the DOJ press release:

The United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California announced that Dmitry Sklyarov, of Moscow, Russia, made an initial appearance yesterday in Las Vegas, Nevada, on a complaint from the Northern District of California charging a single count of trafficking in a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures in violation of Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b)(1)(A). This is one of the first prosecutions in the United States under this statute, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").

there ya go. "a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures" i.e. software.

He cannot.

The U.S. Department of Justice is still holding him. See the week-old press release:

Mr. Sklyarov made his initial appearance in federal court in Las Vegas, yesterday, July 16, 2001. Mr. Sklyarov was detained without bail and ordered removed to the Northern District of California. No dates have been set for the defendants next appearance.

However, without evidence, they're going to have to do something soon. It's time for a habeas corpus motion, folks. Forget playing nice. The U.S. has no case without Adobe.

He cannot.

The U.S. Department of Justice is still holding him. See the week-old press release:

Mr. Sklyarov made his initial appearance in federal court in Las Vegas, yesterday, July 16, 2001. Mr. Sklyarov was detained without bail and ordered removed to the Northern District of California. No dates have been set for the defendants next appearance.

However, without evidence, they're going to have to do something soon. It's time for a habeas corpus motion, folks. Forget playing nice. The U.S. has no case without Adobe.

I think the protests should continue, but the target should widen.

Instead of focussing on Adobe, protest against the DOJ and the DMCA.

The DMCA. Not the DCMA. Many Slashdotters get the acronym wrong, and it bugs me all to hell... it's the Digital Millennium Copyright, not the Digital Copyright Millennium. Sheesh.

Thing about Adobe, is... if they were to have somebody else arrested, they'd lose the PR boost dropping the complaint against Dmitry has gotten them. IOW, they'd look like a bunch of lying bastards.

German lawyers? Oh, they're just renegades, nothing to do with us.

Sklyarov? Oh, we were just trying to get the cracking software out of the U.S., we didn't really want him to rot in jail.

Then they arrest somebody else. Hacker X? Oh, um... :)

Yah.... it's better for everyone (Microsoft) if they speed it up... so Billy can make a few more billion ASAP.. It doesn't matter if they speed up this case, cause their is another and another and another case right around the corner. Take a look at the Department of Justice M1cr050f7 Case List . Some of those cases back date as far as 1994.

Regardless of what jailing Bill will do, nationalizing Microsoft would take even more power FROM the people: it would make it even less accountable.

If Microsoft were a government agency, a fellow could get the Windows source code with a simple FOIA request, as works of the United States government are in the public domain.

Link to the Sherman Act


With the previous link in mind, the license itself is not illegal. Microsoft can never force people to give up their freedom of privacy but in order to get XP working, you have to give up your freedom of privacy which is protected(as decided by the Supreme court) by the Bill of Rights, which if a company is big enough to highly encourage this type of behavior, this becomes a federal problem, one that their really isn't a set law against. On another part of a different argument, section 2 of the sherman act:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

In loose terms, this could be considered an attempt to monopolize the market because they know 95% of all PC users are going to use it and a small percentage of them are going to be pirated(I own like >6 licenses of windows whatever version and I wanted 0 of them) and this reenforces this claim, making more companies bow down to the Gods at Microsoft and encouraging their claim to a monopoly. This is just one of a series of attempts to do this and is illegal within itself.
----

Many types of gambling are illegal in the US, so companies move their servers offshore to countries that have unrestricted gambling.

If you are an American company, the American legal system has already decided that moving your servers offshore does not protect you from the law. Jay Cohen was convicted in a New York court because his company was incorporated in America and therefore found to be operating in America even though he wasn't.

"Subpoenaed utility records showed that, from May 1991 to December 1991, the residences at 878 and 890 Rhododendron Drive used an abnormally high amount of electricity. Warrant Aff. 16-17. Electrical use at 890 Rhododendron Drive was high for approximately three to four months, then decreased for three months; electrical use at 878 Rhododendron Drive was consistently high. Id. at 17. In the experience of Agent Elliott, those figures were consistent with a staggered indoor marijuana grow operation: persons cultivating marijuana commonly start the plants in one location, then transfer them to another location, in order to facilitate a continuous supply of mature marijuana plants. Ibid. Based on his experience, Agent Elliott inferred that a marijuana grow operation began at Tova Shook's residence at 890 Rhododendron and was completed at petitioner's residence at 878 Rhododendron Drive. Ibid."

Stop and consider why there are 1,500,000 programmers using a trash language like Basic:

Microsoft put many fancy features into Visual Basic, and kept them out of Visual C and C++. So, to get speed of development, people were led into using Visual Basic.

Microsoft's real opinion of Basic is clear from the fact that Visual Basic is written in C and C++. (Someone at Microsoft told me this.).

Apparently Microsoft wants everyone else to use a poor language. Apparently Microsoft doesn't just want customers, the company wants inferiors.

In my opinion, the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses listed by the U.S. Justice Department in the Court's Findings of Fact are just a small part of the company's total abusiveness. This anti-trust case focuses mostly on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies, but it is the abusiveness toward small companies and individuals that is most destructive.

Liza

YOU CAN GET IN REAL TROUBLE FOR HACKING!

Hmm, it seems that this is propaganda that is disseminated and encouraged by the Federal government. I'm sure that a few suicides will be considered OK if they serve the greater good, the DoJ being a very, "ends justify the means," type of organization...

In my extensive experience with Microsoft, since the days before PCs existed and we had the CP/M OS, Microsoft has only answered one question correctly. That was a question about a C compiler problem.

Obviously, part of the reason my friends and I don't get help from Microsoft is that we don't call to ask easy questions. No doubt Microsoft provides help to many of its customers who are novices.

I have called Microsoft technical support about operating system problems many many times, and they have NEVER been able to solve the problems, although once a technical support representative and I worked out a solution together, after 4 difficult hours.

Once about four years ago I talked to a friendly Microsoft technical support representative. He was very knowledgeable. I had a written list of questions about Windows. He was able to give me no answers. He just laughed at some of them and said he wouldn't know how to begin finding the solution. He did, however, provide me with some very useful information concerning problems I wasn't currently having. I remember this representative so clearly because I called expecting the usual Microsoft roughness, and he was friendly.

I liked the article published by the Boston Mac User's Group (BMUG) titled: Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network: Which Provides Better Support for Microsoft Products?

Look at the problems mentioned in the BMUG article. They seem to me to have a typical quality to them. To me it seems that many of the most difficult problems with Microsoft products are ones that come from programmers who just don't care about doing a good job.

Neither Microsoft Technical Support nor The Psychic Friends Network were able to answer any of the questions, but the BMUG article says: "... the Psychic Friends Network has a distinct edge over Microsoft in the areas of courtesy, response time, and cost of support ..." I liked this article because it is the only one I've read which exactly mirrors my experience with Microsoft.

I think I would find the BMUG article more humorous if it weren't about such a painful subject.

Microsoft's Flawed Business Model -- The Microsoft business model is extremely flawed because it is heavily influenced by conflict of interest. It is in Microsoft's financial interest NEVER to deliver a good operating system. If they deliver a good operating system, that will be the last operating system most of its customers will buy.

Microsoft is a huge company, much bigger than most of the retail customers they might serve. If you have a problem, chances are they are too large to care.

Microsoft's Abusiveness -- Microsoft has a history of being abusive. The U.S. Justice Department court case pending against Microsoft found that Microsoft was extremely abusive. This document is titled Court's Findings of Fact. What surprised me about the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses was that it didn't mention the abuses that I thought were most important. The U.S. Justice Department mostly focused on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies. But Microsoft's mistreatment of small users is more destructive, in my opinion.

No one, apparently, has gathered all the abuses in one place. If that were done, we would have an important way to show why Open Source/GNU is better.

Abusiveness is one of the biggest reasons to stay away from Microsoft. Stay away from habitual abusers if you don't want to be abused. Even if Microsoft technical support could answer my questions, I don't like their arrogant manner. I don't want to have to accept abuse to get something I want.

Contrast Microsoft's abusiveness with the friendliness of the Open Source/GNU community. One Sunday about 8 AM, I sent an e-mail message to an important person in the community, requesting information for an article I was writing. I was surprised to get a complete answer less than 3 hours later. It is possible that you have a problem that people in the Open Source/GNU community cannot answer, but they will usually be extemely friendly while they are discussing it.

Closed source software is like sausage. -- Closed source software is like sausage. You don't know what's in it. If you did know what was in it, maybe you wouldn't want it. Has the U.S. government forced Microsoft to put back doors into its software, so that the U.s. can more easily spy? You don't know and you may never know.

Disclaimer Nonsense -- The Microsoft document gives importance to Red Hat's 10-Q disclaimer. But look at Microsoft's disclaimer at the end of the article. It is much more sweeping: MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT. Basically, this disclaimer says that Microsoft does not have to be honest.

Microsoft Windows Encourages Playing. -- A huge problem with Microsoft's operating systems in a retail environment is that there are large numbers of minimum wage workers who like to play with the OS. Sometimes I have arrived to do system maintenance and found that the cursor has become a spider. Sometimes I have found systems that have been re-configured to allow exploits. Microsoft Windows 2000 may have a lot of security features, but it has no defense against someone who knows the passwords. If you know retail environments, you know that there will be times that the passwords are compromised. It is much better to have an OS that does not look familiar and does not invite playing.

Here is a typical scenario. Joe and John are night shift workers at a fast food restaurant. Joe is senior at 23. He makes $8.50 per hour. John is 19 and makes $7.65 per hour. They often find themselves bored when business is slow.

One night they find that the store manager has left his desk open. In his desk they find a list of passwords.

Joe and John have both had computers since the early years of high school. They decide to try to load a game one of them has at home. But Windows 2000 doesn't work well with some games. The game doesn't run, but they leave the system in an unstable state.

Retail hardware is very standard and conservative. -- In a retail environment, you want a fixed solution. You buy the hardware and software, and the two work together as a unit until you buy new hardware and software. Once you make it work, chances are there will be no need for big changes. In a retail environment, you try to buy very standard hardware.

Usually this hardware interacts in a manner that is well behind the frontiers of technology. For example, receipt printers use very standard interfaces. Yes, Microsoft has more drivers, but in a retail environment you won't need to support the latest game.

This is just a short list. -- This is just a very short list of answers to Microsoft's article. I would like to see a comprehensive list. If we can get a team together to write one, I will help.

If I were Red Hat's marketing manager, I would have no trouble selling against Microsoft. Unfortunately, Red Hat does not have a strong marketing department.

Microsoft receives little effective criticism. -- People who write comments on Slashdot often complain about Microsoft. But, since the complaints are usually brief and not well documented, the aggregate result is that Microsoft receives little effective criticism.

Michael Jennings
Futurepower Computer Systems
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

Tel: (503) 233-7820
Fax: (419) 781-4606

E-Mail: mikejen@hevanet.com
E-Mail: Futurepower@MailAndNews.com
Futurepower is a registered trademark.
Copyright 2001 by Michael Jennings.

Let's answer Microsoft's criticism. -- I'd like to see an article that discusses the Linux side of the issues mentioned by Microsoft.

Lack of Technical Support -- For example, I have found Microsoft technical support useless. I know someone who headed the system administration at the headquarters of a $300,000,000 a year company, and he also found MS technical support useless. Microsoft's technical support representatives didn't know why SQL Server was failing, and they could not discover the reason.

In my extensive experience with Microsoft, since the days before PCs existed and we had the CP/M OS, Microsoft has only answered one question correctly. That was a question about a C compiler problem.

Obviously, part of the reason I don't get help from Microsoft is that I don't call to ask easy questions. I'm sure that Microsoft provides help to many of its customers who are novices.

I have called Microsoft technical support about operating system problems many times, and they have NEVER been able to solve the problems, although once a technical support representative and I worked out a solution together, after 4 difficult hours.

Once about four years ago I talked to a friendly Microsoft technical support representative. He was very knowledgeable. I had a written list of questions about Windows. He was able to give me no answers. He just laughed at some of them and said he wouldn't know how to begin finding the solution. He did, however, provide me with some very useful information concerning problems I wasn't currently having. I remember this representative so clearly because I called expecting the usual Microsoft roughness, and he was friendly.

I liked the article published by the Boston Mac User's Group (BMUG) about who is better at answering Microsoft product technical support calls: Microsoft Technical Support, or The Psychic Friends Network? You can read it at Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network

Look at the problems mentioned in the BMUG article. They seem to me to have a typical quality to them. It seems that many of the most difficult problems with Microsoft products are ones that come from programmers who just don't care about doing a good job.

Neither Microsoft Technical Support nor The Psychic Friends Network were able to answer any of the questions, but the BMUG article says: "... the Psychic Friends Network has a distinct edge over Microsoft in the areas of courtesy, response time, and cost of support ..." I liked this article because it is the only one I've read which exactly mirrors my experience with Microsoft.

I think I would find the BMUG article more humorous if it weren't about such a painful subject.

Microsoft's Flawed Business Model -- The Microsoft business model is extremely flawed because it is heavily influenced by conflict of interest. It is in Microsoft's financial interest NEVER to deliver a good operating system. If Microsoft delivers a good operating system, that will be the last operating system most of its customers will buy.

Microsoft is a huge company, much bigger than most of the retail customers they might serve. If you have a problem, chances are they are too large to care.

Microsoft's Abusiveness -- Microsoft has a history of being abusive. The U.S. Justice Department court case pending against Microsoft found that Microsoft was extremely abusive. This document is on the web in the Court's Findings of Fact. What surprised me about the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses was that it didn't mention the abuses that I thought were most important. The U.S. Justice Department mostly focused on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies. But Microsoft's mistreatment of small users is more destructive, in my opinion. (You can see more information about the antitrust cases against Microsoft at United States v. Microsoft, Antitrust Case Filings.)

No one, apparently, has gathered all Microsoft's abuses in one place. If that were done, we would have an important way to show why Open Source/GNU is better.

Abusiveness is one of the biggest reasons to avoid Microsoft. Avoid habitual abusers if you don't want to be abused. Even if Microsoft technical support representatives could answer my questions, I don't want to be forced to experience their arrogant manner. I don't want to have to accept abuse to get something I want.

Contrast Microsoft's abusiveness with the friendliness of the Open Source/GNU community. One Sunday about 8 AM, I sent an e-mail message to an important person in the community, requesting information for an article I was writing. I was surprised to get a complete answer less than 3 hours later. It is possible that you have a problem that people in the Open Source/GNU community cannot answer, but they will usually be extremely friendly while they are discussing it.

Closed source software is like sausage. -- Closed source software is like sausage. You don't know what's in it. If you did know what was in it, maybe you wouldn't want it. Has the U.S. government forced Microsoft to put back doors into its software, so that the U.S. can more easily spy? You don't know and you may never know.

Disclaimer Nonsense -- The Microsoft document pretends that Red Hat's 10-Q disclaimer is important. But look at Microsoft's disclaimer at the end of the article. It is much more sweeping: MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT. Basically, this disclaimer says that Microsoft does not have to be honest.

Microsoft Windows Encourages Playing. -- A huge problem with Microsoft's operating systems in a retail environment is that there are large numbers of minimum wage workers who like to play with the OS. Sometimes I have arrived to do system maintenance and found that the cursor has become a spider. Sometimes I have found systems that have been re-configured to allow exploits. Microsoft Windows 2000 may have a lot of security features, but it has no defense against someone who knows the passwords. If you know retail environments, you know that there will be times that the passwords are compromised. It is much better to have an OS that does not look familiar and does not invite playing.

Here is a typical scenario. Joe and John are night shift workers at a fast food restaurant. Joe is senior at 23. He makes $8.50 per hour. John is 19 and makes $7.65 per hour. They often find themselves bored when business is slow.

One night they discover that the store manager has left his desk open. In his desk they find a list of passwords.

Joe and John have both had computers since the early years of high school. They decide to try to load a game one of them has at home. But Windows 2000 doesn't work well with some games. The game doesn't run, but they leave the system in an unstable state.

Retail hardware is very standard and conservative. -- In a retail environment, you want a fixed solution. You buy the hardware and software, and the two work together as a unit until you buy new hardware and software. Once you make it work, chances are there will be no need for big changes. Microsoft's statements about upgrading often are not based on reality. My experience has been that there are few operating system upgrades.

In a retail environment, you try to buy very standard hardware. Usually this hardware interacts in a manner that is well behind the frontiers of technology. For example, receipt printers use very standard interfaces. Yes, Microsoft has more drivers, but in a retail environment you won't need to support the latest game.

This is just a short list. -- This is just a very short list of answers to Microsoft's article. I would like to see comprehensive answers. If we can get a team together to write one, I will help.

If I were Red Hat's marketing manager, I would have no trouble selling against Microsoft. Unfortunately, Red Hat does not have a strong marketing department.

Microsoft receives little effective criticism. -- People who write comments on Slashdot often complain about Microsoft. But, since the complaints are usually brief and not well documented, the aggregate result is that Microsoft receives little criticism that would be effective with non-technical people.

Let's answer Microsoft's criticism. -- I'd like to see an article that discusses the Linux side of the issues mentioned by Microsoft.

Lack of Technical Support -- For example, I have found Microsoft technical support useless. I know someone who headed the system administration at the headquarters of a $300,000,000 a year company, and he also found MS technical support useless. Microsoft's technical support representatives didn't know why SQL Server was failing, and they could not discover the reason.

In my extensive experience with Microsoft, since the days before PCs existed and we had the CP/M OS, Microsoft has only answered one question correctly. That was a question about a C compiler problem.

Obviously, part of the reason I don't get help from Microsoft is that I don't call to ask easy questions. I'm sure that Microsoft provides help to many of its customers who are novices.

I have called Microsoft technical support about operating system problems many times, and they have NEVER been able to solve the problems, although once a technical support representative and I worked out a solution together, after 4 difficult hours.

Once about four years ago I talked to a friendly Microsoft technical support representative. He was very knowledgeable. I had a written list of questions about Windows. He was able to give me no answers. He just laughed at some of them and said he wouldn't know how to begin finding the solution. He did, however, provide me with some very useful information concerning problems I wasn't currently having. I remember this representative so clearly because I called expecting the usual Microsoft roughness, and he was friendly.

I liked the article published by the Boston Mac User's Group (BMUG) about who is better at answering Microsoft product technical support calls: Microsoft Technical Support, or The Psychic Friends Network? You can read it at Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network

Look at the problems mentioned in the BMUG article. They seem to me to have a typical quality to them. It seems that many of the most difficult problems with Microsoft products are ones that come from programmers who just don't care about doing a good job.

Neither Microsoft Technical Support nor The Psychic Friends Network were able to answer any of the questions, but the BMUG article says: "... the Psychic Friends Network has a distinct edge over Microsoft in the areas of courtesy, response time, and cost of support ..." I liked this article because it is the only one I've read which exactly mirrors my experience with Microsoft.

I think I would find the BMUG article more humorous if it weren't about such a painful subject.

Microsoft's Flawed Business Model -- The Microsoft business model is extremely flawed because it is heavily influenced by conflict of interest. It is in Microsoft's financial interest NEVER to deliver a good operating system. If Microsoft delivers a good operating system, that will be the last operating system most of its customers will buy.

Microsoft is a huge company, much bigger than most of the retail customers they might serve. If you have a problem, chances are they are too large to care.

Microsoft's Abusiveness -- Microsoft has a history of being abusive. The U.S. Justice Department court case pending against Microsoft found that Microsoft was extremely abusive. This document is on the web in the Court's Findings of Fact. What surprised me about the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses was that it didn't mention the abuses that I thought were most important. The U.S. Justice Department mostly focused on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies. But Microsoft's mistreatment of small users is more destructive, in my opinion. (You can see more information about the antitrust cases against Microsoft at United States v. Microsoft, Antitrust Case Filings.)

No one, apparently, has gathered all Microsoft's abuses in one place. If that were done, we would have an important way to show why Open Source/GNU is better.

Abusiveness is one of the biggest reasons to avoid Microsoft. Avoid habitual abusers if you don't want to be abused. Even if Microsoft technical support representatives could answer my questions, I don't want to be forced to experience their arrogant manner. I don't want to have to accept abuse to get something I want.

Contrast Microsoft's abusiveness with the friendliness of the Open Source/GNU community. One Sunday about 8 AM, I sent an e-mail message to an important person in the community, requesting information for an article I was writing. I was surprised to get a complete answer less than 3 hours later. It is possible that you have a problem that people in the Open Source/GNU community cannot answer, but they will usually be extremely friendly while they are discussing it.

Closed source software is like sausage. -- Closed source software is like sausage. You don't know what's in it. If you did know what was in it, maybe you wouldn't want it. Has the U.S. government forced Microsoft to put back doors into its software, so that the U.S. can more easily spy? You don't know and you may never know.

Disclaimer Nonsense -- The Microsoft document pretends that Red Hat's 10-Q disclaimer is important. But look at Microsoft's disclaimer at the end of the article. It is much more sweeping: MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT. Basically, this disclaimer says that Microsoft does not have to be honest.

Microsoft Windows Encourages Playing. -- A huge problem with Microsoft's operating systems in a retail environment is that there are large numbers of minimum wage workers who like to play with the OS. Sometimes I have arrived to do system maintenance and found that the cursor has become a spider. Sometimes I have found systems that have been re-configured to allow exploits. Microsoft Windows 2000 may have a lot of security features, but it has no defense against someone who knows the passwords. If you know retail environments, you know that there will be times that the passwords are compromised. It is much better to have an OS that does not look familiar and does not invite playing.

Here is a typical scenario. Joe and John are night shift workers at a fast food restaurant. Joe is senior at 23. He makes $8.50 per hour. John is 19 and makes $7.65 per hour. They often find themselves bored when business is slow.

One night they discover that the store manager has left his desk open. In his desk they find a list of passwords.

Joe and John have both had computers since the early years of high school. They decide to try to load a game one of them has at home. But Windows 2000 doesn't work well with some games. The game doesn't run, but they leave the system in an unstable state.

Retail hardware is very standard and conservative. -- In a retail environment, you want a fixed solution. You buy the hardware and software, and the two work together as a unit until you buy new hardware and software. Once you make it work, chances are there will be no need for big changes. Microsoft's statements about upgrading often are not based on reality. My experience has been that there are few operating system upgrades.

In a retail environment, you try to buy very standard hardware. Usually this hardware interacts in a manner that is well behind the frontiers of technology. For example, receipt printers use very standard interfaces. Yes, Microsoft has more drivers, but in a retail environment you won't need to support the latest game.

This is just a short list. -- This is just a very short list of answers to Microsoft's article. I would like to see comprehensive answers. If we can get a team together to write one, I will help.

If I were Red Hat's marketing manager, I would have no trouble selling against Microsoft. Unfortunately, Red Hat does not have a strong marketing department.

Microsoft receives little effective criticism. -- People who write comments on Slashdot often complain about Microsoft. But, since the complaints are usually brief and not well documented, the aggregate result is that Microsoft receives little criticism that would be effective with non-technical people.

For one, it doesn't matter how many CDs you purchase a year it doesn't justify pirating ANY amount of other music.

Why is is that "music piracy" is so reviled as an evil action while the actions of the music industry, one of the most immoral industries out there (next to the software industry) is hailed as "providing a valuable service"?

Sure, CDs are overpriced and that's not good but you are still depriving the artist of their well deserved income. Buying 30 CDs a year doesn't mean anything to an artist whos CD you -didn't- buy.

Artists do not have a right to make money, much like corporations do not have a right to profit.

Without the RIAA, how the hell would any amount of artists got where they are today?

This is an ad crumenam argument.

All governing bodies have some amount of evil, and it's easy to overlook the good when all you care about is what they are depriving you of (free music).

I believe that music, like software and information, should be free. How much do you charge for something that can be duplicated infinitely at nominal cost?

What makes you think that Micorosoft should give away upgrades to their software, simply because you personally gauge the price to be too high? I know it's a fair whack, but to think that you are getting all that product (consider the developer's time that went in to making this stuff) and you just think you are welcome to free upgrades? Try that at your local car dealer...(I hate to use that analogy.. but everyone else seems to relate to it all the time...). And then, you go on to say that WPA is not a bad thing and it's Microsoft's right to include it. Two faced?

Not at all. Microsoft is a monopoly. They have to play by different rules.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess, but this is clearly just a college kid that's pissed he doesn't get enough pocket money. Hardly ground breaking news Tim.

Yes. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they all stink. But there are larger issues at work here, work like monopoly power and freedom. This is hardly about poor college kids whining about not getting free stuff.

This is, after all, a free market.

The operating system market is most certainly not a free market. It is a monopoly market.

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 clearly applies here. (That's the one that got the Secret Service in big trouble in the Steve Jackson Games case.) This order looks like it's outside DOJ's own guidelines, too.

This discussion could go on forever. Neither of us is wrong per se, but this is because the facts being presented to us aren't always black and white.

1) "US Crime and violence has not increased. In fact it is at it's lowest levels in reporting history. See: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm Yep. The US Department of Justice's statistics."

True, the DOJ statistics do seem to show a decline in violent crime year on year but consider how these figures are being reported.

First of all, the DOJ's figures are adjusted, showing crimes per 1,000 people aged 12 and over have declined from around 50 to 35 between 1980 and 1999. But over that same period, the population has increased, it has got older (people aged 12 and over make up a greater proportion of the population) and more violent crimes go unreported. Also, the DOJ's methodology for gathering this data changed in 1993, which makes a true comparison of the imformation before and after that date more difficult.

These figures also bunch together different types of crime and do not take into account their varying degrees of severity. Muggings and assaults are treated the same as rapes and murders even though the former are by definition less violent than the latter.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, and that overall crime hasn't decreased, just that these massaged figures by themselves aren't exactly the best evidence for you case. Like I said before, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Give a statistician enough data and he'll be able to prove just about anything.

2) "I'm sorry. Where's the evidence? I didn't realize Britain had so many problems with terrorism. And didn't Britain put cameras in banks long before this? So why has bank robberies decreased all of a sudden? And pickpocketing and car theft? What? A good pickpocket isn't going to be deterred by a camera. Their techniques can be done in broad daylight on a busy street with nobody knowing. Car thefts? In the US property crimes (such as theft) have been going down as well, all without the aid of cameras everywhere.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the IRA? The terrorist group responsible for the murder of hundreds of British citizens in Northern Ireland and the mainland including soldiers, policemen, politicians, members of the royal family and ordinary members of the public? Or about extremist Islamic groups that occasionally decide to wage their war against Israel on foreign soil?

Many CCTV cameras installed in London are around prominent terrorist targets (the royal palaces, the Houses of Parliament, the City of London, the US Embassy) and have acted as a major deterrent to terrorist cells. Why risk planting a car bomb somewhere where you know you will be photographed? Similarly, the introduction of CCTV surveillance in Oxford Street (London's major shopping precinct) has reduced the number of street crimes reported there. And car parks that have cameras have less thefts of and from vehicles than those without. Evidence enough that CCTVs can help against crime?

And as for voting, opening a bank account, using your credit card, etc, my point was to show that there are methods of surveillance and spying that involve a camera. Just as cookies can track your browsing behaviour online, companies can track your movements and behaviour offline by examining when, where and what you purchase.

The whole concept that a CCTV in a public place is somehow an invasion of privacy is a complete joke. After all, if someone can see you, your hardly enjoying privacy are you?

The future potential downside of CCTVs must be weighed against their current proven upside. For now, I firmly believe that their use is justified. You obviously don't. Perhaps when someone suggests putting one in my own home "for my own safety" then I'll start to worry.

I was curious if kids are really more likely to commit murder now than in the past, so I did a little research. The results are pretty interesting.

From 1986 to 1993 there was a huge spike in murders of and by people aged 14 to 24. From 1993 to 1999, however, the number of teenage related murderers has steadilly dropped to the same level as it was in 1976. I have no numbers for 2000 or projections for 2001, but it certainly seems that the problem is not nearly as bad as it used to be.

Don't believe me? Check out the report by the U.S. Department of Justice here.

Granted, these are all murders, not just those in school buildings, but it makes you wonder why the media is just picking up on this now.

if you check out your facts here and here, you'll see that violent crime is actually lower now than is has been for years. I think that highly sensational journalism is to blame for this misperception. It's not that it's any worse now that it was 10 years ago, it's just that we didn't hear about it before.

if you check out your facts here and here, you'll see that violent crime is actually lower now than is has been for years. I think that highly sensational journalism is to blame for this misperception. It's not that it's any worse now that it was 10 years ago, it's just that we didn't hear about it before.

We keep hearing that Linux is hard to install.

User's think it's a problem with the OS, but that's totally misguided. The real issue is that OS's are tough to install and integrate on raw Open Hardware systems (search for "Compaq" to see how they reverse engineered the PC bios, igniting the Open Hardware revolution), and Microsoft doesn't allow the major OEM's to install anything but Windows (See the "Findings of Fact" [section V.C.4 for a most interesting study] in the Microsoft antitrust trial).

Try installing Windows on a raw system (with no OS or other OS). It is just as difficult.

Now they come up with an OS that only installs on very specific hardware, and only atop W98.

My guess is: Windows' lemmings won't complain a bit (they never do; they just get their brother-in-law to fix it for free).

We keep hearing that Linux is hard to install.

User's think it's a problem with the OS, but that's totally misguided. The real issue is that OS's are tough to install and integrate on raw Open Hardware systems (search for "Compaq" to see how they reverse engineered the PC bios, igniting the Open Hardware revolution), and Microsoft doesn't allow the major OEM's to install anything but Windows (See the "Findings of Fact" [section V.C.4 for a most interesting study] in the Microsoft antitrust trial).

Try installing Windows on a raw system (with no OS or other OS). It is just as difficult.

Now they come up with an OS that only installs on very specific hardware, and only atop W98.

My guess is: Windows' lemmings won't complain a bit (they never do; they just get their brother-in-law to fix it for free).

Microsoft never browbeat Netscape into the ground. They just had a better browser. Plain and simple.

I hate it when people misconstrue facts to make it sound like MS did dsomthing bad when it comes to Netscape

Because they don't even know that other options exist, for the most part. Why? Because MS is a monopoly.

And thats Microsofts fault?

After all, Microsoft didn't use threats of increased prices and delayed shipments of Windows stop OEMs from making new systems start with Netscape as the default browser instead. Oh, wait, they did. Microsoft didn't use their monopoly position to demand that ISPs remove references to competing browsers from their literature and web sites and limit the percentage of users using Netscape or risk losing access to the Windows Referral Server. Oh, wait, they did too. Well, Microsoft certainly wouldn't use their monopoly position to force the exclusion of Netscape browsers from web sites on the IE Channel Bar. Oops, I guess they did that too. Well, Microsoft couldn't have threatened to kill Microsoft Office if Apple didn't make IE the preferred brower on Macs. Oh, they did that too?

Gosh, I can't see any possible reason why customers lacking knowledge of options is Microsoft's fault. It's not like they orchestrated a campaign to deny information to consumers.

Check the Findings of Fact. Especially the section Excluding Navigator from Important Distribution Channels.

Because they don't even know that other options exist, for the most part. Why? Because MS is a monopoly.

And thats Microsofts fault?

After all, Microsoft didn't use threats of increased prices and delayed shipments of Windows stop OEMs from making new systems start with Netscape as the default browser instead. Oh, wait, they did. Microsoft didn't use their monopoly position to demand that ISPs remove references to competing browsers from their literature and web sites and limit the percentage of users using Netscape or risk losing access to the Windows Referral Server. Oh, wait, they did too. Well, Microsoft certainly wouldn't use their monopoly position to force the exclusion of Netscape browsers from web sites on the IE Channel Bar. Oops, I guess they did that too. Well, Microsoft couldn't have threatened to kill Microsoft Office if Apple didn't make IE the preferred brower on Macs. Oh, they did that too?

Gosh, I can't see any possible reason why customers lacking knowledge of options is Microsoft's fault. It's not like they orchestrated a campaign to deny information to consumers.

Check the Findings of Fact. Especially the section Excluding Navigator from Important Distribution Channels.

If you don't remember how consumers were hurt, reread the findings of fact, especially section VII, "The Effect on Consumers of Microsoft's Efforts to Protect the Applications Barrier to Entry. It's a remarkably readable document and the reasoning is easy to understand. In short, Microsoft took choices away from consumers and OEMs who wanted the choice.

If you don't remember how consumers were hurt, reread the findings of fact, especially section VII, "The Effect on Consumers of Microsoft's Efforts to Protect the Applications Barrier to Entry. It's a remarkably readable document and the reasoning is easy to understand. In short, Microsoft took choices away from consumers and OEMs who wanted the choice.

Accessibility: more than the right thing to do

Workforce investment act of 1998

Accessibility: The Clock is Ticking

Getting Started with Usability Testing

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

There ya go.

-Andy

I hardly know where to start with this one.

Let's grant the DOJ statistics your link points to. (If this were a real discussion, I'd ask whether the stats had been corrected for the innocents convicted because they were only black -----s, and hey, we've closed a case, right? I won't even ask how one defines so amorphous a concept as `race'. In my experience, it's always been ``someone who doesn't match my wonderful genetic makeup''---witness the fact that in the U.S., someone with seven ``white'' great-grandparents and one ``black'' one counts as ``black''. How does that scan in any sane classification system?) Let's even be generous and say the stats are up to 100 ``black'' murderers per 100,000, vs. 5 ``white''s.

So, how do you justify the completely unwarranted harrassment of 99,900 citizens to find 100 murderers? This country was founded on the belief that you're golden until you actually do something wrong, not until someone thinks you're more likely to do something wrong. This is the concept of ``probable cause'' referred to by the Fourth Amendment (in exactly those words). Probable cause is not a statistical concept. Either you've got reason to think this exact person committed that specified crime, or you have no probable cause. By no stretch of the imagination can being ``black'' be probable cause, therefore it is totally unjustifiable to claim you're just checking ``people who commit serious crimes nearly 8 times more than the rest of the population''. Either this particular person (not one of some random people you spot) actually committed a crime, and you have a good reason to think that's the case, or you keep your mitts off.

The trouble today (and in all previous days, for that matter) is that people forget the probable cause, and think police should simply nail all criminals, blithely assuming there's a 100%-valid mechanism for identifying them, and the police have it. That's why most folks today assume anyone arrested is guilty, why it's so insanely painful to be falsely accused, and why it's so dangerous to slack off in watching our public servants.

And when the police are given vastly more efficient methods to harrass everyone, we're in vastly greater danger.

The head-in-the-sand crowd has decided that going after people who commit serious crimes nearly 8 times more than the rest of the population is somehow politically incorrect. Under the totally idiotic name of "racial profiling", police have been chastised for actually keeping tabs on people who commit crimes and focusing greater attention on them (traffic stops, etc) than the population at large.

Is it any suprise that the police, denied the opportunity to perform law enforcement through simple logic, are stepping up to the bat with whatever they think might work? The next time your sense of liberal outrage is activated when you hear "racial profiling" on the news, remember what it really means that the cops are losing their ability to do what cops do the low tech way, through common sense and are instead having to barcode all of us.

Have you looked at crime trends? They're going up you know.

According to the Department of Justice they're going down and are currently at the lowest levels in over 20 years. I'm curious where you got the idea they're going up. If you have data to back up that claim I would like to see it.

And no-one, but no-one uses machinery unless it reduces staff numbers.

Nobody uses machinery unless it increases profits. Reducing staff is a good way to cut expenses, but if you can increase productivity with the same staff you can also increase profits, often way more than offsetting the costs of automation. The "computer revolution" is a good example of this. When computers first came out many feared it would put lots of people (accountants, for example) out of work. Not only do we still need the bean counters, but now we also need people to maintain the machines those bean counters use.

Miners already use machinery for their jobs. Automation in a mine means the miners will spend less time underground in a dangerous environment. Better machinery means each miner can produce more ore than before, (hopefully) at less risk to life and limb.

My guess is that they are squeamish about the medical stuff in exception #6...

(find the text of the FOIA here)

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information deleted shall be indicated at the place in the record where such deletion is made.

For those of you who don't have the time to read, before spouting off about what you are guaranteed, here is a small portion of items you are not guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Act

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.


When people say they are using the FOIA to refuse information, they may have meant to say that they are using the FOIA to show they are not required to give it to you. Give NASA a break. They give a lot of great info that they could easily justify not giving, but when it comes down to it, they are scientists who are excited and happy to talk to people about their work.

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
Feodor Dostoevski, Russian novelist, 1821-1881

By this standard, one might be better off in Russia, even with its huge incarceration rate and multi-drug resistant TB epidemic in its prisons, than in the US.

Here's why:

In 1994 there were 14,300 victims in the jails at any time and that 290,000 males were victimized in jail every year, 192,000 of them penetrated. Once "turned out," a victim is earmarked for constant further assaults. With a repeat rate very conservatively estimated at every other day, and counting gang-rapes as a single incident, this gives at least 7,150 sexual victimizations a day in jails.

Nine per cent of the hetersexuals had been raped; 7.8% of them had been anally and 5.7% orally penetrated, but white heterosexuals were 2 to 3 times as likely to have been penetrated than black heterosexuals.

In 1996, released prisoners made up 17% (39,000 cases) of the total number of US AIDS cases and 13.1% to 19.3% of all people with HIV infection (98,000 to 145,000).

Russia and the United States lead the world in their use of incarceration. Russia jails 690 people per 100,000 citizens, while the U.S. rate is 600 per 100,000. The U.S. rate is higher than at any previous time, and it is 6 to 10 times higher than the rate of Western European nations.

The US incarceration rate has more than tripled since 1980.

A THIRD of the Russian prison population, about 350,000 inmates, will be released this year.

An estimated 4 million Americans are infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV), with between 20 percent to 60 percent of the nation's 2 million prisoners infected.

Is 1900-1949 really better than past 50 years? The jury is still out, so to speak, as evidenced by the number of US executions since 1930.

Looks like between 1930 and 1949 we were going hog-wild on executions. Average nearly 150 a year. Lots of people whacking each other. Nothing better to do.

But then TV came along. By 1968 people found watching Star Trek and Green Acres and Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom much more amusing than whacking each other. No executions for capital crimes between 1968 and 1976.

Then Disco came in 1977 but only a few people whacked each other over it. It wasn't until the advent of 100+ channel cable in 1984 and the crappy shows that came with it that people started losing interest in the tube.

The Internet has really fouled things up. In the last five years more people have been executed than in the entire period from 1962 to 1994. Probably from people whacking each other while waiting for their files to download. Have you ever heard "You've Got Mail!" played backwards?

I'm hoping that ubiquitous broadband will bring television to the Internet and reverse this trend.

DVD region encoding is one of the most insidious technologies out there today - it enforces a multi-tier world in which only some people have the right to see and hear stuff. Although it probably isn't illegal under the First Amendment, it is terrible for folks who live in other regions - and can be used to enforce censorship by the authorities there.

Perhaps a similar lawsuit could be filed here? Is there an antitrust case to be made against the MPAA and DVD licensors? "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal" under the Sherman Antitrust Act, after all.

Such restriction of access seems to indicate a bias towards non-compliance or thwarting of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Forbidding audible rendition of the material, whether performed by human or machine, to someone incapable of accessing the material in the sole manner provided and allowed appears to me as mean-spirited at best.