Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses
Jon Rochmis from wired wrote in to tell us that Declan McCullagh has a story up now: Microsoft Loses. There really isn't a lot of details, except that the news is officially out, and that the penalties (and of course many more lawsuits) will be forthcoming.Update: 04/03 09:08 by H :Check out the official government site for the ruling -- in excruciating detail. CNNfn also has got an analysis up.
Here's a relevant quote from their latest 10-Q:
So first of all, the company can settle the warrants by issuing more stock instead of paying cash. Thus the warrants can never cause Microsoft to pay out cash, so they can't make Microsoft go insolvent. They can, of course, cause stock dilution.
If MSFT dropped to $55 per share before the warrants expire, and Microsoft chose to settle in cash, they would pay 163 million times ($14 to $23) per share. That's $2.3 billion to $3.8 billion. Microsoft has $18 billion in cash. They won't be insolvent at $55/share. In fact they won't be insolvent at $0/share, even if they honored all the warrants in cash.
Of course, it's unlikely that MSFT is going to $0 per share. What's the real market value of the put warrants? Check out http://www.cboe.com and look for comparable options. I see that the Jan 2002 $80 puts are going for about $10 each today. That's a comparable option, so I'll use that value.
I don't accept Microsoft's view that the warrants are off the balance sheet because they could choose to dilute their equity if they have to honor them. I see the warrants have a market value of about $1.63 billion and I think this should be a liability on the balance sheet.
Note that historically, Microsoft has made lots of money by selling these warrants (which have always expired worthless and are likely to continue to do so).
Ah, so you are a mind reader.
M$ took no risks in insulting him.
What a brave assumption! The judge doesn't like me, so I'm going to lie under oath, present false evidence, insult the judge, and otherwise make sure that my "hunch" about the judges feelings towards me becomes a reality!
You must make a lot of money on the late night psychic friends network. So what else can you read in the judge's mind? Does he wear boxers or briefs? Does he like Quake III?
That would only have been a risk if he had an open mind to start with.
Oh, boo-hoo. The judge ruled against me; he must of been agin' me all along. My own actions had nothing to do with it.
Look guys - VA Linux stocks went UP 5% today, M$ stocks went DOWN.
Well, Duh! This decision was known six months ago - the exact date and time of it's arrival was known in the middle of last week and the result was a foregone conclusion.
Any stock holder who didn't get out at the end of last week deserves all they got. This was an eminently forseeable disaster. They could have sold last Wednesday and bought them all back today for 15 points less - and made out big-time.
So, what should the Linux/BSD/Mac/BeOS community do to celebrate? It seems like there should be some kind of massive Internet party somehow. Any suggestions?
First off, you're wrong.
The tech industry has NOT flourished because no one (in) government paid attention...
You may be too young to remember the days of IBM, but let's go back 3 decades. IBM ruled business much like MS does now. The reason computers flourished is because (cough) someone (cough) brought charges against IBM. To get out of those charges, IBM, among other things, stopped selling it's software and hardware together (basically allowing others to sell software for IBM hardware).
Doesn't sound like much, does it. But that's where it REALLY started.
And please note, oh gloom and doom provider, that the DOJ has NOT moved against any other software companies in the time since they went after Big Blue.
(so chill on the regulation FUD)
Once the courts have applied whatever remedies they choose - then theory says that we will finally have a chance at a fair fight. It's not currently fair that many companies are forced to ship ONLY Windoze titles - or ONLY Windoze-based computers, etc, etc. Now it'll be a level playing field and we can fight a fair battle based on technical merit. It's really only just started.
Uh, I would say that's debatable.
Some people would say that when the government looked away, parts of the tech industry flourished at the expense of other parts of the tech industry and consumers, and that oftentimes it was not done through natural market forces. Judge Jackson seems to be under the impression that the market forces were created through illegal (and I'll interject "unethical") means. In fact, this judge's Findings of Law looks like one example after another, of Microsoft manipulating the market instead of doing business within it.
To put it another way, when I look at the profits made by bank robbers, I don't think, "Wow, they really understand how to make money!" I think, "Well, now that they're caught, it's time to give the money back and also face the punative consequences."
I'll agree with you there. I don't think Judge Jackson needs to do much in regards to remedies. Just stating the Findings Of Law will be enough for the market to correct itself. Of course, one of the first steps toward that correction is for every one of Microsoft's victims to sue the bastards into a smoking crater. When Microsoft goes under and liquidates all its assets for fourteen cents on the dollar, I don't think the myopic legislators will have much incentive to write a bunch of laws to fix the Microsoft Problem.
The only Microsoft-related problem remaining will be the losses born by Microsoft's creditors. But that's just how business works. They should have paid more attention to what was happening.
Do you people not get it? Big Microsoft is the best thing for Linux. Microsoft is big and slow. Baby Microsofts are bad for Linux. Baby Microsofts are rich and quick. Big Microsoft created the need for Linux. Baby Microsofts will destroy Linux. Microsoft would have fallen on its own. After Microsoft is no longer a target, they will go after the Internet.
I, mean, this is Slashdot... if it were real, wouldn't this story be titled "Microsoft Looses"?
If you take a look at the moderation rules, you'll see the explanation for this, but I'll try to explain it here. Any post received by a user who is logged on, in this case, Valdrax, is automatically moderated as a 1, even before the moderators get to it, while any AC post is automatically moderated as a 0. So since he's logged on to /. as Valdrax, his post automatically receives a 1 whereas your AC post and the others before you received a 0. So its moderation was automatic rather then moderated up by an individual as you may have thought.
The NY Times has this article available at http://www.nytimes. com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/03tsc-msft.html
----------------------------
Welp, I guess this is officially big news -- CNN's main webpage is in overload mode..
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Hell, even I (a computer professional and long time MircoSoft hater (and for all the right reasons at that :-)) will probably loose a few dollars these days because of such a fund over which I have no direct control (other than to get out, but that also costs). But franckly, I personally don't really care. I knew full well what I was doing when I got in, and have gained considerably more from it than I will loose now. Besides, the loss will be temporary anyway, and most of the money that is leaving Micro$oft will be moving elsewhere where I can again hope to profit from it.
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
go here
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Mirror
--
A buddhist walks up to a hot dog stand and says ``Make me one with everything.''
Microsoft's crime was not "being successful". What Microsoft did wrong was to assume that that success placed them above the law, and justified them doing whatever it was they felt like.
And as it turned out, they felt like doing a lot of very nasty and unconsciencable things, a few of which - a FEW of which - are detailed in the "findings of fact" that were published a couple of months ago.
The free marketplace is supposed to be about quality rising to the top - the best products, with the best features, and the best prices. You succeed by producing quality work. And if all you do is produce quality products at good prices, then you have nothing to fear.
But as soon as you start going after competitors, you've crossed the line, and should expect to be punished. It's like running a foot race. If you're the fastest runner, you deserve success. But if you win by tripping up all the other runners, you don't deserve success.
If Microsoft had not sought to deny Netscape marketing channels, if it had not attempted to first aqquire, and then if that failed, render incompatible, every single promising innovative product that came down the pike, then they would not be in the pickle that they are today.
Yes, we expect companies to compete. But at the same time, we expect them to follow the rules of the game. Microsoft did not, and they are starting to pay the piper.
Paging Dr. Faust... Paging Dr. Faust...
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
The news.com article on this is at http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1629387.html? tag=st.ne.1002.thed.1003-200-1629387 . It's not much more informative than the Declan McCullagh article at the moment, but News.com has a habit of updating their articles so they may give some more insightful analysis in a bit.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
ObPedantic:
The price of a stock has nothing (excepting psychological effects) to do with value. One can only talk about overvalued/undervalued in terms of the total capitalization (price and quantity) and based on other formulas related with return to the equity holder.
If MSFT had 10 outstanding shares, they would probably be a penny or two above $200. :)
I'm sure you knew that, but I shitpick as a matter of habit, and it would be a shame if someone took that as The One Truth.
Pax -- Ob
Both of which failed utterly to promote technological progress or a competitive marketplace. It's not the first time, either, and it's certainly not the first time in the infotech sector. AT&T ring any Bells? (nyuck!)
Unlike the AT&T trial, Pennfield-Jackson clearly has a clue, immersing himself in the culture, technology and market realities surrounding the case. The findings of fact and findings of law are rock solid, and have enough precedent backing them up to make M$'s appeals team weep.
In the MS case, the government is stepping in to preserve technological progress and an open market. Exactly the role the government -should- fill. I'd rather they expend all their effort tackling anti-competitive and cartel behavior in the multi-nats than figure out ways to limit freee speech.
Just remember folks once upon a time IBM was the Big Evil Corporation (tm) that was choking the life out of the computer industry, today we sing their praises as cool and hip for understanding and embracing our beloved Linux better and faster than any other established company.
This is because IBM, unlike Microsoft, decided to adhere to -their- consent decree. Or did you forget that Big Bad Big Blue was once up against the Sherman Acts in court? Microsoft had a way out, but they decided they were above the law and their bottom line was more important than the democratic rule of law. Too bad, so sad, time to go.
The market is voracious: no one company is indispensable, and players strapped down by a fat and iron-fisted Microsoft would rise and shine to make the market bloom. If Bill Gates folded MS tomorrow in a fit of piqué, Sun, Apple, Corel and Red hat would take off like a shot, and companies like Data-Viz would fill the compatibility gaps.
So, yeah, put me in the "Very Good Thing" camp.
SoupIsGood Food
>Do you people not get it? Big Microsoft is the best thing for Linux.
>Microsoft is big and slow. Baby Microsofts are bad for Linux. Baby
>Microsofts are rich and quick. Big Microsoft created the need for
>Linux. Baby Microsofts will destroy Linux. Microsoft would have fallen
>on its own. After Microsoft is no longer a target, they will go after
>the Internet.
Here's question for you Astrotufer.....Will any version of Microsoft be able to port any version of Windows to anything other than a Intel processor?
>"[T]here are currently no products - and that there are not likely
>to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of
>computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC
>operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Findings
>18-29"
It's right. Just look at how Windows Users bitch and scream at the mere idea of reading the documention to something.....
Sorry dude. I can second the experience. Netscape takes takes out X around 1 out of 5 times it crashes.
So, yes there's an exagerration that it happens "all the time", but it does happen.
-Stu
Microsoft is responsible for U.S. economic growth in one important way: profits. Lots of them, and also profits from companies that support or are complements to Microsoft's products.
That totals up to tens of billions of dollars in GDP every year.
Another way: wealth. Almost every pension fund or mutual fund owns some sort of position in Microsoft. MANY ordinary people have gotten wealthier because of their success.
Another way: providing a de facto operating system standard. We may be outgrowing this now, but it was indispensible in allowing the software industry to grow. Stable infrastructure is a necessity for innovation.
Yet another way: Minor innovation. No, Microsoft is not a big innovator. They do lots of little things, however. Little things that are customer requests. Or are features the competition has. Incorporating any of these ideas into their products is an innovation because it exposes those ideas to a wider audience, continuing the positive feedback loop by attracting more customers to Microsoft.
Side note: If you don't think this is innovation, you probably have a double standard here. (Think about your definition of innovation as applied to MIcrosoft, and then apply it to Gnome or RedHat, or any other Linux distro vendor. And then tell me with a straight face that these companies are better innovators.)
The damage Microsoft has caused is quite intangible, at best. It would be difficult to claim that the amount of profits Microsoft has would be small compared to its potential competitors if they were allowed to thrive, given at how risky a business venture really is. However, the damage is real, so the remedy should at least be preventive, if not retributive (how do you compensate for what you can't measure?).
I think in the end some balance is required with Microsoft. They have done some good for the computer industry in a business sence, if not a technological sence by providing a stable infrastructure. They have also abused their power and done much damage to some parts of the industry. Hence, they should be punished and prevented from doing so again.
This does NOT make them the great satan who forced their wares upon us. Never forget that it is PEOPLE who bought Microsoft products. They could have bought Apple products or Commodore products, but they chose not to. Later they could have bought OS/2 during the Win95 upgrade but they chose not to. It's all about choice, and the market decided that Microsoft should win. And they did win, which is good. But they kept winning by illegally perpetuating their position, which is bad.
-Stu
I wouldn't go so far as to say the activity would have "vanished". All I would say is that it is extremely difficult to claim that it would be better without Microsoft. My reasoning for this is that new ventures are under tremendous duress during their growth years: they have to perform, they have to compete with the big boys, and they have to do it without a ton of money. Very often many small companies poised for hypergrowth are in a vicious circle: they don't have enough time to get the management talent needed to handle this growth, and hence they can't grow without major screwups. Netscape is a good example of this problem in effect.
Regarding your last paragraph: I don't know how many times this needs to be said before it sinks in. This whole case was brought up because Microsoft illegally removed true choice from the consumer. PEOPLE may have bought Microsoft, but they did so because they didn't have a real alternative. So the "market" didn't decide anything. I believe that, if it had, we would have a for more stable economy with our far more stable PC's.
I disagree.
The court found that Microsoft was guilty of propagating its monopoly through anticompetitive means, and attempting to gain monopoly power in the web browser industry through anti-competitive means. It found that Microsoft was NOT guilty of anti-competitve marketing agreements.
This ruling, to me, suggests that Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power really began around 1996. The consent decree of 1994/95 was designed to address the problems with Microsoft's former licencing practices. These practices were *not* deemed anti-competitive at the time.
Furthermore, Microsoft's licencing practices in the 80's were done at a time when there WAS market choice. You still could choose to get a Mac, or an Amiga in 1985. There was no 90% monopoly then. That the market decided to go with the herd, as it usually does, is disappointing, but not anti-competitive.
Even more so in 1995 - the Windows 95 launch was a moderate success, despite a substantial marketing effort on the part of IBM's OS/2 since 1994. The market did swing towards OS/2 for a while, before the Win95 release. But within one and a half years after Win95 came out, shrink-wrapped sales, not pre-loaded ones, overcame the entire OS/2 install base. The market decided again.
This case was about punishing Microsoft for attempting to remove choice in the market through the browser bundling, through its threats of dropping the Macintosh MS Office, and through its exclusive arrangements with ISP's. It is not punishing Microsoft for making shoddy, but popular operating systems.
-Stu
The text of the ruling is available here: http://usvms.gpo.gov/
-Stu
Thanks for your sympathy. whimper whimper. . .
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
In your dream-world that would be nice. Wouldn't it be nice if people got rich by being smart and working hard.
but this is the real world. And if I had excercised my options (not in MSFT, another tech company that got bumrushed in the panic) and sold them, the IRS would be cornholeing me all the way to Seattle by now. In fact, they are anyway.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
. . . actually, I was kinda hoping for some jail time for Billy. $8 billion would buy a lot of cigs. . .
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I'm not so sure about THIS case, but since there has been a ruling issued on this case, open the floodgates of all the independent and class-action lawsuits.
Microsoft may get some relief here on appeals, but they will now be hounded for years based on the outcome of this case. They made a grave error by not settling. Bend over, Bill. I've got a few CD's for you.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Linux never did or would have the opportuninty to control an entire industry and play hardball (think Al Capone) with pricing and exclusive deals, and Linux (or the Linux vendors) has the same constraints of playing under the laws set up govorning corporate behavior in the US as Microsoft -
If two basketball players are competing, and one fouls the other, and the ref calls him on it, it's still a fair game.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
- - -
What pisses me off is that my company's share prices were just slammed, for no frickin reason other than the fact that we are a software company. Sure, we do NT software, but we also do Solaris and HP-UX, SCO, etc. I lost over $150,000 today. That sucks. No frickin reason. We're not monopolists, we write damn good software, and we just had another killer quarter.
Now I understand why Seagate wanted to avoid this market insanity.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
A small depression could be good about now?
You sound just like Alan Greenspan.
You want his job or something?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
why,oog? Why must it?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
To quote Batman:
"Crime doesn't pay"
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Property" is a social construct, and when you break the social contract, as Microsoft has, you may quite reasonably expect to get it taken away.
Personally, I don't believe that breaking up Microsoft is a good idea--it would just do what the Baby Bells have done, i.e. grow ever huger and screw over the little guy ever more. The DOJ really ought to consider the corporate death penalty.
What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
http://aldredge.com/ms-conclusions.html
I don't know which retarded moderator marked this post as "Flame-Bait", but I see nothing inflammatory here.
.oO[ M$ Strategy: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. ]Oo.
If you take a look at the parent of the comment you replied to, you'll see why he was complaining:
So this was moderated up by an individual rather than an automatic moderation as you may have thought.
http://www.jhebert.cx/~jhebert/MS/
I was so happy when the decision came out that I quit work for the day, cracked a beer, and broke out the gimp to celebrate.
Notice that the DOW climbed as much as the Nasdaq dropped. What posessed the administrators of the Nasdaq to add MS just at a time when they're being prosecuted for antitrust violations? That helps only MS. Was there some kind of favoritism there? Somebody managing mutual funds with lots of MSFT content who didn't like seeing the MSFT price slide as it's done since the findings of fact were released?
Seperate BackOffice from NT.
But Backoffice is absolutely worthless without NT.
Without the privileges of the OS, all backoffice is is a crummy mail server, a really crummy database, an HP Openview/LANdesk knockoff, and an unwieldly Client Access clone.
And I'm a 5-year (but repentant) MCSE.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Duh, I don't like work for Microsoft, I just bought their dumb stock.
Maybe you've heard of the Stock Market? It's a place they have only in America where people take their money, and it makes *more* money. And then you do it again and again.
I'm going to write a strongly-worded letter to those stock people. This "stock going down" business was not in the brochure. Someone is just not doing their job, and I'm going to put a stop to it. I don't care who gets fired!
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
They will require a new judge that had not have Windows crash on them to try the case.
Do they allow judges from Afghanistan to preside over appeal cases here in the US?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
The US Govt and the States should require that all software purchases for government must be open source. This will effectively lock-out M$ from the largest software customers in the world. Cheers, Smithdog
Thank you, everyone, for your answers. Information like this is why I come here. The sharing of your knowledge is appreciated greatly.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I've gotta come clean here. MS has --the coolest-- browser, Office Suite, and Development set. It's the damned OS I don't like. If either 1) Netscape didn't look (and act) goofy or 2) MS would (PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAASE) port IE to Linux (as if they don't already other *ix flavors) I would be so happy... IE really does have a lot more neat bells and whistles, and it looks smooth. Their damned OS is just so freaking bloated. It's actually more effective for me to develop under Linux but use VNC to look at the results on a Windows machine.
I would live with MS being recalled to the ninth level of hell. And my rent (out in Bellevue - the most boring city in the region) might even go down.
;)
Sadly, I live within the minimum safe distance, or else I might be more tolerant of a direct approach to MS.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
While I do work in the web industry, i'm a graphic illustrator. I can fall back on print media if it comes to it, and i've got a few other tricks up my sleeves....
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ microsoft-conclusions.html
The DOJ has the Conclusions of Law up.
IIRC, when there was an analysis of the findings of fact, there was mention of a process that the government could use that was meant for this sort of situation that would allow them to skip the appeals courts, and go straight to the supreme court. My memory is bad, but is this true? So will we really have to deal with years of appeals after all?
Instead of the "well-there-it-is-dept." shouldn't it be the "Duh Dept."? Just curious.
MS tying together browser and OS is logical and should be left alone. MS making this a non-replaceable component (think: the ability to swap out IE for NS as the desktop browser) is monopolizing given their situation. And MS making exclusionary deals is plain and simple monopolizing without any redeeming features.
Separate all MS software from all computers :-)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The Dow (The Dow Jones Industrial Average) is not an exchange. Dow Jones is a company that provides (for a price) information about stocks and other financial stuff.
The rules for how the DJIA is computed have changed many times over the years (but as far as I know sheep entrails and chicken bones have always played an integral part).
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Hangtime says,
"Let the market slug it out, its already making Windows obsolete anyway"
You don't seem to be getting it. The judge has stated in his findings of fact and now in his findings of law that
In other words, it is too late to say, "let the market decide," because Microsoft has so much power in the market that it can crush competitors, and Microsoft has indeed shown itself eager to ruthlessly squash any perceived competition by any means.
They don't seem to have slowed down much so far. Sure, their stock is down 15 points, but somehow with any other company I'd expect a much bigger hit after news of this sort. (Of course, this ruling was entirely expected, so it was already factored into the price before the official announcement.)
Still, considering how potentially damaging the outcome of this could be, I'm surprised the investors are staying as calm as they are. I've seen companies take much larger losses (percentage-wise) after much less sever court rulings.
Maybe it's just that the investors realize that in America, if you have enough cash on hand you can weasel your way out of just about anything...
But from the consumer's viewpoint, I seriously doubt this will have much impact on the OS market. Windows will still be Windows, and people will still buy it for the same reasons they do now. If they're broken up, though, I can see a potential for a serious decline in market share for most of their other apps, assuming that the breakup means that the OS company is no longer able to provide undocumented API's to the app companies, thus forcing them to play on a level field.
Or, maybe it's just been a long day and my mind has turned to oatmeal. Yeah, I think that's it, I'll quit rambling now...
Breaking MS up is not enough, or at least not the correct thing... An independant OS division would still have enough mindshare to kill competitors with vaporware announcements, and could still make use of many if not most of the unfair practices that are listed in the finding of fact.
MS probably needs to be regulated like a utility until such time as the market is able to assert normal control over it. Something like what a "Public Utilities Commision" does with phone and power companies.
Believe it or not, a few days ago I might have thought you to be original, but (yes, I read it) your post proves me wrong. You spent the most time proving that you haven't an original thought in your head, but have developed an uncanny ability to regurgitate other posts.
Hmmm...the use of a fairly standard and somewhat humorous (if overused) convention renders my thoughts unoriginal.
Scratch that, my SIGNED post which expresses an opinion is unoriginal beside one that:
You'll forgive me if the fact that you let that overcome the content of my thoughts which, with a simple change in ASCII values, you would have thought meaningful fails to impress upon me the errors of my ways.
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
--
--
Did you hear the news? Bill has a new book out. It's called "Being sued at the speed of business"...
Okay, the ruling is out. Microsoft was declared a monopoly (bad microsoft). Now what? Well, Microsoft will appeal. That'll take, oh, six months. Then you'll have another trial to determine whether the judge screwed up. Some technicalities will be brought up. More witnesses will be called in. Tax dollars will be spent. Press releases will be issued. Microsoft stock will continue to plummet. The ruling from the appeals judge will either overturn or affirm it.. upon which another appeal will be made to the Supreme Court. In the meantime Bill will get even richer off of the Windows monopoly.
But.. even if MS broke up, was dissolved, destroyed by a tactical nuke, or was sucked into a black hole by virtue of it's marketing department assuming a mass greater than our sun, look at it this way - Bill can still write a book about it and make billions more selling it to middle-management types.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/mirrors/usdoj/
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/mirrors/usdoj/
-hpa
There are a handful of other companies that would take a big hit with the death of MS; supply-chain type companies that have been enjoying the generous business of the colossus.
Seattle-based Airborne Express, the small (compared to UPS or FedEx) parcel company, would lose a MAJOR contract.
And... uh... hmm... Well, most of the companies MS relies on tend to be aquired by MS.
A competitive market can provide incentives to produce better products at lower prices. A monopolized industry has no such incentives.
How many patches and bugfixes have there been for unix operating systems in the past?
Not sure. Given Microsoft reportedly has 60,000+ known bugs in windows 2k, and that Debian has something like 13,000 open bugs in their bug tracking systems (probably all very small fraction of the total), the number of unixes and years since UNIX was first developed, I'd roughly estimate somehwere in the tens or hundreds of millions.
How many times has netscape crashed on you?
Several hundred times. Netscape Navigator has a lot of defects. Probably more than the corresponding Microsoft product.
Just *who* decides what bugs should be fined?
Yeah, that would have to be worked out.
And should bugs in non-microsoft software be fined too?
Software defects are a major problem, and single line bugs are believed to have caused the loss of both the Mars Polar Lander and a British company's communications satellite during a recent space launch. However, in a non-monopoly situation, competitive market forces (hopefully) can encourage efficiency, and improvement in price or quality of goods over time. Monopolies are sheltered from market forces, and thus have less incentive to improve, leading to either government intervention to restore a competitive market, or regulation.
it mentions in the FoF the incredible amounts of money and man power microsoft put into Internet Explorer to try to make it a better quality product than Netscape
Software benefits from economies of scale. Free markets, left to themselves, can often lead to monopolies. Microsoft is not evil; they are big and succesful and have acquired a monopoly. They got to their current position, in part, by doing a better job than competitors.
However, Microsoft by vitrue of being a monopoly is sheltered from market forces. Microsoft doesn't have to worry about Internet Explorer making a return on investment, because people had no choice but to buy it -- the product was bundled with windows, which people have no choice but to buy. If we allow a company to be sheltered from market forces, then the only way to protect consumers is regulation. This is why the monopoly utility I buy water from is regulated.
[something nearly incoherent about Microsoft writing good software and adultery]
If you think Microsoft does a good job, think how much better they might do (or someone else might do, given the chance) in a competitive market. I think the software industry could do much better job in terms of quality in a competitive market. And if that can't be achieved, I'll settle for some quality-by-regulation. The amount of defects people put up with in software is ridiculous compared to other, non-monopolized industries.
However, [TeX's] scope is quite small in comparison to the applications of issue here (web browsers, operating systems).
TeX shows that software does not have to be shoddy by inherent nature. Microsoft can do better. Hell, if they lowered their defect rate by just a few orders of magnitude, I'd be happy.
in 5 minutes of searching, I was unable to find mention of any TeX-only bugs
Spend as many hours as you like searching. It is hard, but not impossible, to write defect-free software.
but I did find several sites with lists of LaTeX bugs. Perhaps we should start fining the makers of LaTeX, too, because their buggy macros are damaging the computer industry.
Laslie Lamport does control a monopoly. Thus, market forces can encourage improvements to LaTeX, or perhaps it will lose out to competitors. In the United States, regulation is typically considered less desirable than a competitive market (but more desirable than an unregulated monopoly.)
Oh no wait, the bugs in LaTeX were obviously Microsoft's fault. I forgot.
Why do you think the software industry puts out such shoddy products compared to other industries? Think for a little bit on what a competitve industry might have produced over the last decade versus what we got from a Microsoft monopoly. The opportunity costs have been enormous, and that's why we have anti-trust laws and why Microsoft ended up in court. Excuse me for noting that the aftermath of this trial could lead to a better software industry. Excuse me for wanting a rememdy that could actually be productive and helpful to previously shafted consumers. You're right that making bad product is not illegal in and of itself; but it is a natural consequnce of a company abusing monopoly advantages, and that is illegal.
name one software product that has ever been bug free
TeX.
> Do we understand the implications? (Score:3, Flamebait)
:)
Hot damn, I wish I could write a post moderated UP and marked flamebait. THAT is what you call a good post
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> Wrong. Counterexamples could be named by the score.
I count zero in your post. How about some?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
The sort of duopoly that the government would like to see would leave us with two closed, mediocre options. Freedom will give us something better.
freedom! freedom from the oppressor!
heh.
--
"we assume that economic actors usually have accurate perceptions of economic realities"
I think that's a pretty big assumption to make. Usually, poor actors are more concerned with the next porno they are going to play a minor role in.
--
Many excellent points. IE is fairly stable but now that its tightly integrated into my OS, when it locks up, so does the rest of the OS, even when you tell it to "Browse in a separate process". Still, I'd take it over Netscape 4.x any day.
I wouldn't say that MS does it better than anyone else though, their products are usually poorly designed and then hammered on by millions of people until theres no (or relatively few at least) bugs left. No offense intended to the coders at MS (I'm sure that the OS codebase must be a festering behemoth of NeverChangeThisInterfaceEx2W et al) but the things you find in Visual C for example, point to lots and lots and lots of special case coding. How else can Win2k need around a gig before you install apps when other OS's exist providing comparable functionality (I don't define needless MS extensions as functionality) in a fraction of that space?
Embrace and extend asside, blackmailing other companies to exclude competitors from the marketplace is evil.
is available at http://usvms.gpo.gov but its /.'d of course
Frank W. Miller
In a civil case, I doubt that the DOJ has any jurisdiction to go after Microsoft because Microsoft bullied other companies into deals to exclude their (Microsoft's) competition.
In view of the context of the case, the only anti-trust issue directly related to the consumers (which the DOJ is assigned to protect) has to do with the illegal inclusion of IE into Windows. MS was never found innocent or guilty of practicing exclusionary deals because this case is not meant to argue those points.
It would be up to the individual companies to file lawsuits, and this latest judgement by Judge Jackson just paves the way for the next string of civil suits. They are just waiting to see what this landmark case will bring before they pull the millions to send their lawyers a knocking on Microsoft's perverbial door.
So Microsoft's legal battles are not yet over and they may not be for a very long time, especially if Jackson's decision survives all the appeals. The findings of fact issued at the end of last year have already given the necessary ammunition for Netscape et al. to go after MS.
But in reality, going after Microsoft on such a big issue is extremely expensive. So why bother starting a lawsuit when the DOJ is spending the money to find out how the decisions may go?
I figure that if the DOJ ultimately wins this battle, Microsoft should invest in building a comfortable court house. They'll probably be stuck in it for a very long time...
Angry Bill say dangity-dang
He brokey the law, should hangity-hang, and
He's not CRESCENT FRESH!
His whole life's a mess!
Company stock got so much to lose,
Ballmer's living his life so crudity-rude, and
He's not CRESCENT FRESH!
His short life's a mess!
Finnishy dude likes hackity-hack,
Don't hide-a the code, or slackity-slack, and
He's so CRESCENT FRESH!
Super cres at best!
Nice-ity folks, they hacky the code,
while Mickeysoft's hold, it starts to erode, and
They're so CRESCENT FRESH!
Super cres at best!
-- Adapted from Sifl and Olly
This sig is false.
I mirrored the PDF version here.
I mirrored the PDF version here. (I screwed up the last time and posted the direct PDF link... but if you download it there you don't need a mirror, do you? :-)
Mirror of the findings available here
Microsoft put up this page to write to members of the White House, Congress and State Officials and tell them what we think...
So why wouldn't we use that!?
Microsoft put up this page to write to members of the White House, Congress and State Officials, to tell them what we think...
So why wouldn't we use that!?
Ya, and if I'm reading CNN's chart right they are still higher than they were this time last year. How insane is that. Still it'd be nice have enough microsoft stock that this would be a big difference in my bottom line.
Of course, this may be because the finding are not out yet. The other sources may have decided to wait 5-10 minutes, and not have to rely on "sources". When it does come out, the findings will be at usvms.gpo.gov.
Sam TH
Sam TH
AbiWord Developer
As I understand it, an Appeal is an attempt by the defendant to have the case taken to the next highest level in a court of law. Microsoft is already at the Federal level. How many more levels can they go? Isn't the next level the Supreme Court? And if it is, AFAIK you cannot appeal a Supreme Court decision.
;)
If that is true, then will there really be years of appeals? It looks like one appeal will take them directly to the top, and in this case I think it is likely that the Supreme Court will uphold Jackson's decision. Supreme Court justices hold their positions until they decide to leave (read: for life). This is so their decisions are not affected by politics, since they have no re-elections to worry about.
Or am I just blowing smoke out my ass?
If there are any legal scholars out there, would you care to enlighen us?
By the way, I think this bit is worth posting to Slashdot - the actual rulings from the end of the documents.
****Begin MS Findings****
In accordance with the Conclusions of Law filed herein this date, it is, this ______ day of April, 2000,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECLARED, that Microsoft has violated 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, as well as the following state law provisions: Cal Bus. & Prof. Code 16720, 16726, 17200; Conn. Gen. Stat. 35-26, 35-27, 35-29; D.C. Code 28-4502, 28-4503; Fla. Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18, 542.19; 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 10/3; Iowa Code 553.4, 553.5; Kan. Stat. 50-101 et seq.; Ky. Rev. Stat. 367.170, 367.175; La. Rev. Stat. 51:122, 51:123, 51:1405; Md. Com. Law II Code Ann. 11-204; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 2; Mich. Comp. Laws 445.772, 445.773; Minn. Stat. 325D.52; N.M. Stat. 57-1-1, 57-1-2; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 340; N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1, 75-2.1; Ohio Rev. Code 1331.01, 1331.02; Utah Code 76-10-914; W.Va. Code 47-18-3, 47-18-4; Wis. Stat. 133.03(1)-(2); and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that judgment is entered for the United States on its second, third, and fourth claims for relief in Civil Action No. 98-1232; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the first claim for relief in Civil Action No. 98-1232 is dismissed with prejudice; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that judgment is entered for the plaintiff states on their first, second, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth claims for relief in Civil Action No. 98-1233; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the fifth claim for relief in Civil Action No. 98-1233 is dismissed with prejudice; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that Microsoft's first and second claims for relief in Civil Action No. 98-1233 are dismissed with prejudice; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the Court shall, in accordance with the Conclusions of Law filed herein, enter an Order with respect to appropriate relief, including an award of costs and fees, following proceedings to be established by further Order of the Court.
Thomas Penfield Jackson
U.S. District Judge
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
Microsoft doesn't have a right to change its own API?
It should of course be "I've seen ...".
And I did use the preview button.
Steve M
- learn about "new" OS "features" before the competition
- make up the wish list for "new" OS "features"
- "integrate" apps into the OS when there's a threat when they're sold separately
and the like...Not that netscape doesn't suck. (though very rarely does it crash X on me).
There are two levels above a Federal Court. The first is the Federal Appeals Court and subsequently the Supreme Court of the US. Because Judge Jackson had a ruling overturned in the Appeals Court (in another anti-trust case, if I recall) there has been speculation that he will attempt to push the case immediately up to the Supreme Court. I don't know the name for this particular mechanism, but then again, I'm no lawyer.
So while we can be assured of a year or two of appeals, there isn't an endless sequence of courts left.
Hey all,
Anybody capable of swining a sack full of doorknobs please report to redmond with said item. I'll try to convince Judge Jackson to let us use them as the remedy for the conclusion of law.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Dude read the Findings of Fact. You are a Paid M$ Troll. Why don't you go off and start your own technical news forum. How much money did you lose today? Gotta get out of that stock...
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
Well Well it is official. Bill Gates is a Monopolist and Microsoft has an Illegal monopoly. Their stock dropped 13% today - more tomorrow. Thay have No products that coherently run a big web server on any big iron. They are history. I sold my stock 3 months ago. I suggest you sell yours soon.
Cheers,
Dan
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
Don't we all?
What's more, we are responsible for taking care of a lot of live human beings in nursing medical institutions,
Hmm. You mean taking care of human beings is even more important and complicated than working in a large MS dominated shop? Hoo wee!
and happen to be suffering financial troubles of our own.
You've doubtless suffered from monopolist tactics and pricing.
If MS is "dissolved" we will be without support for most of our large-scale financial apps and quite a number of our medical applications.
Top three reasons why you don't need MS:
So why do you care about what happens to Microsoft? I am not saying "Take away all copies of Win*.* and burn them" I am just saying the company cannot be controlled except by revoking their charter. Otherwise, they will still have and abuse their monopoly.
I am sure there are many ways that existing apps could continue to be supported as well as they are at present. The whole thrust of open source software is that it recognizes that software is an ongoing service relationship, and not a manufactured, mass-produced artifact.
What will we do when we discover a bug? Who will we call?
If you don't know who to call now, then Microsoft won't be of any help to you. If you've got a legacy application, or the consultant who designed the system left no documentation and was just vaporized by a meteorite, you're up shit creek without a paddle anyways.
What if we can't pay our employees one month, for example? Do you think we ought to start writing out sixty thousand checks by hand?
Bad software is a huge problem. I'm not disputing that fact. Something like 60% of all major softare projects fail. Why hasn't software development achieved the reliability of fields like mechanical or civil engineering? Because everyone is being greedy and fighting to keep their little recipes hidden from everyone else. No one has made an effort (OK, maybe Bjarne Stroustrup of C++ fame) to standardize solutions to standard problems. (And also we've come to realize that in human-computing interfaces, there are not really "standard problems", only wierd ones.) Professional associations in the software industry seem to be more like social clubs than agents for codifying best practices.
Or do the larger consequences of this escape you? Don't forget that Microsoft is said to have a monopoly for a reason -- said reason being that MOST people appear to be using it. Is your attitude going to be "well, fuck 'em all?"
As others have said many times in this forum, monopolies aren't necessarily in and of themselves bad. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is aimed at companies who use anti-competitive business practices to enlarge or entrench a monopoly. Oh, and by the way, saying that "MS is a monopoly because most people use it" is a little like saying "He's a bachelor because he's an unmarried man". In other words, you're not really saying that much.
Converting to Linux or some other "Government approved" OS would take more than a minor effort in an organization with nearly 1,000 servers and 6,000 clients.
I'll say it again. Shutting down MS does not imply forced installation of "US Department of Operating Systems v1.0" or something like that. If they dissolve the company, they could make the source code public domain or donate it to a university computer science department to debug. In fact, SourceForge could probably set up a site for them! I can just see it now -- http://windows.sourceforge.net
I fail to see in the American legal system the kind of absolute property rights you are espousing. There are limits to everything -- even property rights.
Property rights are elastic -- they depend on what you do with your property.
You are just painfully naive, I think.
There are two other things to keep in mind. First, Netscape certainly doesn't look like it was hurt all that much by Microsoft's tactics. Its stockholders are now proud owners of AOL and Sun stock, and certainly better off than they were when they started. And the supposed purpose of antitrust law is to protect consumers, not competitors.
I can't believe anyone who pays lip-service to free-market ideology would even think something like this, never mind utter these words or inscribe them on Slashdot for all posterity to gape at in awe.
Let's summarize your little argument:
Man, you've got to stop watching CNBC. The interests of the shareholder and the consumer are totally different. You have these two roles in society confused. Maybe you even have your own role in society confused.
CONSUMERS are the people who buy products.
SHAREHOLDERS are the people who own stock.
Anti-trust legislation is meant to protect consumers, not shareholders.
If you really and truly want to stop them from choking competition, you have no option but to dissolve the company.
There are lots of ways Windows could continue to be maintained without a big company "Officially supporting" it. I can think of one or two operating systems that are developed and maintained by individuals collaborating over the internet. There is no reason, in principle, why Windows cannot be maintained in the same manner.
I agree, but punishing the bad monopolist (as opposed to just plain-old monopolist) does not entail telling companies how to design software any more than telling a child not to break the rules prevents him from finding new and better ways to succeed within the framework of the rules. It may be harder and more costly and less profitable to do so, but it is the right thing to do.
Laws based on motives (rather than overt actions) are a really bad idea.
You can't be serious. Do you mean the punishment for negligence causing death ought to be the same as for capital murder? It'll be a cold day in hell before I agree to something like that.
Me: You are just painfully naive, I think.
You: And you are engaging in an ad hominum attack, I think.
Yes, you're right. I apologize for getting carried away.
The sooner the better.
It's pointless to go through all the red tape of breakup and regulation. Just dissolve the company and the playing field will be almost level.
It's the MBA's that got us in hot water in the first place. Everybody likes to paint the CEO-type as a risk-taking entrepreneur when in reality the management "professional" is hell bent on removing any uncertainty from his environment. Nobody has stifled creativity and innovation more than management.
How do you figure that these guys are so certain about how the market works and individual investors are clueless? Is there a simple, mathematical law that can predict stock price fluctuations or one that says how or why or when a stock should be traded? If there were a simple answer to these questions, I wouldn't need a PhD to figure it out. If the answer is complicated and unclear, then how can it be anything other than hubris to claim to have certainty about market behaviour. Human behaviour is chaotic. Anybody (including MBA's and PhD'd) who thinks they know the rules obviously hasn't learned very much.
Would you rather have a government sanctioned racket of "official" traders (which is what we still have to a certain degree) who keep the trains running on time (so to speak) while the rest of us are just passive spectators?
Yes it is.
Hey, ever heard of voting?
This is the reason MS became so successful originally -- their product was distributed as part of a PC, making it a relatively small part of the cost of the hardware on which it runs.
He is one. OOG's been managing my portfolio ever since 5926 B.C. He got me into the ground floor of that "wheel" invention, and let me tell you: it did pretty damn well. I got through 1929 without a scratch. OOG KNOW THINGS!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Either that, or I try later.
--
Gleepy the Hen. More intelligent than the average hen.
I hope they get everything they have coming to them.
James Carter
Something else to keep in mind is that Linux will never die. It might shift back to being an alternative OS instead of a mainstram one, but that won't kill it. If people want to make it work, they will.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
How much cash does Microsoft have in the bank. The stock plunged today, knocking down Bill's net worth by about 10%, but if Judge Jackson were to impose a fine, how much would it have to be to make a difference? 10 Billion? 50 Billion?
:-)
And where should that money go? Customers? Compertitors?
I think it would be great if every Microsoft Customer recieved a cheque for $100 or $500
Is that realistic?
What about paying down the national debt? A fine that big could make a big dent in the debt, maybe pay for some poor kids to learn to surf the net (on Macs running Netscape of course).
What do you think? Slashdot is a large collection of brains, what good ideas are out there?
Reality has a liberal bias
As someone who has had plenty of grief from IE recently (Win NT 4.0 sp 6 was BLUE SCREENING when I'd do things like close a window in MSIE), I'd clearly agree that putting a browser into the operating system kernel was not done for my benefit.
By the by, I can't think of another OS which has a browser as such a core part of the OS. Mac OS? Linux? BeOS (the example of NetPositive given during the trial was a red herring; NetPositive is just an app)?
The HTML rendering engine could be provided as operating system utilities without hurting general stability, as could support for HTTP and FTP. Check out how the Mac OS has done so in Mac OS 8.x and higher.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
No. I am a classical liberal and a little-o objectivist (not a Randroid), and thus feel perfectly comfortable making value judgements. I do think government is bad in the long run, and I do feel that government by interventionism is just plain wrong. Deal with it.
:)
By the way... what exactly is a hypocrat, anyway? A really short guy who, uh, rules? In that case, I am a really short guy and I rule... would I qualify?
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
You will notice that with the exception of a few dead people, most addicts are quite happy with heroin.
Seriously, that comment is fallacious and a miserable way thing to base an argument on. People are happy with loads of things. I know people who are happy with television, you do too. Just because people are happy, doesn't mean they can't be happier. What's more, the longer MS goes unpunished, the more obstacles that will exist between people and greater happiness.
Besides being pointless and irrelevant, it is plain wrong. If people such an overwhelming group of people were so happy with Microsoft, they wouldn't get derided so often. The only people who deride GNU/Linux are a bunch of MS fanatics.
I honestly have no idea why you would feel it is annoying that so much anti-MS sentiment here. Slashdot is, after all, well-known for it's support of free software, Open Source, Linux, GNU, BSD and in general, a great many things non-MS. It isn't an even-handed provider of tech news, and I'm fairly sure it never has been. Why on Earth are you annoyed to find anti-MS sentiment here? It is where I come to find anti-MS sentiment!
I suppose you're doing it to show the MS flag or something. Fine. If I were you, I'd do it in a more neutral forum, but it takes all types, I guess.
MS isn't being punished for being successful. Only a fool would claim that they were, only an idiot would believe them, and only a complete chimp would repeat this nonsense. MS is being punished for employing criminal means to eliminate competition. They attempted to enter into an illegal agreement with Netscape to split the market for web browsers. When Netscape refused, Microsoft, out of fear of losing their monopoly, bullied, badgered and bribed a small horde of companies into providing their product and ignoring Netscape's. This is ILLEGAL! Why can't you imbeciles comprehend that there are laws that govern the country in which you live, and success does not exempt you from them!
Microsoft has done things that nobody else in the industry have done. Thay have broken the law with no regard for the consequences. Repeatedly. They routinely violate standards as a means of controlling another application area (most recently their broken Kerberos implementation).
They flouted the last settlement they made with the DoJ. No wonder the government is baying for blood.
You claim that MS's politically connected competitors are driving this lawsuit. This is paranoid drivel to support your lopsided world view. What competitors? Monopolies don't have competitors. Apple? I think not.
So it is not a travesty of justice. It is not punishment for success. It is not a shadow back door deal done between the government and some unspecified competitors. It is the long awaited come-uppance of the biggest problem of the computer industry.
This judge is the man. Whoa he really wants to get mircosoft. And not only that, he also shoots against the former ruling about ie-integration (called Microsoft II in the finding).
Allow me a cite:
The majority opinion in Microsoft II evinces both an extraordinary degree of respect for changes (including "integration") instigated by designers of technological products, such as software, in the name of product "improvement," and a corresponding lack of confidence in the ability of the courts to distinguish between improvements in fact and improvements in name only, made for anticompetitive purposes. Read literally, the D.C. Circuit's opinion appears to immunize any product design (or, at least, software product design) from antitrust scrutiny, irrespective of its effect upon competition, if the software developer can postulate any "plausible claim" of advantage to its arrangement of code. 147 F.3d at 950.
This undemanding test appears to this Court to be inconsistent with the pertinent Supreme Court precedents in at least three respects. First, it views the market from the defendant's perspective, or, more precisely, as the defendant would like to have the market viewed. Second, it ignores reality: The claim of advantage need only be plausible; it need not be proved. Third, it dispenses with any balancing of the hypothetical advantages against any anticompetitive effects.
Boah
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+O);}
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
Really, if you read alot of the articles put out about the settlement talks breaking down, I think the biggest blame about that can be put on the State Attorny Generals. Seems the me that it was said in so many words that their almost 'meddling' in the case at this point, and I think that both the DOJ and Microsoft are glad to get back into the courts, where they have less say in the matter.
I bet if the states weren't involved, they would have settled. Too many cooks, sorta thing. They are going to be the biggest problem that the DOJ has to deal with, states thinking that it didn't work out the way THEY thing it should have.
--knick
Oh how I do attact the anonymous don't want to login show my real self and lose karma cowards. Rather then stoop so low I will rather answer in fact-based commentary.
When I transitioned to the use of Windows NT two years ago, I was still using Netscape. This funny thing started happening, everytime I would pull up a Java based page it would screw my whole system. Not being one who works on things that bomb all the time I began using IE and never went back.
I never said the world would come to an end if Microsoft was spanked, I referred to the end if Microsoft decided to close up shop. Big difference.
Lastly, I see you didn't dispute my assertion that much of the economic growth we have enjoyed can be attributed to Microsoft. Just in case you do decide to come back and dispute that claim. Examine the economic impact that Microsoft has on each phase of our economy before you answer including but not restricted to games, server software, internet related technologies, and application development.
People just want to be able to run games, use their office apps, and browse the Internet. If reliability was a big factor in the buying decision of consumers (it is in departmental and enterprise server sales hence Linux's fast growth in that segment) Microsoft would have been sorely beat by Linux long ago. If ease of use were a factor in sales Apple and MacOS would have trounced Microsoft in the ground and danced on its grave.
Sometimes the factors you cite as the overriding factors in consumer buying criteria are in fact not the real factors.
Hangtime
If you continue to think the way you have always thought, you will continue to get what you have always got. - Anonymous
ch-chuck: John Chambers recently told a crowd that he might just buy up every pre-IPO company in the San Jose area. When did Cisco make an innovation. Intel took the same idea of 3dnow and made its own modifications and bundled it as SSE.
Imitation happens all over the marketplace, not just here.
Thats the point mwa, Microsoft doesn't do things for the public good if it doesnt benefit the bottom line in some direct or indirect way. That's the point of business. I'm not out for the common good, I'm out to serve customers which in turn gets me money.
Server software: IIS, because you buy NT and you got the HTTP server for free, it was tightly integrated with the rest of the Microsoft products.
Internet Technologies: SQL server and ASP. One of the easiest combinations to use. Use Apache and PHP, its a free market.
Application Development: Name me one IDE that beats Visual Studio across the breath of programs and the depth at which you can go. Yes you can use gmacs or Codewarrior for Linux but it still doesnt have as much functionality.
Replies, replies everywhere
WillAfleck: Perhaps you didn't see the NASDAQ close today, it dropped 7% and with Microsoft dragging it down most of the way. Also the Dow 30 does include Microsoft so considering if Bill did decide to close the doors, I would say a depression (a drop of 30% in more less then 6 months) would be very likely. Second your argument that economies are independent of one another. We are in an interdependent marketplace. If something in Asia happens we feel it here. If something in Washington state happens its felt here. Events do not happen in isolation they happen in the total marketplace.
Black Parrot: Sorry bud, Netscape bombed I went to the processes and killed it.
Mr. Anonymous Coward who called me morally bankrupt: First off I take great offense to your post and find that it was moderated up a point even more offensive. At what point did I say the law shouldn't take its course. I am in fact VERY MUCH FOR RULE OF LAW! The fact is the market is correcting itself, I never said that Microsoft didn't engage in objectionable practices. The fact the entire case was based on Microsoft operating as an monopoly is patently false. See my previous post.
TicTacTux: See Tennessee Valley Authority, it already happens. See above paragraph.
SteveM: There was an economy before 1995 and the Internet. Let's say that the Internet would not have as many connected users today if Microsoft wasn't around. Take it or leave it Microsoft brought a good deal of legitimaticy to the Internet.
nhurm: Then go begin a Linux day like the LUG did at Michigan. Offer your own support if you feel so strongly. Wow, its amazing you have to actually get someone to talk about a product before they will buy it. Microsoft promotes its products, I don't see Redhat promoting its OS. Microsoft does promotion and marketing extremely well. They may not always have the best product but they do get people to buy there product.
The market is doing its job of finding alternatives. I'm sure when Linux becomes just as easy as Windows to use, i.e. my Grandmother doesn't have to hack linuxconf to run, it will become widespread. Until then, people are free to choose their own OS. Microsoft doesn't twist Dell, Compaq, HP's arm (LET ME FINISH) to install Windows, consumers do.
So there is a different set of rules then buying X company for $500 million dollars rather then take the same concept develop it for $4 million and put the other company out of business right.
You can still get IE on Apple for free.
So you hold up Netscape as the standards bearer? Thats a laugh outside of maybe Opera thats about as close as you will get to true HTML. And guaranteed in your little world with shopping bots they will all be pointed to AOL "partners". Oh you will be able to get to other sites but what you see in front on the tool bar will be AOL preferred.
> Maybe it would be a good time to buy a house - I'd pick up Bill G's for $250K, if he sweetened the deal a bit.
You mean, like, if he threw in a free web browser?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
We've been needing a tag for this. How about -
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> My Win95 (for games) crashes a lot, but I haven't head it screaming obscenties yet.
Actually, it's Clippy that screams the obscenities as he dies. As a gamer, you wouldn't have witnessed it.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Mr. Oog, I thouroughly admire your incisive criticisms of Post-Modern society. However, I still can't resist asking: Couldn't even a caveman learn to use the shift key?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
micros~1 a monopoly? no way! I'm going to go to MS's freedom to innovate site.
hmmm, I want to contact my elected officials. <CLICK>
whoa, it seems like my elected officials are running solaris and powered by linux!
From Nasdaq's "company news" page (which looks like a CNBC link):
VIDEO: Kovacic says the ruling will answer if the company violated the law and the next stage is to implement possible remedies - 4:53
You will need the Microsoft Windows Media Player. Click here for a free download.
Here's a possible remedy: Stop kissing ass by jumping all those and only those technologies promulgated by Microsoft.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Going over the gov site, I came across the following gem: It is also well settled that a copyright holder is not by reason thereof entitled to employ the perquisites in ways that directly threaten competition.
Right. That's what a PATENT is for.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Hey will, learn to close your tags, Will ya?
Microsoft stock has lost 15% today, 25% since the high earlier this year. That means anyone granted options so far this year most likely has $100 options on a $90 day. Your example assumes that the stock will climb back to $120, but I wonder why. Generally a company facing punishment by the government for illegal business practices is not in a "growth" situation.
To me, the prospect that all this activity would have vanished if Microsoft had not established dominance is ludicrous. The exact opposite is what happened, MS established it's dominance at the expense of smaller, more innovative and more customer oriented competitors. They did it by leveraging their dominance in the OS arena, and they did it illegally. Without them, I think PC operating system and application technology would be more advanced than it is today.
Regarding your last paragraph: I don't know how many times this needs to be said before it sinks in. This whole case was brought up because Microsoft illegally removed true choice from the consumer. PEOPLE may have bought Microsoft, but they did so because they didn't have a real alternative. So the "market" didn't decide anything. I believe that, if it had, we would have a for more stable economy with our far more stable PC's.
Yup, Microsoft will appeal. Tell us something we don't know
Yup, many people lost money. Lots and LOTS of people lost money buying Windows several times. Upgrades (patch fixes), additional copies on new PC's, copies they didn't want (because they where illegally bundled). Oh, and lost productivity due to Computer Crashes (TM), file incompatibilities (you upgraded Office 97? Can you please send me that document so I can read it with Word 6?), system reload/re-installs, and data recovery. I know how much of my time was LOST.
Bad for Gore? Maybe. Is that supposed to imply it's bad for the country? I hope Bush put's it all over him and everyone gets fed up enough to not vote for either of them.
So, what if Billy took his ball and went home? First, the API's would quit changing. It might actually be possible to reverse engineer enough so that WINE can run Windows better than Windows (as OS/2 DID at one time). Never again will you have to worry that you can no longer read a file created by a different version of Microsoft whatever. And who would be left to prosecute those who "crack" file formats and API's for improved compatibility. NO-ONE! Whooo!
Those businesses and industries that "depend" on Microsoft would be able to quite worrying about whether they had to upgrade to Win2K or not. They just wouldn't. Miraculously, DNS will continue to work uncorrupted by a Microsoft server on every subnet. Applications will continue to run without a broken directory to help them loose data and interfaces. Those businesses could quite worrying about how to play with Microsoft and focus on their own strategic product lines.
What about the internet? There were free IP stacks for Windows before Microsoft new what IP was. Netscape was "free" before IE was dreamed of. Mosaic was free even before Netscape. Oh, and about your Netscape Java crashes...Could that be related, perhaps, to the multiple, incompatible versions of Java brought to you illegally and in direct violation of contract by your fr^hiends at Microsoft? You don't seem to be seeing exactly what has been brought up in this lawsuit.
I will not dispute your assertion that Microsoft is responsible for our economic growth. I simply refuse to believe it. ("Contributed" maybe, but if you subtract the damage they cost, I'll still argue value.) It's your hypothesis, you prove it. You mention server software, internet technologies and application development, yet like most MS apologists you fail to provide one, single, specific, QUANTIFIABLE example where Microsoft advanced anything other than their own bank balances. (Microsoft "Bob" does NOT count!)
About jobs lost: If MS closed it's doors, MS software would not vanish. There would be a tremendous opportunity for former MS people as consultants and contractors. Believe it or not, Mr.Gates probably hasn't contributed a line of code in a while. With a major hole like this, and an army of ex-employees with the source code in their heads, you'd see an explosion of improvements in Microsoft compatible products.
Ok, I've thought about it. I pretty much like the idea.
As to your specific examples -- NT and IIS: What does Microsoft use for Hotmail? Why? NT and IIS do not scale. SQL server is not an "internet technology" it's a database that can't even dream of being a ingres/postgres, let alone an Oracle/Sybase/DB2. ASP? See "IIS". For application development, that's easy. Anything Borland. OWL was leaps beyond MFC, and the Borland C++ 5 IDE that I recall from years ago was intuitive and easy. The Visual Studio 6(?) I used last year was painful, non-intuitive and the help files were just plain wrong. I'm sure you'd like to compare VB to Delphi, too.
Listen, If you want to go Microsoft, by all means do so. Personally, I was in the computer business before Microsoft. They have "innovated" nothing, nada, ZIP! Everything they market was either copied, only sometimes legally, or bought. Once they've got their hands on a product it is rapidly bloated with useless features, stuffed with fancy widgets to click that do nothing but force your hands off the keyboard in order to slow you down. Believe me, if you code as fast in Visual Studio as I do in vim their editor lags sorely behind.
I, for one, am fed up with having to support their garbage. I can't go to relative's or friends houses with out the inevitable "Can you look at my computer? Somethings not right." If they can't market a decent product without forcing it on people then they should close up shop and go home.
WindowsCE?
They also ported NT to PPC, Mips, and Alpha, although those ports have died down.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Negro means black in spanish, witch, I guess is where they got the term in the US. It, in and of itself, is not raciest. However calling someone a 'nigger' might be (depending on if you are a rap star or not).
On the other hand, the post mentioned getting homosexualy rapped, so it could be considered offensive, I guess.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The judge decided Guilty on most counts. The details of the penalties still have to be decided, and then we get to wait for appeals...
Jackson issues
Microsoft antitrust ruling
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge today found that Microsoft
Corp. violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, legal sources said.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that the company
used its position to ``monopolize the web browser market'' to the
detriment of competitors, the sources said.
The judge found that Microsoft could also be liable under state
anticompetition laws, said the sources, who spoke only on condition
of anonymity.
Throughout the trial, the judge had strongly urged both sides in the
case to reach an out-of-court settlement. Those talks collapsed over
the weekend, however, prompting Jackson to issue his ruling today.
Both sides had reasons to settle the case. Among them: to avoid an
appeals process that would likely keep the case in court for several
years.
The judge's ruling had been expected to go against Microsoft based
on harsh assessments he outlined last November in his ``findings of
fact.'' In that document, Jackson found that Microsoft repeatedly
engaged in anticompetitive behavior by taking advantage of its
monopoly power.
Microsoft stock was battered during the day, losing about 15 percent
of its value.
Increased competition in the IT industry in the various sectors where MS has essentially a monopoly (MS Office, MS Windows etc) can only be better for the US economy (and thus the stock market) in the long run.
Over the short term, though, there will probably be one or two years disruption to the IT industry. However, once that is sorted out, it will seem like nothing when compared to the 5 to 15 years that MS has arguably held back computing. (If you disagree with that, just consider (arbitrary example, there are many more) that 386 protected mode came out around 1985, and only one major OS in the world still doesn't use it properly.)
"Believe it or not, a great deal of the expansion of the U.S. economy over the past 15 years can be attributed to Microsoft"
The computer industry would have grown explosively with or without Microsoft. He might try have you believe it, but Bill Gates was not the only person back in the early days of the PC who realized that this was "the next growth market" and that there was a helluva lot of money to be made.
The growth in IT would have been there no matter what, since it was driven by market forces. Microsoft has done absolutely nothing "special" that could not have been done by other companies, and quite possibly done better.
"Netscape would have died a slow and ugly death anyway, with or without Microsoft's help. Let's face it, their browser sucks. It crashes way too much"
Of course, this is only looking at what did happen to Netscape under the circumstances of what MS did to them. To be fair to Netscape, Microsoft demolished their market the day they started distributing IE for "free" (up until that very day, Netscapes market share was still growing, and in fact it continued to grow for some months afterwards - they were most certainly not dying). It becomes exceedingly difficult to pay a decent team of programmers to work on a program and improve and stabilise it when the competition is giving the product away. If you can't even pay for a decent development team, then of course your program is going to be crashy.
That is precisely the whole point of the Microsoft trial: that Netscape was pushed out of the market by unfair tactics. We cannot possibly know now how successful Netscape might have been, or how stable their products may have become. You can't make assumptions based on what happened after Microsoft broke the law, to be fair, you would have to do an analysis of what might have happened if MS did not break the law.
http://biz.yahoo.com/msft2/
Jeremy D. Zawodny /
I am pretty sure that I am being baited into this, but here goes anyway.
This post is way out there. First of all, I can attest to the fact that a heck of a lot more than just "a few Linux fanatics" are unhappy with Microsoft products. I work in an environment that uses both Unix and Windows, and I get repeated complaints regarding how Windows is inferior to Unix in general. The big one here is that the organization has recently converted mail to Exchange, and the complaints are loud and constant. Exchange is just one shining example of inferior MS products. Face it, NT is a joke compared to Unix, although, admittedly I am somewhat impressed with Win 2000.
As to fair competition... I don't care who you are, but what MS has done to Netscape is a load of garbage. Microsoft leveraged it's Windows monopoly by forcing vendors to install ONLY IE at the cost of a higher price tag on Windows. This is simply not fair, and a blatant abuse of the monopoly power that MS holds. Now, I admit that IE is at least as good as Netscape, but MS crammed IE down the throats of thousands of users with no obvious choice. This is what MS is in trouble for.
The government needs to reign in MS to allow the market to give a better alternative, be it Linux, BeOS, whatever, a chance in the first place. I think at this point, the only thing protecting Linux is the GPL and Linus, something that Bill has not yet figured out how to break or buy.
I am honestly not sure if breaking up MS is the right thing to do. I once thought that this would be the most desirable solution, but a breakup didn't really help with Standard Oil, and it didn't help much with Ma' Bell. I was suprised to see what MS offered in the settlement, but I am sure that their lawyer had some many loopholes that it would have been effectively meaningless. Whatever the government does, I hope it is appropriate and forward thinking.
I think I would be in heaven if only I could find a Linux job.
I sympathise. My ears hurt too. But the appeal of OOG's criticism is that it would be painfully obvious were it not for the tendency of sophistication to obfuscate the painfully obvious. If he were to use mixed case properly, he would lose the artistic effect of yelling amidst polite conversation.
Microsoft's 15 point loss is not mathematically connected to NASDAQ's losses. Microsoft is traded on the Dow.
It came up during the last round of M$'s ass-reaming that there have been put into place special procedures to hop straight to the Supreme Court for anti-trust appeals, thus closing that time loophole rich corps get to use. Don't have a link, too busy celebrating...and working. :-)
M$ lost $70 billion today of its worth today. I think Nelson said it best. Haw-haw!!
--
+&x
have rarely seen anyone outside of geekdom and academia that had so much obvious bias against Microsoft than Judge Jackson.
Which is to say "I rarely see anyone outside of the people who know better, someone who knows better."
This is a good day for all involved as we can now move this industry forward unfettered by a M$ tax or an 800lb gorilla smashing anyone who moved faster than they did. Like Homer and the Japanese agree, Crisitunity is a wonderful thing.
--
+&x
Information like this is why I come here.
You should try the grits!
--
+&x
Exactly, that's why people need to learn the difference between free and free. We NEED new words.
--
+&x
It does seem to mention windows 98 / MSIE 5, where the browser used OS hooks to override the normal UI.. if that isn't "hidden APIs" i don't know what is.
Do you want a hand-holding step by step description of how to do it, complete with sample code as to how to build your own shell? Or do you want documentation of the APIs? Because all the documentation you need is available in the Platform SDK which you can get from MSDN. All the interfaces you need to support are documented. Write your app to these interfaces (it's just a window app, folks) and then replace explore.exe with your own app.
It's That Easy.
Nothing hidden, no hooks, no nothing. Just plain vanilla programming. Try it some day.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
>I like running IE 5 - it has a tendency not to crash my system like Netscape.
If Netscape crashes your system, you should have been quicker to change systems than to change browsers. An OS that crashes due to a problem with a user-level application should be named I-N-E-X-C-U-S-A-B-L-E.
Netscape takes down X all the time - and for most home users, that amounts to exactly the same thing. Who cares if you can telnet in and fix it if you've got nothing to telnet in with?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Hey I agree with OOG we've been seeing all the indicators of a slowing economy... Fed keeps hiking the interest rates, Alan Greenspan is sending gloomy vibes.
All the market gurus have been saying that tech stocks are overvalued. I mean some of these IPOs are ridiculous, can any of us really believe that these baby open source companies are worth billions? They have the potential to be, in the future, but there is too much speculation and profit-taking in the market now. It is due for a reset.
Right. Bill Gates gets screwed. (No not like that you dirty minded geeks!) Even if MS stock was to plummet by 50% he's still never going to be in the screwed category. Look at the recent postings here where it showed what kinds of stock he was selling. In one transaction he dumped 100,000,000 shares. That sale turned 8 billion dollars (less taxes and fees) income for him. How screwed is that? I'd like to be screwed like Bill Gates. Woo.
Ah yes. So the other 285 points that the nasdaq dropped are just to be ignored then?
Nah. A large portion of today's Nasdaq plummet is not related to MSFT at all. Look at the last couple of months. Every week there is a new record loss and the next day or two recovers.
You buy a new motherboard with a new processor because of the processor you choose. And if you move from a pII 300 to a pII 450, you will likely keep the same mobo. There is no one-for-one product tying going on there. Sure, you can't move to an arbitrary processor, but that doesn't make it product tying.
Excuse me for being exteremly cynical here but I'd actually argue that IE dominates the market because it's simply a plain better product.
Okay. I'm just saying that Judge Jackson has said that he feels differently, and his decision is the one that matters when discussing the lawsuit. What you or I might think is irrelevant to the legal decision.
-me earlier- How many different CPUs can you list off the top of your head? -/me earlier-
X86 compatible? Intel and AMD and perhaps VIA
As for monopolies in the CPU market, your argument is invalid. People mostly use x86 for desktop, but people could choose to use anything. A monopoly is not defined by the consumers, but by producers. Since Sun, Apple/Motorola, Compaq and AMD all sell non-x86 processors (or systems powered by non-x86 processors) that can be used in desktop systems, and in relatively large quantities, you can hardly say that Intel monopolizes the CPU market. Now this would be more apparent if there was one single desktop OS - a desktop machine would be defined more by the CPU than the OS. It's harder to see when you have to look at differences in OS and CPU at the same time, but there is still no monopoly. Look at NetBSD boxen. I have a MacIIvx NetBSD box, someone else might have it on a P2, a third person might have it running on some Sparc. That is CPU choice right there - the OS is the same across the board. Even within the x86 market, Intel doesn't have a monopoly. Every time p2 and p3 prices have dropped due to a new AMD chip, you can see a non-monopoly market in action.
I think that you are either mis-understanding monopolies or you are not paying enough attention to the market where you are seeing monopolies. Saying that Cisco is "clearly" a monopoly really illustrates this. They are simply not the only competitor in their market. They may be the leader in an oligopositic market, but I would say even that is a relatively harsh description of the market. From what I have seen, they are relatively open to competition, they utilize mostly open standards, etc. There are certainly proprietary operations that are limited to interaction between brand X routers, but generally a Cisco router doesn't care if the next hop over is Cisco, Lucent, 3Com, or Billy-Bob's Homemade Routers, as long as it sticks to the protocol defs. If you couldn't mix and match, then you'd have product tying and abuse of market power. Since you can mix and match, no foul.
itachi, still hoping Billy Bob goes back to making moonshine, since his homemade routers just don't measure up
No, see being a monopoloy isn't illegal. Abusing monoploy power is illegal. Now, when you buy a p3, do you have to buy IntelOS to go with it? When you subscribe to AOL, do you have to get a subscription to Time as well? If I pick up a new 6506, will Cisco make me purchase an accompanying truckload of catalyst switches? Microsoft bundling IE was the equivalent (product tying to remove competition in a seperate portion of the market) according to Jackson's FoF. As for the 3 companies you listed being more monopolistic, you're just plain wrong. How many different CPUs can you list off the top of your head? I can think of a hlaf dozen or so. How about ISPs? Or magazine publishers? Or media companies? Cisco is the closestto being a monopoly, I think, but still they have competition as well. So far, Intel and AOL/Time-Warner have been pretty evil imho, but evil isn't illegal - abuse of monopoloy power is. Cisco seems pretty un-evil to me, but that's just imho.
itachi, who thinks there aren't many monopoly problems in the info tech industries
Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows - giving it away for free is what forced Netscape to also give away Navigator for free for commercial use. In any other market this is called dumping when you hurt other competitors by selling something (or giving it away!) for less than it cost you.
Hopefully Mozilla will again provide some real competition for IE, and at least the open source development model can't be hurt in quite the same way by Microsoft's tactics (although it does need a fair chance to be delivered with PCs as the default browser, which is something the courts are likely to force Microsoft to allow).
Microsoft's dominance has not been a benefit to anyone, especially not small developers. Look at how many times they's taken away the markets of small start-up companies by just ripping off their ideas and bundling them with Windows.
Microsoft apparently already are doing illegal things (such as profit smoothing from one quarter to the next) to boost the stock price and keep the whole pyramid scheme going. Why on earth anyone thinks the stock is worth a P/E of 60 is a mystery to me. Considering it's now selling for 90 - the same as a year ago, while other tech stocks are on a tear, it seems that others are slowly coming to the same conclusion.
Why empathise with anybody? A lot of stocks were overpriced, and have now been knocked back down to more reasonable levels. Some stocks such as AMD even rose today - because they're undervalued. For the most part investors know what they're getting into, and are happy to ride the momentum to crazy levels on the upside - why be sorry if some get caught out by being too greedy? The stocks that deserve to bounce back will do so anyway.
The Conclusions of Law are up. Your choice of HTML or PDF, but could we get some mirrors before the servers goes down? ;-)
When the FoF was released, there was talk of the DOJ having the option of a fast track to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals.
Microsoft's Attorney: His name is Duke Neukom!
I love it!
If only the DoJ had Laura Croft on prosecution...
have you had a look at how many companies m$ has killed simply by buying over or running out of business ? I *hated* m$ the minute they killed off stacker (and released their cruddy doublespace shit) by chaing their APIs and doing all kinds of under the table bullshit. then they wiped off DRDOS (another of my favourite OSes. micro$hit has done more harm to the industry than any other company.
they changed the interfaces. that caused DRDOS to fail under win3.1 and stacker had data corruption under doze simply because they changed the API. yes, they deserve to be whacked around for doing things like this and im glad they're going to be severely thrashed.
No bash on an RS/6k by default - it's all csh (though you can plug in whatever shell you want, of course...) Given the number of workstations out there, I wouldn't claim that bash is quite everywhere...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
"Vice President Al Gore is supportive of the Justice Department's case, but Republican presidential candidate George W Bush has said that he opposes breaking up the company and would use his power of appointment to create a Justice Department more sympathetic to Microsoft."
We usually slag off Al Gore around here, but...
It is amazing to me that most people think that we should bring down whomever accomplishes the American dream. Sure Microsoft is huge. Sure they are stronger than the average company. But for our government to take a Socialist stance on American business and declare a particular company 'evil' and practicing unfair trade is an abomination. I think it is unfair that I have to pay high gas prices. I think it is unfair that I don't get paid as much as 'Joe', who, coincidentally, got the position I was applying for. I think I'll take 'Joe' to court because he had an unfair advantage over me. Grow up people. Our government is the organisation you should be worried about, not a computer company practicing business, albeit sometimes 'unfair' in these kids' eyes, such as Netscape.
Amen. I agree with your post. Although people need to understand that Microsoft isn't the only shitty operating system. Apple makes a great OS which works for short periods without crashing. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a PC user but at work I use a G3 Mac. If anyone needs a good spanking it's Apple's OS. This thing crashes more than my Win98 at home, way more. Many huge memory bugs and leaks reside in Mac OS 8.6. And anyone who tells me different has never used a Mac. I've been using these computers for 6 years so I'm pretty familiar with them, inside and out. I think I'll take Apple to court because I feel misused.
I am not a judge either but I agree. Consumers have seen prices plumett because of competition between Microsoft and others. As far as unfair practices, just glance at the American oil companies, car companies and such. The American institution of oil/automobiles have stifled and killed upstarts and entreprenures for years. Why do you think the internal combustion engine is still around after 100 or so years? Because of unfair and ludicrous oil mongers in power in this country, lobbying with their ungodly amounts of money. But does the government pick on them? No, because they lobby and give under the table contributions galore. Of course, that's my opinion based on hearsay, but u know it's true.
"For a starving college student earning $23k/yr." !!!!
Say what?? 15 grand (when converted to real money) a year is starvation level?? that's a pretty decent wage over here, and stuff costs more.
ho hum...
~ppppppppö
If you break microsoft up into several companies, each with its own stock and its own president, each is going to be interested in maximizing its own profit. Each will have different shareholders to answer to and will have an incentive to compete against the others. There may be some working together, but they'd have to be very careful as the DoJ would be watching very carefully for that sort of thing.
Bolie IV
I really wish the Judicial branch would avoid doing Executive or Legislative type work. Now that Microsoft has been found guilty of crimes, they should simply send those responsible to jail. I bet that prison sentences would do a lot more to discourage such actions than any financial or business penalty.
Bolie IV
You are correct to an extent, however, there is a problem when companies that have a hot idea and no sustainable business model have stock prices around $200/share. To make a generalization, it it generally not the pros who own these stocks. Part of it is because of the high degree of uncertainty involved, but more importantly, it's becuase those companies aren't making money. In my portfolio, I own only companies that have shown they can sustain earnings. This means that I own a lot of less glamourous stocks, but it also means that my portfolio is more likely to hold its value in rough waters. Believe me, if I thought Yahoo or Amazon could deliver earning to justify the stock price, I'd buy in. My dad is a Ph/D in business btw, and he caught the tech wave before it really started so don't try to tell me that Ph/Ds simply want the status quo. We've done very well with the markets and I've learned a ton about how this stuff works.
While the Ph/Ds may not be able to see the future, they do know how to plan for it and that's the big distinction. The traditional way to make money from the markets is long term investments. Contrary to popular belief, when people stoped doing it that way, the rules didn't change. We learned a lot from the great depression and you're not giving those who took the time to learn the whys and hows the credit they deserve.
Finally, regarding who can and can't trade, that's a tough question. On one hand, it's easy to say anyone should be able to trade. I would agree infact: anyone should be able to trade. They should also have some kind of knowledge of how the market works too becuase there is the very real possibility that they'll get burned. If they're not the type that watches CNBC all day, then maybe they should hire a money manager. It's not a great solution, granted, but I'm sure that there are plenty of people who got burned when something they thought was a sure thing, wasn't what they thought it was. The stock market will, generally speaking, follow certain rules and patterns. If you know and understand those rules and patterns, you have a much higher chance for long term success. That, unfortunately, is the honest truth.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
OOG, is absolutely right. The NASDAQ is in correction mode right now. This is a good thing. Fortunately, from what I can tell, the tech market seems to be showing signs of realizing that it's way overpriced and is adjusting itself accordingly. For some, the effects of this will be brutal, but this is what happens when anyone with a computer can be a part of an IPO.
As for Microsoft stock, it hasn't been doing much because frankly, they don't have a whole lot going for them right now and the market is reacting accordingly. I personally dropped all my MS stock a couple of years ago and bought, wait for it, Apple Computer. In the meanwhile, the NASDAQ has been very volitle because this kind of insanity the markets were showing is unprecedented. There is this mass of traders who arm themselves w/ nothing more than an ameritrade account and call themselves investors. These people, quite frankly, are dangerous and now they're strarting to get burned as the people who do understand what diversification is, and who understand how the markets work, take control. The reason they're dangerous is that they are not investing for the long haul, they're looking for the quick buck. This is what makes some companies stock prices jump out of control. The people who know better can only invest around them, but there's nothing anyone can do to address the our market's shrinking credibility with the rest of the world.
As the Ebays and Amazons and insert_your_favorite.com companies collapse, (Barnes and Noble.com will win btw,) it will be those Ph/Ds in business who keep the markets afloat, and the end result will be that the rich control even more wealth at the expense of the middle class.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
People were happy with Ma Bell before it was
broken up. After they were broken up, competition
increased, services increased, and prices dropped,
in some cases precipitously. People were happier.
Would you like to go back to the old long-distance
pricing rather than your current 7 cents/minute?
I didn't think so.
Even so, whether customers are happy or not
is irrelevant to a finding against MS. The gov't didn't charge them with making customers unhappy.
They charged them with illegally abusing their monopoly power. It is hard to argue with the ruling (did you read it?). Maybe some think the
law shouldn't exist, but that's a different issue
entirely.
Liam Healy
about time the bully got his due!
I'm disappointed at the focus on browsers, because it's really the intentional breaking of other people's products and monopolistic licensing schemes that should get the focus.
Personally, I would like to see some kind of API documentation as part of the remedy, and have them held accountable for it, as well as for unanounced changes in it. Anyone who has programmed to Microsoft APIs knows that what is in the SDK documentation is occasionally a very subtle and dangerous lie. In other cases, it just gives them wiggle room to monkey wrench the software of others later. In any case, this is far more feasible and useful than a breakup or forced opening of source code, which will get smacked down by the Supreme Court if necessary (Your Honour, it's our main asset, and we're being forced to give it away! It allows others to STEAL our work!)
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
There are a handful of other companies that would take a big hit with the death of MS; supply-chain type companies that have been enjoying the generous business of the colossus.
Yes, that's why I said there might be a small, short term recession in Seattle, with most of the impact in the Republik of Redmond.
Will in Seattle
That would depend if the option price is set to the annual(or quarterly) high or low. Who knows, maybe some Microsft employees are glad this happened.
...
Well, I mentioned this to my neighbor last night and she pointed out that, for those who have never exercised their options, or are just starting, most tend to flip them immeadiately, as they need to borrow the cash to buy the options. And since she just bought a townhouse, she's options rich and cash poor. But she is beautiful
Darn. I keep forgetting most people can't just liquidate a few underperforming stocks and use that to cash in options.
OK, so maybe this would only work if you'd been at MSFT for 5+ years and had some non-retirement cash available.
Will in Seattle
Microsoft employees who were hired recently now have stock options that are essentially worthless -- they have the option to buy at a higher price than the stock is currently trading at. If the price keeps dropping through the next phase and through appeals then Microsoft can no longer woo or retain employees with options.
OK, MSFT does have many loyal employees - I know a bunch of them. And we should expect the smart ones to exercise their stock options now, so that they take the least tax hit on capital gains. An $70 option on an $80 day means only $10 capital gains, which they can then ride back up to $120 and hold for a year and only pay 20% (instead of 36% on the $10) on.
Which means massive liquidity. Cool, since I'm buying MSFT soon (not much, just $10K worth).
Will in Seattle
as I read it, I find more and more reasons why we need a strictly Intellectual Property, or Technology-oriented court in this country.
The Seventh Circuit is good for tech rulings in general, and Judge Jackson truly groks tech.
I find it amusing that MSFT defenders feel they have to defend an indefensible position. If it weren't so serious, I'd laugh.
Just because you're not charged for the printer doesn't make the toner cartridges any cheaper. Thus, we have the freeMS IE which helps kill the Netscape competitor (now owned by AOL).
[Note: I intend to buy about $10K of MSFT stock in a few days, when it bottoms out around $75, after the one-two punch of Judge Jackson and the EU decision to finally take action which will be announced tomorrow. But that's just because the market is full of fools who panic - I don't believe in MSFT as a company, I just like to make money off the unreasoned fears of the masses. And I own some Red Hat and AOL, so I'm not unbiased.]
Will in Seattle
True, with the EU lawsuit and the appeals process, MSFT still finds it's hands tied and free software and Open Source can continue to take hold.
That said, I'm still buying some MSFT stock when it drops below $80, as they will make money no matter what.
[yes, I own AOL and RHAT too]
Will in Seattle
OK, in either case, a MSFT employee who exercised a non-qualified stock option would pay taxes on the difference between the strike price and the current market price. Which means executing at a lower price minimizes your capital gains. So my advice is still sound. You exercise, pay a smaller tax, then hold the stock for the bounceback.
thus, a $70 option exercised at $80 would engender taxes on the $10 difference. Minimizing taxable gains. At which point you hold the stock and let it accumulate back up from the overreaction of the market.
If they had incentive stock options, they don't work at MSFT or they already have major holdings. So I don't care about them. I referred to Microserfs, not their masters.
Will in Seattle
A smart microserf would exercise her/his options in a few days at the low strike price, to avoid undue taxation.
Execute a $24 option at $74 instead of at $104. Then you declare (you have no choice) capital gains at $50, instead of $80. Then, hold on to the stock for at least a year, and sell above $120 while using the low 20% capital gains rate.
Just thought I'd pass this on to all my friends at MSFT, including my beautiful neighbor.
[Note - this could drive the stock price lower in the short term - and I am intending to buy some stock at low prices - but this would maximize your total return and minimize your tax burden. Caveat emptor, qui custodi custode.]
Will in Seattle
And my rent (out in Bellevue - the most boring city in the region) might even go down.
Hmm. Yes, if you're renting and work in another industry, this might be ok. Maybe it would be a good time to buy a house - I'd pick up Bill G's for $250K, if he sweetened the deal a bit.
But I'd be worried about the ripple effect in Bellevue. A lot of financial firms might have to cut losses and there would be a lot of vacate and overpriced real estate.
Will in Seattle
Ouch...what a slam, but at least it shows that the court is slowly getting clued in on the nature of computers :)
Ender
Nothing to see here
1) As for IE not being free, my point was that while on the surface, the software is free, there are hidden costs associated with using free (beer) software. MS basically has been able to pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of product upgrades. Also, they recoup their investment upfront by reducing choice and thus increasing the liklihood you'll pay for other MS products in conjunction with IE, say Outlook. Of course, MS also going to press folks to run Exchange Server for Outlook clients. And, by having IE as their "preferred" browser, they can embrace and extend web standards. Then, they sell other tools to take advantage of proprietary code. So, again, while the cost of IE to the consumer may initially be free, the market loses (pays) in several fashions.
2) OEMS have taken more steps to pre-load Linux. But it was the public spectre of the lawsuit and a watchful industry that held Microsoft's feet to the fire about not trying to beat the crap out of OEMs that were vocal about offering non-MS options on their systems. This case does have some public opinion aspects and any perceived dirty pool would be added to the list as the latest example of ongoing MS BS. MS has had to tread lighter in the last year than ever before.
3) Jackson may be laying down the law rather harsly and appear blatantly biased. However, he's done his job. He heard the testimony and first issued findings of fact. on that basis, he gave the Justice Dept and the states and MS four months to find some sort of mutually pleasing agreement. They didn't. During that time, Jackson really didn't say or do much. The FOF was part of his job. On that basis, after both sides failed to reach agreement (he didn't appear to rush them into anything) he issued the Finding of Law. Here, on the basis of his FOF, he decides if the law has been broken. Not unlike a case before, say small claims, where the judge hears testimony and decides who's right and who's wrong. The judge has sole discretion to decide damages. And they can be comparitively steep. So, in my mind, Jackson's not out of line.
Finally, I think what really killed MS in this case is their arrogance. Judges pick up on that and will knock someone down a few pegs for not playing the game as the judge wants it played. It's the power of the judiciary and woe be those who fail to comprehend just how much leeway judges have.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
The DOD and research universities (alot them using government grants) did indeed fund the beginnings of the Internet. That doesn't mean that the "Government" itself was involved or even aware of what was going on. As far as legistslators and regulators were concerned the 'net was just some nerdy military computer thing. The people building the internet had a free hand to find technical solutions to the problems they were facing.
Once the web began to take off in the mid nineties and the great unwashed masses began coming online in droves the internet and the computer industry to support it grew at an amazing rate. During it's explosive growth (which continues today) online commerce flourished for a variety of reasons, for one it was a lot cheaper for consumers to gather more information about products and prices from more sellers. At the same time no one was paying sales taxes on these goods, ordering from outside your home {town|state|country} became easier than driving to the local mall. I'm not saying this is all due to the lack of government intervention, had the US gov been more involved I think these same events still would've taken place in spite of regulation, but to a lesser degree.
Look at what happened when ATT was broken up into baby bells and regulatory maze that followed, which eventually gave the baby bells and the LEC's regional monopolies for local service and in-state LD. In trying to stop one monopoply and help out consumers the gov instead created, and supported several regional monopolies that have fleeced cusomters as bad or worse than ATT ever did, notice how even today IN STATE long distance costs more than out of state LD in most areas, though that is changing now that phone regulations have been relaxed in the last 5 years, permitting competition in local markets. Just as an aside deregulation has really changed the telco market here in anchorage, we now have three companies providing local service, at least four or five potentional LD carries to choose from, two broaband providers (cable modems and DSL) all since and because the government STOPPED regulating an industry.
What I fear is that legislators will use this as an excuse, just as they have used "protecting the childern" as an excuse for trying to censor internet communications.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
I noticed that the government site with the MS ruling was kida /.ed, so when I finally got a hold of the file, I mirrored it:
http://homepage.mac.com/rafimg/ms-conclusions.pdf
-Rafi Remove the Spanish to email me.
I personally side with Robert X Cringley and other commentators: Microsoft should open up the OS.
Not only does it provide a remedy, it faces the fact that operating systems historically become free: applications run the "new economy", and there are enough API standards out there to make porting much less of the nightmare it used to be.
I really don't think this hurts MS, it would probably entrench the Windows/NT in fact.
After all, a level playing-field is what we're after, isn't it?
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
(Note: The following is not investment advice.)
Problem? Whenever the market takes a dip for reasons like this (as opposed to real "corrections" to the market as a whole), it may become undervalued. In such a case, value investors would jump in since in the long run the market will recover.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
This is a little late, but I wanted to say it anyway. The others touched on your false reasoning about Microsoft's 'public service', but something else bothered me.
You compared Cisco and Intel to Microsoft. Intel, yes, I understand. Cisco? Hardly. While Cisco has an absolutely enormous share of the world's network traffic, they have a major difference from MS. When was the last time you had a Cisco router lock-up? I did once... turned out it was the telco's fault. The obvious reason I say this is because Cisco make *very* good equipment. Yes, they are huge. But they don't use that as an excuse to hike up prices and scrimp on reliability.
Simply, Cisco is where it is because of reputation. Microsoft is where it is because of wrongful business practices.
You can't justify their actions, no matter how hard you try.
i. The OEM channel, paragraph 6.
The Court has already found that the true impetus behind Microsoft's restrictions on OEMs was not its desire to maintain a somewhat amorphous quality it refers to as the "integrity" of the Windows platform, nor even to ensure that Windows afforded a uniform and stable platform for applications development. Microsoft itself engendered, or at least countenanced, instability and inconsistency by permitting Microsoft-friendly modifications to the desktop and boot sequence, and by releasing updates to Internet Explorer more frequently than it released new versions of Windows.
Oh yeah. You gotta love that. He almost sounds sarcastic!
ok, so Microsoft keeps saying they intend to appeal, but to where? From all that I've read, the judge's "Findings of Fact" was pretty far reaching... right? Not to mention, that his decision will be based on those facts. So if they appeal, couldn't the next court up just agree with the FoF and throw the case out?
I'm hoping someone with legal knowledge could answer this. It just seems like this case is to open to stay in appeals for 5 years.
I'm also concerned about this. I'm very worried about the impact it will have on other segments
of the industry, and other related industries.
For example, what will happen to Will Smith? He calls himself the Microsoft of the rap world.
Does thie mean Big Will is going to have to be broken up to form a lot of Small Willies ?
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
I think many of us are forgetting the REASON the stock price went down. Sure, it's common for prices to go down with news like this, but the actual reason it went down is because investors don't WANT the stock anymore. They lower their asking price, and investors who want IN don't have to pay as much.
It's been pointed out that investors should have seen this coming. Well, a lot of them did, and that's why the price went down. They sold. It's like a landslide. First a few people sell, then many others panic and sell MSFT like it's dirt.
Nonsense. Just find someone who's never used Windows. ('course, that may require finding someone who's never used a comp at all, which probably wouldn't be advisable)
Intolerant people should be shot.
Ease of Use and reliability are very important to Joe user.!!! The only reasons Joe ends up using Windows is that he had no choice. The sad thing is Joe still doesn't know he has a choice, and for all intents and purposes still has no choice as although the majot OEM's will now load an alternate OS they certainly do not spend a lot of time or money advertising the fact. The very fact that Win* are so dominant and that a shutdown of MS would have the potentialy disaterous affects on The Market and the political front is evidence enough that MS needs to be not only reigned in but chastized for pat abuses of the very consumers and industry the purport to serve...
morturii
there are several kinds of stock options that are issued to employees at tech companies. the kind that most smaller companies issue are called "incentive stock options" and they have the properties you mention. excercising the option has no tax impact on you. you just pay the strike price and then you own the stock. when you sell, you pay taxes on the difference. if you've owned the stock for at least a year you can recognize the income as capitol gains, which is a lot cheaper.
microsoft employees, on the other hand, get "non-qualified stock options". these are options where, when you excercise them, you immediately owe income tax on the difference between the strike price and the current market price. i don't know for certain but i suspect further increases in the price when you sell are treated by the 1-year capitol gains rule. at any rate, most MSFT people just turn their stock around immediately.
my understanding of MSFT options are based on a friend of mine who's been a programmer there for a couple years. he gets tax advice from his father, who is a tax lawyer.
The BBC is infrequently updating an article about this... take a look...
http://www.rosecomputing.com/microsuck/index.html
If Judge Jackson should meet with any unfortunate accidents, if a police officer should accidently shoot his head off, if he should fall off a building...then I will not be so forgiving.
DON'T LET THEM KILL JUDGE JACKSON !!!
I'm not kiddding. Microsoft has shown that they will do anything to win. I would not put them beyond murdering Judge Jackson. If he is killed, the whole process has been for naught. Please be on the lookout for beefy nerds drinking starbucks with bulges under their jackets. For the love of God, protect Judge Jackson !
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
She knows all, and I would like to see her give Bill Gates a good tongue lashing!
On TV too!
EC
"...we are moving toward a Web-centric stage and our dear PC will be one of
EverCode
If I had moderator points, I'd moderate this post up.
The only thing I question above, though, is the long-term fiscal viability of MS' applications. This insane registration process for Office 2000 SR-1 (and the future) is only going to lead to grief for that franchise. I predict that in two years, dissatisfaction with this system will be running very high and Star Office and other competitors will be pulling their act together. Joe Consumer will be forced to spend at least $200 for his buggy, bloated, annoying copy of Office 2002... or he can get a free set of office applications that work just fine from the net. Or in a broadband area, maybe he'll just use a free ASP. Or his Playstation 2. Any way it goes, O2K is going to become the least attractive option.
Much more important than Joe Consumer, though - the day is coming (at about the same pace, and for the same reasons) when business will realize that they don't want or need MS Office. As soon as that happens, MS' whole house of cards will start to fold.
MS better have good dev tools to sell in 2005. That or whatever else they can come up with for a couple billion in cash, 'cause the Windows/Office gravy train is headed square off the tracks. Whatever the DOJ does will just help it along slightly.
Of course, if a schmuck like me can see this coming, then I'm sure MS' billions of dollars have bought them a clue from somewhere and they'll come through all of this with those smug grins on their faces and a couple trillion in the bank. But maybe not. Anyway, if I was a gambling man (re: stock trader), I'd have ditched all my MS shares last summer... I think Microsoft's history will record the summer of '99 as the peak of its power.
I've got some snake oil for sale, want some?
Seriously though, of course that's what we all want. Unfortunately there's this sentiment around here that everyone at Microsoft is such a bonehead that they are completely incapable of coding quality software. That's cute, but so obviously untrue that I don't understand why people think that way. If you think they're idiots, you're gonna be totally fucked when you actually go head to head with them. "Know your enemy".
If you know economics, you may talk about it. Apparently you don't. You don't even know most of the reasons that caused depression in the 30's.
Who told you to buy thier stocks anyway?
If you are a true liberal, you wouldn't have used the word "wrong." -- that word is for hypocrats.
No one can write bug free programs. PERIOD.
Slashdot community== end user who never write code.
Sooner or later people are going to realize that
- The DOJ is unlikely to do anything that will destroy MSFT
- Even denied their monopolistic practices, MSFT has an incredible installed base of users, and will probably continue to be profitable for a while yet (OK, so they won't be making money hand-over-fist anymore...)
- MSFT stock could very likely be heading for a 2- or 3-1 split
So, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see MSFT and the Nasdaq rebound (tho prolly not to the levels they were at) in the next few days.-y
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
It may be in great detail, but man it reads like butter. Everything I've been feeling for years, written out in the cold black and white by a Federal judge. I'm cheering as I read, "Oh, yeah baby take THAT one!", etc.
Get fresh underwear, its that good.
- I like pudding.
- Fox News: Microsoft GUILTY!
- CNN: Microsoft GUILTY!
- CNBC: Microsoft GUILTY!
- Ag Day: Microsoft GUILTY!
- MSNBC: A show on the death penalty
I couldn't make this up!Later...
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
they're not bugs, they're just undocumented features...
(heh)
You haven't met many full-time Microsoft employees have you? Sure, there are some there just for the money, but most like it for a host of other reasons. After doing a contract there I saw how dedicated many of the blue badges were (it was alternately impressive and frightening). It is like a cult, and it does offer security for those who like the way the place is run.
Stock isn't the only reason to stay. They recently upped their salaries across the board and the other benefits are very good.
I would be surprised to see an exodus just because of stock. Especially since it took a larger hit back in Oct '97 but later rebounded. Besides, so many folks have said that a broken up MS would only benefit stock holders. I don't know about that, but since stocks are based on perception more than anything else, MS can't be discounted for some time.
People have been chanting the MS death march for years without result. This is bad, but anything the judge does will be appealed indefinitely. Just keep making Linux/*BSD/Mac OS/Be OS/Mozilla better, and eventually MS will fade away.
Despite a half-dozen previews, I managed not to read that quote very well. Of course switching completely off the PC platform would tend to be expensive (unless we're talking iMacs and the new "Internet appliances," I guess). Here's a more applicable quote:
(emphasis mine)
when did the gov help linux? It seems to be doing fine to me. linux isn't about no competition either. redhat and caldera compete. but linux is about giving back as well, so everyone benifits. You must like ms b/c you have some shares, and know nothing about programming. It is impossible to make a decent program when parts of the os are hidden from you and other parts are broken so the code your wrote yesterday doesn't work.
maybe thats why your average joe was kept out of the stock market for so long....anyone remember the 1920s?
"Property" is a social construct, and when you break the social contract, as Microsoft has, you
may quite reasonably expect to get it taken away.
Whoa, thats some dangerous thinking. And actually i don't believe it is. In America anyway, each individial has the right to own property, and you CANNOT take that away, not matter what. Otherwise its hardly a right then, it becomes a privledge.
The fedgov should seize their assets now.
No, the right to property is a fundemental one needs to be free, and even evil has its rights.
Really? I've worked at a couple of places, and most of the employees were pretty ticked when windows or another MS product crashed and burned in the middle of thier work. Yes it did happen, quite frequently...and the company kept a very close eye on your system to allow only certain software. A friend of mine, every other night, almost throws his computer against the wall b/c something isn't working 'quite right' when he's trading stocks. Its very annoying when you're trying to sell stock to have a blue screen come up and killall your apps...and you call these people happy?
Splitting along product lines would merely create several smaller monopolies in smaller niches.
No it wouldn't. I don't think any of the smaller companies would have enough resources to do so. They got to be a monopoly by bundling stuff with thier os, and breaking competitors apps. An OS division couldn't break the OS anymore to make a competitors office suite break while the other "baby bill"'s wouldn't. That would be outlawed i'm sure, and it wouldn't be in the best intrest of the OS division. The reason local phone monopolies came into being was simple; think how many different wires would have to be on the pole to support 5 or 6 different local loops...its gets tangled really quick...i imagine the same logic gave cable companies local monopolies as well...too many wires. But MS doesn't have that problem.
I run netscape, it never crashes. On a side note, something called gozilla which i think is a plugin for ns seems to make ns unstable. Check out http://www.grc.com and download opt-out and have it do a deep scan. Alot of you may have it and not even realize it. My NS NEVER crashes; IE 5 does alot tho...go figure. As far as your office suite being tied to the os...WHY?????? That is very poor OS design, as any os designer would tell you. It gains you nothing but more instability. The os does 2 things, and it should do them well. Control access to devices(memory, hd [including fs stuff], vid card, etc) and manage processes. Thats it, no more, no less.
up until this case, you could NOT buy a computer without windows. If you really wanted to, they would give you a blank hd, but that wouldn't lower the price AT ALL....so you still payed for it. It was only a few months into this case did companies start offering other oses; b/c they knew if MS objected, they would be adding more fuel to the fire. I rest my case.
It's not a fair playing field, but hey, life nor the market is fair. Deal with it.
Exactly, we are trying to make it fair. And just b/c life is unfair to you, does that mean you should be unfair to others? And if you hve that attitude, why should i be fair to you? See thats the problem, you're hiding behind an excuse. If life isn't fair, maybe we should work toward making it so. Life is what you make of it.
doubtful...if redhat b/c as big and powerful and abusive as MS, i would want it broken up as well.
So of course this is good news, it's good news only morally, not in practice.
Yes, you are right there. -- Another glass of champagne?
I completely agree that MS has done some dirty shit in the past (and present I am sure). They are completely unfair with their competitors and far too powerful for their own good. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that they are in violation of anti-trust laws. Correct me if I am wrong, but the US anti-trust laws were created to protect the consumers and laborers? In the case of MS, neither of those parties have been harmed. ONLY the competitors have been harmed. And I don't believe that the laws were created to protect competitors!? So while MS has royally screwed many competitors, they haven't really done anything illegal as far as I can see (though I'm not a federal judge with years of university education). I'd appreciate feedback on this issue. If the anti-trust laws don't protect the competitors (which I dont' think they do) should they? Shaun
b. Combating the Java Threat
As part of its grand strategy to protect the applications barrier, Microsoft employed an array of tactics designed to maximize the difficulty with which applications written in Java could be ported from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa. The first of these measures was the creation of a Java implementation for Windows that undermined portability and was incompatible with other implementations.
Please read the decision for the balance.
This is the begining of the end as Sun doesn't have to prove what Microsoft did in a CA court anymore. They can walk to the court with this finding in hand and the court can state that they have won.
What does that mean? A recall of all Microsoft Java products? Billions in costs for Microsoft and billions in gains to Sun.
At the same time Real can start an action to ensure that Microsoft can't Netscape them (hmm, Netscape is now a verb :-) ) and people everywhere can file or join classes of those who feel that Microsoft, through their practices, reduced technology available to them.
The best thing that can happen to Microsoft is to be broken up before everyone can extract their pound of flesh.
As for Scott and Sun, act fast and strike while the iron is hot. The appeal should go straight to the USSC (see how that happens by actually reading the Sherman Antitrust Act). Since there seems to be no "Constitutional" issues expect the court to not hear the case and so the appeal will be dead. Then it's a matter of how fast the remedy can be put into effect. If Sun works fast enough there should still be a big pot of cash that they can grab before the remedy stops them from getting their due.
Please take a moment to read the Sherman Antitrust Act. If Jackson say "USSC" the case goes directly to the USSC. There the court looks into the "constitutionality" of a case to determine if they should hear a case. They might also look at how the case was tried to see if there were precedural reasons to overturn the courts decision (the fact that Jackson brough Posner in, that he separated the findings, etc show that he tried to do everything to allow settlement rather than decision).
In simple terms, it doesn't look good if Bill and company were relying on the courts.
Speculation on penalties, people? Dare we hope that 98 or IE will be opened?
+++ATH0
...that during CNN's coverage, they're showing NASDAQ commercials.
The NASDAQ commercials feature MS, in the usual propaganda-ish tone.
Coincidence?
I'm wondering if Microsoft will have any luck appealing the Judge's decision that IE and Windows are two seperate products. IE is software that allows users to run applications and view information formatted in HTML. How different does this sound than other features of Microsoft's OS. Sure they tested the technology outside of the OS, worked out some bugs then integrated it. That doesn't necessisarily mean it's a seperate product. If they aren't seperate products, there's no tying, and no second market they were trying to monopolize. A lot of it comes down to the definition of the OS that's used. If you use a definition that only includes the kernel and a few utilities in the OS then IE is definately a seperate product. However, there is no OS of significant quantities, which meets that definition in the applicable market. Yet that definition was used. Remember, the court determined that MS has 95% of the market, so they pretty much define the market. If adding browsing features to the OS were a reasonable extention to their product at that time, this whole case quickly becomes irrevelent. Remember, integration is permitted, it's tying that's illegal.
Am thinking vultures eating the liver of Tityus. Or Tantalus and the grapes. Sisyphus pushing the boulder. The twelve labors of Hercules. Maybe even Loki and the serpent
But this..... even the Gods could not be so cruel.
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
HOW CAN THIS BE?
Remember the "good 'ol days" of MS-DOS? Er....
But anyways, I feel this is a great victory for anyone who has been forced into the Great Struggle*, but will this really change anything? I'm sure SOMETHING will happen, and I feel that Microsoft's inferior products are on their way out or at least on their way to a lower standing in the software chain, but maybe it's just me... I know some extremely... ignorant people who will ONLY use microsoft products and NT servers... they say that they "don't trust" Linux... But...
Well, my point is, I hope this is the end of M$' reign on the software world... I mean, $800 for MS Office when you can get Corel Office 2000 for $50 is just outrageous!
That just my $0.02 CDN (~$0.014 US)
* The Great Struggle refers to getting '98 to run properly... by God, it's been a helluva battle...
First, the remedies will be announced. Then, the appeals start. Realistically, these will take years.
Actually, that may turn out to be "the appeal" rather than "the appeals". There is a little known clause in the anti-trust legislation. It ONLY applies in an anti-trust case, and it ONLY applies when the case is brought by the Govt. The effect of this clause is to eliminate all intermediate courts and kick the appeal straight to the Supreme Court.
Very pretty, but where are the flames?
Microsoft is traded on both the Dow and on Nasdaq. It is a significant part of both the Nasdaq Composite Index, and in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
You're right, sorry.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
What I find most remarkable is how insightful and technically correct the ruling appears. I remember a lot of folks around here griping about whether a middle-aged judge without much computer experience could be made to 'get it'.
I think the ex cerpts from ABCnews show that he definitely 'gets it'.
Hats off to the Justice Department attorneys for a job well done.
and don't give me this shit about having free speech for the "users"
What that probably means, is that NONE of the people behind it are programmers
Perfect example of a moron who thinks only corporations can build products. Why the fuck do you think they're called corporations? So that they get the same protections as individuals do.
If there were ANY programmers behind the OSS movement, they are fools for giving away their
rights.
Jesus... get off the crack. The only reason the computer market even exists is because of OPEN ARCHITECTURE! Look at the original Unix wave protecting their rights and going nowhere.
Take a couple of anti-FOX-cable pills before your brain rots.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Distros are made primarily by users for other users to use. EVERY company lately has based their stuff off an existing distro. Get your head out of the sand.
when linux (any distro company) becomes as big as m$, the government can break it up too.
Yet Another Moron Who Couldn't Pass Remedial Economics and Law If His Life Depended On It.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Heh. You so forgot to say Thank You.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Here is the official word on the ruling, straight from the disctrict court of D.C.:
http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html
Im gonna wait 'til the gavel at the supreme
court drops.THEN assuming its a guilty verdict,
(meaning the supreme court arent the FOOLS we know them to be)the spanking phase of justice begins.
Gawd,I wanna hear the whistle of the paddle
smacking his cherry red buns.But of course when
he's through whimpering and undulating,he'll whine
for his liberal public to come kiss his ass and
make it all better.(heres some money,wont you be
my friend?)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Since when was IE in the kernel? It's an activex control for god sakes.
And why is HTML controls different from a Rich text control? Or picturebox control or button control?
IT's different cause some idiot company decided they could make money off giving browsers away for free.
But, if IE is not in the NT kernel, how does it manage to write outside of its assigned window on my Windows NT system? It shouldn't be able to do that.
WTF are you talking about?
Actually I think it is more like 349 points but that is okay. The truth is that Microsoft is only one company, perhaps soon to be many, and with Microsoft's monopolistic powers loosened others technology companies will prosper. More prospering tech companies I would think would be a good, especially for the nasdaq. It is sad what happened in the markets today but one could point out that is just another sign that Microsoft is a monopoly. Think about it. The market just needs to find a new pecking order.
Really now, please name one software product EVER that has been bug-free.
Besides the questions of legality and enforcement, it's missing the point. The quality of microsoft software is NOT what's on trial here.
-------------
The following sentence is true.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Then there's the notion of enforcability. Just *who* decides what bugs should be fined? And should bugs in non-microsoft software be fined too? Oh no wait, that would go against your anything-but-microsoft worldview
also, my original point still stands. You are completely missing the point of the antitrust legislation. It is IRRELEVANT whether microsoft makes good or bad quality software. Making bad software is not illegal. Whether they used anticompetative means to maintain monopoly power is at question here, not the quality of their software! Ironically enough (and you would have known this if you'd READ THE FINDINGS OF FACT), it mentions in the FoF the incredible amounts of money and man power microsoft put into Internet Explorer to try to make it a better quality product than Netscape. THEY DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THEY DO!!!!
You are also making a logical flaw here, of begging the question. Have you stopped cheating on your wife yet? I have used many of microsoft's latest products -- IE5, win2k, and office2k, and they are very stable, quality pieces of software. In fact, microsoft did just what you were suggesting in creating windows2000 -- spend years and gobs of money and manpower on it to try to create good software. If you respond with the 63,000 bug bs i will lose all respect for you -- ZERO of those 'issues' on file are showstopper bugs, meaning none of them represent crashes, broken functionality, or security holes. Sheesh, now you got me going off topic.
name one software product that has ever been bug free
TeX.
TeX is a quality piece of software, and I commend the efforts of the authors to rid of any bugs they can find. However, its scope is quite small in comparison to the applications of issue here (web browsers, operating systems). If you don't admit that, you're fooling yourself.
in 5 minutes of searching, I was unable to find mention of any TeX-only bugs, but I did find several sites with lists of LaTeX bugs. Perhaps we should start fining the makers of LaTeX, too, because their buggy macros are damaging the computer industry. Oh no wait, the bugs in LaTeX were obviously Microsoft's fault. I forgot.
-------------
The following sentence is true.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Some of you slashdotters just don't get it. The point of the moderation system is NOT to block out all opinions except the slashdot/linux norm, and it is NOT some sort of "let's see who can get more points" contest. It's to bring posts that contribute well to the discussion, no matter WHAT SIDE THEY'RE ON, to the front. Maybe you missed the fact that several posts that contested what the original post said were ALSO brought to the front? See? All sides are represented! The system works! Sheesh.
-------------
The following sentence is true.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
_______________
Every time this subject comes around some idiot posts about what they call a "Stock pyramid" based upon offering stock options and then some other idiot moderates that post up. What part of "OFF TOPIC" do the moderators not understand?
It's something almost all companies in this industry do. It's something stock investors are aware of. Do you not presume that these people have the basic intelligence to take that into account when investing in the company? Sheesh, you sound like you're bitter because your girl left you for someone who made it rich because of those stock options.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Missiles on the way.
Film at eleven.
From the trial was freedom to inovate or something right? Which seems to me is justifing Monopolistic practices. So Microsoft was arguing that existing laws don't apply to the computer world, which really isn't a very good defense for a trial that is based on existing laws.
Did Microsoft have a defense to being guilty of monoplistic practices?
In stockmarket news, Microgeek (MSFT1) dropped 33 1/2 points in the wake of extremely damaging reports on the performance of it's recently released Windows 7.32.875 SP71 software. Chairman Bill Gates was quoted as blaming "Comparisons with other operating systems instead of our older software" for the reports.
Meanwhile Microgeek's sister company Microshaft (MSFT2) made impressive gains, despite the lack of any products or revenue. Microshaft's chairman Satanus Lucifege had this to say:
"Everone has noticed Microshaft's continued innovation in customer-focused shafting technology. Add that to our continued success in lawsuit against those abusing our patented Disk (tm) access technology, and we're looking at a really bright future."
When asked about the accusations of Microshaft's stock price being a magical illusion, Satanus had this to say:
"While I can neither confirm or deny the rumor, our lawyer are confident that nothing in current legislation forbids this. Besides, think of how many pension funds are riding on our stock price, the government would never be foolish enough to interfere."
But without the untrained stock investor that probably shouldn't be involved in the first place, would the stock market be as high as it is today? I don't really have sympathy for anyone that lost their money today (hell, my boss lost money. I about laughed my ass off), but I would kinda worry about people not wanting to invest and selling their stocks. Granted they probably shouldn't be in it at all, but they are, and if too many people got scared, it could cause problems. Of course, a small depression could be good about now. Isn't it about time?
kc8apf
Like I said, I'm all for a breakup, but it could cause fear to invest in technical stocks. That could cause a dip the stock market, even a slight depression. Granted, that probably would be a good thing about now. I'm not saying let's bend the law to make the economy keep growing. The law should be just that, the law. It should be absolute. I would just caution stock holders on selling too much, too fast. Wouldn't want another Great Depression would we?
kc8apf
Sure, why not?
A technology knowledgeable financial advisor could prove interesting. Kinda like a mainstream magazine writer with a computer technician background.
Oh well, I doubt I could have his job anyway, I'm a bit too young at 17.
kc8apf
wow, ./configure must be getting to me. I meant /. before. God I feel like an idiot.
kc8apf
CA court and Fed appeals court told MS to honor their licensing terms with Sun. MS is (has) selling VJ++ and will not renew the Java licenses.
No big deal tho, as MOST of the Java programming is in the embedded O/S and Server Spaces. If you need Java in the browser, there's the Java Plug-in.
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
...the agency that does it, for public companies is called the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Public companies are required to file mountains of paperwork to keep the investing public informed. This results in very few "closed doors" in a public company, as any misstatement or omission of facts leaves the company and its officers open to tremendous civil and criminal liability.
In fact, the only reason 19 sovreign states are involved, is partly because of just such civil lawsuits filed in their courts against the Enemy of Innovation. They have 'tied' those cases and others (state anti-trust and consumer class-action lawsuits) together as a condition of their participation in the current DOJ case.
It is also interesting to note that another tech company (Seagate/Veritas) that sought to go private again to preclude the 'open sourcing' of their business affairs via the SEC rules is getting clobbered in the Market currently.
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
...and how IS the weather in Redmond?
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
So how long have YOU been using computers up there in Redmond, eh? Or did you forget that the Enemy of Innovation didn't 'tie' the browser to the OS until WIN 98?
How did you use a modem before P-N-P? How did you get to the internet? Microsoft didn't invent this technology, it simply used its monopoly power to co-opt it. THAT is what the judge said this afternoon.
Read the homework before you post next time, hmmmm? Nothing in the Findings of Fact OR today's Findings of Law preclude Microsoft from innovating. They just can't use 'innovate' as a code word for stifling competition.
BTW, I see it as a Very Good Thing that Microsoft desist from its '...practice of revising its office suite every few years to make current versions incompatible,' as I believe that this alone would save TREMENDOUS wasted time in resubmissions of e-mails and files in business.
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
obviously you do not use the Gimp and have never installed it on Linux. You already OWN the Gimp (as well as Linux) and must affirmatively consent to this fact before you are allowed to use it the first time.
Big difference from being a publicly traded company whose only capital is intellectual charging $149.00 or more ($100.00 if 'pre-installed') and then another, separate public company charging $200.00 for the software AND NEITHER ONE ACKNOWLEDGING YOUR RIGHT OF FAIR USE OR OWNERSHIP.
Read the GPL and then quiver in fear when you and your ilk in Redmond understand its TRUE ramifications.
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
...so maybe you should go back to UW and re-take the Rhetoric 101 class you flunked...and read some Swift and Pepys (not to mention Shakespeare) while you're at it.
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
Aahhhhh, the sweet sound of a vacuum being filled. That's the sound of money, lots and lots of money to be made
I imagine all the windows code is in escrow, if not some companies are seriously fucked. A sweet day indeed. I'll take mine in cash thank you.
Its simply business, and Microsoft did it better then anyone else
Well, I disagree with you on that one. People who bought MS stock should have known full well there were risks of this happening today -- it's been in the works for two years now. Investors had a lot of opportunity to get out at good prices throughout those good years. But MSFT investors ran the risk of this ruling... just like Phillip Morris investors run risks investing in MO.
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
As for companies which took a dive because M$ did, what about the companies like Intel and Netscape that were held back and whose shareholders failed to profit due to M$'s unfair and indeed, illegal business practices ...
/END RANT
D'OH!
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
Cisco? nahhh... they're at the top for a reason, and it isn't due to unfair business, unlike a true evil monopoly. There is competition with Cisco in almost all products, it's just that Cisco rules. The only people that really want Cisco to go down are its competitors, becuase Cisco is REALLY good at what it does. Argue all day, but Cisco has earned their top, and the prices are not out of control.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
thought i'd start troll day early...
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
ooh you're an AbiWord developer! I like AbiSuite a lot, but I'd love a new version, its been almost 2 months! I see you have a lot of things brewing in the news lately, make me a new release :P
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
Now what i think is that either life will go on as usual, MS will pay a fine, and people will continue to buy and support their software; or this will begin a ball rolling downhill of lawsuits and dissent, both internal and sales-related. I personally HOPE for the latter idea, but in all reality, I personally don't think anything is going to really happen.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
There's that phrase again: "Freedom to Innovate." I've gotten positively sick of Microsoft parroting that phrase. Their freedom to innovate is not on trial. It's their predetory, cut-throat business practices that stifle everyone elses "freedom to innovate" that's raising eyebrows. I don't care if they add more features to the latest version of their OS. But using their position as an eighty-pound gorilla in the OS market against smaller companies that can only play fair is simply reprehensible.
Of course there are examples of people who have complaints about specific MS products, as is true with any product. But my point is that the vast majority of MS users are not up in arms about being "forced" to use their products.
So? I admit it--I was practically in love with Microsoft, too. At least, until I was exposed to alternatives. Now that I have a broader experience with operating systems, I can safely say I am so much happier on Linux that there will never be a reason to go back. You may not feel the same way, but that's irrelevant to me and all of the other numerous people who have found Linux to suit them better. I would be much happier if everyone just got along--but Microsoft wants it all, and they won't stop until they have it. If you havn't realized this yet, take a long, hard look at how they've behaved in the past years.
I think NT is another example of Microsoft's non-monopoly. They have been trying to use the dominance of Win32 to take over the server market for years now. And yet apache has cleaned their clocks. People *certainly* have choices in the server arena.
*sigh* The operating systems market is not monolithic. There are different types of OS's for different applications--desktop, server, and mobile just to name a few. Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop market, and you're talking about the server market. The reason's for this is simple: when people set up a server, they need the best, not the most popular. And NT simply doesn't cut it as a server in comparison to UNIX. Never will.
As I recall, Microsoft in most case simply required that IE be featured on the desktop. OEM's were always free to make Netscape an option. And even if they didn't, so what? The "obvious option" is called a modem. And it's laughable to say that IE was "crammed down users' throats." This is similar to saying cereal companies cram the little toy at the bottom of the package down kids' throats. Microsoft gave away IE *for free.* How can that do anything but help consumers?
You havn't read the Findings of Fact, have you? No, Microsoft threatened to cut off the discounts of all OEM's who preloaded Netscape on their machines. Why don't you go read through the FoF before you continue defending MS.
Netscape is still being actively developed, so if the goal was to drive them out of business it obviously didn't happen. What's the problem?
Like a previous poster said, they only survived because AOL bought them. Don't kid yourself; they wouldn't have stuck around. They were in serious trouble until AOL bailed them out.
Frankly, however good it is as a server platform, Linux isn't ready for use by average users. And since it is not a commercial product, Microsoft tactics aren't going to stop it in any event.
Holy crap, I actually agree with you! But don't understimate how quickly Linux can improve. If you had watched it's grow in just the past six months, and I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you haven't, it's growth is simply mind-boggling. How quickly it's been able to improve has astonished me, and I've only been a user since RedHat 5.2! It ain't on your radar yet, but just wait.
As for Be, they seem to still be there, and the market seems to still be funding them.
No, it's not. They've had to rethink the way their company is going to sell Be, and are moving into the Internet Appliance market, because they simply can't make it in the Desktop market. Have you ever seen Be preinstalled on a computer? Or anything other than Windows (with the obvious exception of Macintosh) for that matter? I didn't think so. That's what we call a monopoly.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
It's not adding features into Windows. Internet Explorer was a separate product, but when they noticed people preferred Netscape, they buried it into Windows so that you couldn't get rid of IE in order to take over the web browser market. I don't really care if they think it's part of the operating system; web browsers were a sperate market and they exploited their desktop market dominance in order to push IE. That's product tying. Whether or not it can be seen as just another feature now doesn't really matter because they used their market dominance to get here.
Um... yeah. This is what we call an ad hom: "you must support Microsoft because you don't know any better." For the record, I don't use Windows, and don't particularly like it. I have a Mac at home, and use Solaris and Linux boxen at work. In fact I avoid Microsoft products for the most part. (although IE for the Mac is pretty good)
Well, that's good to hear. And why, pray tell, do you avoid MS products? We both know the answer to that one. I don't really care if they make an inferior product, but stamping out all alternatives so as to force you into using their products just isn't right. When you buy a new computer, you should have more choices than just Windows. BeOS really deserved a chance, I think. It's a really neat OS that could've been really good. But the barriars to entry in the desktop OS market are simply too steep.
If you look at my slashdot userid, you'll see I've been reding /. since summer '98, so yes I'm familiar with Linux's growth. And when it's ready for use by average consumers, then consumers will start using it.
Okay, it sounds like you're reasonably intelligent; why are your posts coming from the perspective of a desktop user? Surely you must concede that Linux is a kick-ass server platform. But you seem to regard it as if it were intended for desktop use. Am I wrong here? That's how I was reading your posts. The fact is, it was never intended for desktop use, so comparing it to other desktop OS's isn't very fair. And "consumers" have been using it for quite some time. Us Linux geeks are consumers too, not just the Windows users. Sysadmins and technicians count as consumers, the consumers of the server market. I wouldn't want any Windows users wandering in there anyway.
I fail to see how antitrust law is going to make a difference one way or another there.
I agree, it won't.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Micrsoft needs to be stopped. Unfortunetly, it's gonna hurt.
NASDAQ is down 350 points already today.
thats about 6-7%
MSFT went down 15 dollars.
Thats alot of money.
I think Judge Jackson will be postponing his judgment so there won't be such a large impact on the stock markets.
Hopefully however, people will realize that the computer industry will not stop dead in it's tracks, and not sell there stock.
metalgeek
metalgeek
windows, just another pane in the glass
I disagree. Why does everyone assume that Microsoft investors are uncaring or unintelligent? Seriously, if Red Hat came up and offered you a chance in on the IPO, and you could do it, you bet your ass you would, regardless that they, more then once, have bent the open-source community to *their* needs, not the communities. Its simply business, and Microsoft did it better then anyone else. I am not a staunch defender, just playing devils advocate.
This decision is, of course, the lawyer employment act for the next several years (unless Jackson just gives MS a slap on the wrist, which seems unlikely).
I don't understand... What does diana ross have to do with this?
Yeah, and ironically enough, the Dow went *up* about 300 points. It just goes to show that the economy doesn't revolve around the tech sector after all.
Sanity is relative. For some of us it's just a distant cousin.
Booya, baby.
--
Mike Hoye
So, does that mean it's time to buy Futures in Canadian Real Estate?
CSG_SurferDude
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
Hmmm, Historically the biggest violaters of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act have had Structural remedies involved (The breakup of the company). For instance, AT&T, Standard Oil, and (That big aluminum company right before WWII whose name I have forgotten). So, there is a precedent for a breakup.
Of course, last year MS (intentionally?) changed departments around internally in what was a transparent attempt to make a structural remedy much harder.
So, the question is not What penalties will MS get?, but How will the company be broken up?
My personal bet is
But the question then becomes, "What's an application?
CSG_SurferDude
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
But you can easily remove this kernel option - or almost any other option.
To remove IE, you need to brute-force it with a program like 98lite or Revenge of Mozilla.
Macs running Netscape? Yeah, lets give power to two new big bastads - Apple and AOL. Both known for their bad business tactic, I'd personally avoid both.
BeOS and NetPositive/Opera all the way (on Intel of course, Apple killed BeOS on the G3 and up... [and Intel has competition, if you didn't notice])
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/governme nt/images/reno.jpg :-) Ok so it's not the greatest picture, but it's the best I could find...
Having stock *is* a risk game. If Investors chicken out and the share price falls, wtf do you blame the government for it? The profit you and many others made with MS stock was paid for by the zillions of users, OEMs, ISVs, IAPs and who cares else. So please don't bark up the wrong tree - you better go holler in Wall Street.
Re busineesses depending on MS: If they were dumb enough to rely on one partner/supplier, right so, that's their own fault. (Sorry for the employees, they are the stakeholders.)
If you like playing capitalism, please stick to the rules. If you don't like them, leave the game.
Use The Source, Luke!
or grab TweakUI and check the "Disable IE4" box. :)
Well, Linux 2.4 has (when its released) a HTTP Daemon in the kernel. How different is that? Its to speed up webserving. Wasn't one of the ideas of putting IE into the kernel (or the shell) making it faster to the user? I know IE4 loads lightning fast, especially if you have the HTML panes in the "my computer" type windows.
What a fun game of refresh that was. Only had to hit F5 once.
That is not true. There are certian cases that the Supreme court must hear and have no choice in the matter. Anti-trust legislation has that as a built in clause, the Supreme court has no choice in this matter.
Do you ever feel like there are people watching you? You're not alone.
http://microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/
Ouch... (Score:1) by ivan37 (gateb@microsoft.com) on Monday April 03, @04:07PM EST (#66) I live about 30 miles from Microsoft headquarters in Redmond. For the last hour there has been a noise coming from their direction. It kinda sounds like a whimpering dog...Gates? I'm sure he is happy, though, he got out of the spotlight by giving up his job now. Has that already taken place? (his he the software design psychic yet?) Does anyone know?)
--
Not only do I get a post under 100 for the Microsoft Loses thing, I get to comment on this: Sounds like Microsoft is using its mind-bending ray to make the citizens of Redmond revolt!
--
As of the close of trading today, GE was worth 520B, while MSFT was worth only 475B.
Microsoft is having a bad couple of weeks -- first Cisco, now GE...
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
12 times, if you count innovation, too!
Didn't amazon.com patent innovation? I sense another lawsuit in the works!
-
Um....would you buy a computer with an on-board modem, rip it out, and mail the modem back to the manufacturer, expecting a refund in the amount of a brand new modem? I don't think so. The Compaqs, Dells, Gateways, etc. that come with Windows are designed to run ONE operating system. That keeps their design, production and support costs to a minimum. If you don't want to pay for ALL the components of a full system THEN YOU BUY SOMETHING ELSE. It's not that hard.
This whole time Microsoft has been shouting about innovation and the "freedom to innovate." I heard Bill talking about the ruling today. He kept repeating phrases like, "Microsoft is a company built on innovation, and we will continue to innovate," and, "Microsoft is all about creativity and innovation." The Newshour program had three lawyers and an economist talking about the ruling, and each, regardless of their position concerning Microsoft was, kept referring to Microsoft's "innovations" and how this ruling will impact its ability to innovate. And at the end of all of this, I'm left wondering, honestly, what are Microsoft's innovations? Anyone?
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
As a result, we now have a very cool company with many interesting and beneficial products and services, and one that is enjoying a rebirth by leveraging from other companies and competitors through cooperation. Imagine if the resources of Redmond were used to actually implement a standard protocol, as defined, and build wonderful new applications on top of them, rather than hack a substitute or a poor implementation together to bisect the market.
OS
Browser
Applications (word, games, office, etc)
Three divisions, no waiting, and the browser now has to compete (or get bought by someone else).
Another interesting point made by a coworker here is that the value of Microsoft as 3 companies may be more than the value of the 1 today, as each will actually realize the revenue of the respective products rather than giving them to another division to give away for free.
2 cents, no deposit
Haha, i guess windows 98 crashed too many times for him and he wanted bitter revenge? Or maybe IE always takes itself as the default browser and he wants netscape damnit. Look out microsoft! We've got a disgruntled judge! hehehe
The king is dead! Long live the king (Linux)!
I was just in a teleconference with Ballamer and the head of their legal department, and they did actually field one question about Open-Source Stuff and they said that MS has certainly appreciated what OSS has done and will do to shape the market and how it will change in the future....
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
My system (Linux) has a tendency not to crash at all, no matter what Web browser I happen to be running. It also has a tendency not to litter the Web with broken HTML. (By contrast, your broken browser/OS, which you used to post your comments, gives the rest of us the gift of non-standard "smart quote" codes every time you use quotes or apostrophes.)
Such considerations might prove helpful in our rational thinking about what would happen if Microsoft were shut down.
--
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
Tomorrow, MS will still control 95% of the desktop market.
Legal machinations are entertaining for us propeller-heads, but they don't put code in our editors or binaries on our users' desktops.
Even the worst remedies being talked about, such as breaking MS into baby-Bills, don't change any fundamentals. Each of the babies will still have real products on real desktops in obscene amounts compared to any competitor. Sure, the stock will be beat around, but unless you're an MS stockholder, it doesn't affect you.
What might effect you is if IT decision makers flee MS. But remember, others are invested in MS products. They're not about to toss hundreds of millions of their dollars in licenses, support, staff, and training to switch to companies whose only claims are fewer legal problems. The court loss won't make anyone switch.
Copycat lawsuits? So what? They don't write code. They don't install software.
MS/DOJ: Entertaining. But I've yet to hear of a measurable effect or an outcome that actually changes the industry.
I don't know what versions you folks are running, but netscape only ever crashes on me if I have java enabled, and when it does it locks up, and I just have to kill -9 it. I have never had it take down X.
_sig_ is away
gpo.gov doesn't have it online yet, but it is available here:
n s.html
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-conclusio
I think there would be a great amount of demand for one of the baby bills to break from the "de-facto standard" of windows, and, just as you say, break compatibility to fix the problems that are there. They would probably make something roughly based on windows (the good parts) but changed to take advantage of whatever new ideas they had. This would be good for consumers, as it would mean more diversity in OSs.
The reason Windows is the current standard is that Microsoft has exclusive control of it. There is no real competition, so the standard becomes whatever microsoft implements. However, if there are many microsofts, all changing the windows code in different ways, then the standard would become whatever works best.
That is the point of competition, to make the best products rise to the top. At one point, Microsoft had the best product (ok, thats arguable, maybe). But for the last 5 or so years, certainly, they have spent more effort keeping others down then on improving windows. The improvements they did make (yes, there were some) were not done to improve their product, but to beat down another product that threatened their monopoly. Integrating IE into windows 98 was an improvement, but Microsoft's reason for doing it was to get around their agreement with the DoJ preventing them from legally requiring IE to be bundled with windows. Integration was just a technical loophole microsoft exploited.
This is another reason I think a vertical split would work better than a horizontal (along product lines) split. Having IE integrated into windows does make them both better. It is only when that is used to destroy competition that it is bad. If BabyMS#1 integrates IE#1 into Windows#1, then good for them. If MS#2 allows mozilla to integreate into their Windows#2, in the place of IE#2, then consumers are better served, because they can choose IE or mozilla, or whatever other browser works best for them.
Comparing possible Baby MSs to the Baby Bells is not quite fair. The Bells inherited phisical infrastructure, which was not really practical to have equally shared. MS on the other hand, has it's code as it's primary infrastructure (I'm ignoring buildings, people, etc as less significant to my point, yell if you want). Code can be shared evenly between a potentially infinate number of Baby Bills. Because they all have the same things, there is no reason for them to cooperate with each other (nothing to gain, nothing to offer). A product line split, however, would require close government supervision to avoid cooperation between the seperated companies. Whoever had IE would want to be in on any changes in the OS, whoever had the OS would want to know about how the compilers were being designed, and the MS Office group would want to know all the hidden APIs of everyone else so that their software would continue to work better than competitors' products.
In general, a vertical split allows competition to renew inovation to the OS market, where a horizontal split would require government oversight to avoid anticompetitive cooperation between several seperate monopolies.
Steve
Breaking MS up into Baby Bills won't be much of a solution in the long run, sort of attacking the symptom (Microsoft's ownage of many markets) instead of the root cause (embrace and extend, closed APIs, etc) of the alleged abuses. My idea is to require MS to include the (readable) source code to whatever they choose to bundle with their operating system distribution, so anyone with a lisensced copy can modify it. Wanna "integrate" IE? Go ahead, it can be hacked out with elegance - or just distribute it seperate from the OS and keep it closed source. A good compromise that will force them to play fair, no? -mati
Having the government regulate an out-of-control industry is often best for the consumer. Take steam-boats, for instance. Operators of steam-boats in the mid 1800's were constantly 'innovating' their products by pushing the pressure of their boilers higher and higher (to make the ship engines faster and more powerful). In the process, literally dozens of people died from boiler explosions every week. The casualties of Microsoft's 'innovations' may not as clearly defined as so many new tombstones, but the role of the government remains the same: to make sure that consumers are protected when their knowledge is imperfect.
Steam-boat operators went to great lengths to promote the safety of their products and hide tragedies when they occurred. M$ goes to great lengths to repeat the word 'innovation' as much as possible while, from the Conclusions of Law:
- Internet Explorer is not demonstrably the current "best of breed" Web browser, nor is it likely to be so at any time in the immediate future.
- Microsoft fails to advance any legitimate business objectives that actually explain the full extent of this significant exclusionary impact.
- Microsoft itself engendered, or at least countenanced, instability and inconsistency by permitting Microsoft-friendly modifications to the desktop and boot sequence...
- the full extent of Microsoft's exclusionary initiatives in the IAP channel can only be explained by the desire to hinder competition on the merits in the relevant market.
- Microsoft's actions did not even benefit Microsoft in the short run... [if they] would thus diminish the [competing] applications barrier to entry.
and best,- There is no evidence that Microsoft tried - or even considered trying - to prevent its anticompetitive campaign from achieving overkill. Under these circumstances, it is fair to presume that the wrongdoer intended "the probable consequences of its acts."
Hiding the fact that your neighbors are getting blown apart is somewhat more difficult than hiding that certain 'innovations' are actually ploys to stifle competition, but it comes down to the same things: consumer knowledge (or the lack there-of), the difference between knowing what new features will improve productivity and being told which 'innovations' will, and having a powerful body, in both these cases the government, work for the people who cannot be expected to know, or are being purposefully denied, some or all of the facts. Cheers, -Jeremy BlackBecause some one person with a few point made a decision on a whim. Why? Becuse they knew it would upset someone - because its monday and they feel pissy - becuase it might have been you and now you get to comment on the moderated post. Who the H$%% know why sometimes.
"I fully intend to e-mail my representatives, and I hope they realize the important impact that Microsoft has had on the computing industry alone, and ALL the other industries as well."
Now, that by itself doesn't indicate whether the site visitor thought that impact was good or bad, just that it was important. For all I know, the very next sentence might have read "Microsoft's monopolistic tactics have held back the computing industry, and Judge Jackson's decision is just the first step towards punishing Microsoft as it deserves," or it could have been something much more favorable to Microsoft...but had it been more favorable, don't you think they'd have quoted more, rather than chopping it down to an ambiguous sentence a la the reviews written about performances by Florence Foster Jenkins, thought by many to be the worst opera singer of all time?
If this is the best they could do of the comments they received, perhaps things are looking up.
Microsoft is free to innovate...perhaps they'll do it someday.
I wonder if this will make life better? I wonder if BeOS will become to next platform of choice?
:wq
Bummer.
:wq
This has drastic ramifications on the NASDAQ market, but I believe it shouldn't, because MSFT (and AOL and CISC and whatever else rules the tech stock market) should not set the standard for the rest of the market. Sure, the NASDAQ point earning is calculated upon the most successful and valuable companies in that particular market, but I do not believe it should make any investor panic and throw every damn tech stock out the window on the basis that its MSFT and AOL are tumbling. Its just mob mentality and its ludicrous.
-- Its score 1 because I used IE5 and Win98 to post this.
207 pages worth of verdict. 2007 pages of appeal. 18 years from now the case will be heard by the supreme court. 18 years and 1 day later the Supreme Court issues their verdict. 18 years and 2 days later MS announces they are moving to Canada. They are far too devious to allow little things like the law or a court of law to get in their way. They will find a way out.
I just saw this this story, and I can't believe my eyes. It's just so terrible, and unfair.
I mean, everybody knows this story should have been filed under humour.
Find funky gifts
...Microsofts does it take to change a lightbulb?
I think we're about to find out.
Find funky gifts
The BBC Have this story.
Apparently Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that innovation will continue. Perhaps he has heard a rumour that the DoJ are going to shut Microsoft down forever:-).
Find funky gifts
http://usvms.gpo.gov/ - available in HTML and PDF. About 50 pages more or less.
just thought out while his lawyers duke out what ever happens in the appeal courts, i don't think bill is going to give 2 fucks. i mean really, he was probably sitting at home going oh my god, you mean i'm only worth 15 billion dollars? what's the world come to? oh well, ie was better than netscape anyway. so bah. but i'm pretty sure lynx still rules.
charge=2cents.
thank you.
come again.
-dennis the kid
I would like to see Bill Gates sent to San Quentin so he can really get some IANAL from his 350 lb negro cell(bunk)mate.
Lars -
Can anyone explain to me why, or point me to a README, as to why on Microsoft's web sites, using xfstt and MS's own ttf fonts on Netscape/X11, that ' appears as ?
I have also noticed this on sites that use Frontpage to generate the page. What is missing that the font set itself can't properly render the correct character?
Lars -
I've been thinking for along time about what solutions would help the software comunity the most for a long time. I used to want to see microsoft split but this was mostly an emotional response. honestly one thing is the problem and it is the clout created by the windows monopoly. if they didnt control windows the field would be completely leveled. So the solution is simple. make MSFT open source the os to the same degree that linux is open source. They can still "sell" windows but they will have to compete with all the other companies. Like RHAT and LNUX. Everyone would benefit cause the OS would be better and more inovation would occur since competition would drive the market.
How many copies of Netscape did you buy? I know I got most of mine for free....legally! This is what makes this case most absurd to me. BOTH companies essentially gave the browser away for free. Oh sure, businesses had to buy Netscape back in the old days...but it was always free for personal and educational use. Netscape was doomed from the beginning.
four minutes and counting to M$ first official reply to the ruling
Munky_v2
"Warning: You are logged into reality as root..."
Jay
This is almost always true. However in this case, it is truly remarkable. Judge Jackson DID want to punish Microsoft. It is evident as you read through his Conclusions of Law. He's angry with Microsoft. He all but says he did not believe a word he was told by Microsoft witnesses. He also says that the Court of Appeals was flat out wrong when they overturned his last decision, regarding the temporary injunction against Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. He laments them for it. It it almost unheard of for Judges to protest the decision of a higher court, ESPECIALLY in an official document. Judge Jackson has written these Conclusions of Law like a bitter schoolboy and as the media scours over it and brings more and more experts to review it, he will not hear the end of it.
signature smigmature
- James
The Appeals Court will, and already has to a certain degree, sided with Microsoft on the most important factor of Judge Jackson's ruling. Judge Jackson is angered by their decision, and spends a good deal of time trying to explain himself in the Conclusions of Law. He almost sounds to me like a studdering schoolboy trying to get out of his punishment.
"The court of appeals' observations on the extent to which software product design decisions may be subject to judicial scrutiny in the course of 1 tying cases are in the strictest sense obiter dicta, and are thus not formally binding"
In other words, I'm right, you're wrong.
signature smigmature
- James
It's common knowledge that Microsoft behaved childishly in the trial. Gates was snyde and condescending. He evaded every question asked of him. Many of the witnesses for Microsoft answered questions by pointing their fingers away from themselves..."Well so what if we did that, they did that."
But that wasn't my point. It can be expected that a company would behave as such in an anti-trust trial. They've put their heart and souls into this company, they love it, they feel wronged and they are inherently biased. As they should be. However, a Judge should remain neutral and should not be in such a position if they cannot manage to do so. Judge Jackson was very much biased against Microsoft and behaved accordingly. He overlooked important information and believed every word fed to him by the Government's 1500 dollar-an-hour attorneys.
Indeed, you are right, Microsoft was every bit as guilty, I was trying however to point out an unusual and sorry fact in court cases - a biased judge.
signature smigmature
- James
I have now read through the majority of Judge Jackson's Conclusions of Law and as I read it, I find more and more reasons why we need a strictly Intellectual Property, or Technology-oriented court in this country. While I agree with many points Judge Jackson makes, he shows an utter ignorance of the computer world. At one point in his ruling, he states that consumers indeed had to pay for Internet Explorer, as Microsoft had bundled it with Windows, and that Microsoft profited from this tie-in. Well Mr. Jackson, would you care to explain to me how it is that I can visit www.microsoft.com and download, at no cost to myself, Internet Explorer? How I can download a 16-bit version, and use it under Windows 3.x, which Internet Explorer was never bundled with?
Throughout his Conclusions of Law, he also chastises Microsoft for NOT PROVING NEGATIVES. At times his ruling sounds so childish and angry that it's verging on hilarious.
signature smigmature
- James
Does anyone remember when Judge Jackson issued an injunction against Microsoft that the government didn't even ask for? Reguardless of the facts in this case, the Judge has leaned against Microsoft and given them clear grounds for appeal through the whole process. To my knowledge, every single ruling that Microsoft appealed to a higher court was over-turned. This ruling doesn't really change anything, it's just another beginning.
There are some rumours that the first division (win3.1) are going to finally open-source it ... So we can expect new, even better versions of win 3.1 clones made by independent software developpers.
Network Security: It always comes down to a big guy with a gun.
Nonsense. The CofL are, among other things, dependent on Larry Lessig's construction of the previous appelate court ruling in US. vs Microsoft. If that construction is flawed, then Judge Jackson's finding of a section 1 violation is trashed. Given that opinion contained the juicy quotation concerning "allowing judges and incompent attorneys to design software", I would suggest that Jackson's CofL are exceedingly brittle.
Sherman act is akin to saying no tigers or lions, and it is wrong for one species to dominate or threaten another. Evolution rules
Methinks you don't understand evolution very well. What drives evolution is diversity; there is nothing quite so abhorrent as a monoculture. Microsoft is the equivalent of a cane toad or fire ant; they are in one sense extremely successful, but their success is largely due to the way they poison the land around them to other species. Although we haven't witnessed enough to say for sure, the general consensus is that, unless they're counteracted, these species eventually weaken their ecosystems to the point of collapse, at which point they go extinct while incurring massive collateral damage.
Another parallel is extremely virulent disease -- they are "too successful" and quickly wipe out all possible vectors to their own propagation.
I personally don't think much of the analogy, but, well, you brought it up.
IE can be removed. Someone started a project called win98 lite. It's a mixture between win95 and win98. I think it uses the win98 kernel or whatever they call it, and the win95 explorer. It's supposed to be more stable, which isn't very difficult. They install it by patching the .inf files supplied with the operating system.
Nah, that's the futures market.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Not true. By settling, Microsoft could avoid having to admit their guilt. They would still be targets for anticompetitive lawsuits based on the earlier findings of fact. But they would not have been found guilty under the law.
But IANAL.
PC's should not be designed to run ANY operating system. Operating systems should be designed to run on PC's. This is a subtle but very important difference.
This sounds like a pretty good argument, but it appears that Judge Jackson has a stronger counter-argument. He quotes a couple of Supreme Court decisions that say that the question of whether two products are actually separate is dependent on the relevant market. None of the other operating systems out there claim that the browser is an essential and un-removable portion of the OS, and since there is demonstrably an interest in standalone browsers that aren't integrated into the OS. That's very strong evidence that the browser is not an integrated part of the OS, and hence that this constitutes illegal tying.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The long term success or failure of Microsoft is not relevant to the case? What are you, crazy? I have read up on Antitrust law, and I pretty much think its a lot of bunk. The pure fact of the matter is, if someone wants to put MS out of business in what I'd consider an ethical matter (and don't give me the 'your opinion doesn't matter' spiel, these are threads, all we care about here are people's opinions), they should come up with a better product, and people will use it. Its the same thing that happened with Intel/AMD; Intel's had a lock on the cpu market for years, but as soon as AMD came out with a processor which actually rivaled pentiumIII's.... tada, OEM's started using them.
/. for long enough to know that the vast, vast majority of people on here are devoted linux junkies. The kind of responses I'm seeing on here to the MS case is exactly what I'd expect from such a group of people. Come up with a better product, put it on the market, and I guarantee that OEMs will start using it; and if it is indeed a better product, they aren't going to worry about getting put out of business.
I've read
Oh, and from now on, if you want to insult me repeatedly with no other point to your posts... at least have the guts to sign in, alright? Yeah, thanks.
-Mierdaan
Why was this moderated to offtopic? I think this is a really good point, OS's that want to compete with Windows XX should try to gain a hold on the market through the quality of their product, not through idiotic lawsuits attacking a corporation, without which the IT industry would be years less advanced.
This whole IE business just drives me insane, doesn't anyone else realize how silly it sounds for the DoJ to say "Sure, you can make this OS, you have a right to do that, but try to incorporate your *own* browser with it.... then, THEN we've got you! Haha!" I think binarybits had a very good point waaaay back at the beginning of these posts: alternatives are out there. If an OEM doesn't feel it wants to ship IE with its computers, well fine, don't ship them with Windows. As I recall Dell is marketing some computers these days that come with Linux pre-packaged, so what's the problem?
Also, should someone experience the god-awful horror of buying a computer with IE included on it... what's the simple solution? Download Netscape (it's free, you see), install it, launch it, and when it asks if you want to make it your default browser... SAY YES.
I just wish people would get off Microsoft's back about this... I mean, in reality, you're persecuting a company for being TOO effective of a competitor; if these alleged incidents with MS and Netscape actually took place and MS was threatening Netscape, yadda yadda, now that I certainly don't approve of. However, if you're saying that they should be broken up or penalized in whatever way is the flavor of the day, simply because they control too much of the market... well, fine. You make a better product and start selling it, I'm sure the 'evil empire' will crumble within a few quarters.
-Mierdaan
Here's what i think might work:
Instead of Baby-bills, a type of solution that didn't work with the baby bells, why not simply make the code open source, but keeping a central distro?
Microsoft could charge for the distro, like the linux companies do now. However, anyone could send in code updates or suggestions. MS could then review the code, ideas, whatever, that are coming in, with some sort of philosophy guiding the code.
This would allow for a good operating system, software, et all, and realistically stop Microsoft from "harming consumers" while keeping a uniform operating system -- which is good for professional programmers. (who wants to recompile/write software for every flavor of unix?)
Third party programs, such as games, could remain propreitory, but Microsoft would not be making these. MS could be limited to the creation of programs that fall under this new liscence, which would only be for essential programs, such as Word and a browser.
Well, that's what i think. Does anyone agree?
Bill has said that Microsoft has fostered a competitive marketplace. I disagree, but I see how he could come to that conclusion.
Home computers first got big in the early 80's -- and Apple, though most of us look down our noses at them, was the most visible of the companies at the time. However, in the late 80's and early 90's when Windows was starting to crop up, prices on computers were dropping, and a majority of those machines were Wintel.
Now, from Bill's point of view, this probably looks like, "Windows started everyone buying computers, therefore, Microsoft has been a good force for the marketplace." But what's important to realize is that at that point in time, the home computer was an idea whose time had come, and regardless of the operating system, home computers were going to make inroads into our culture.
You can look at this from the viewpoint of another technology -- VCRs. The earliest models were clunky, huge, and horrifically expensive. By the early- to mid-80's prices had come down and features had improved substantially, and this brought about a surge in the purchasing of VCRs.
Basically, the market was ready for powerful, inexpensive computers, and Windows was in the right place at the right time. For Bill Gates to claim that his company made it happen is ludicrous.
In regards to the hit the Nasdaq took today on Microsoft's hit, there are a few important things to remember:
The joy of the market economy is that it is purely arbitrary. The hit the Nasdaq took today will probably recover in the next couple of weeks. Why? Because people will realize that the Internet isn't going to break and crumble without Microsoft, and with the government putting the smackdown on the company, that will give all these other tech stocks plenty of room to safely grow, and maybe become the NextBigThing. In a couple of days, this will be clear to JoeAverage and he'll fire up the ol' eTrade account and start buying tech stocks again.
Did Microsoft foster a healthy, competitive environment for software development companies? No. But it will once it is broken up and set aside, and this will be good for the consumer and for the Nasdaq.
blog |
Well, I don't think any judge likes punishing really popular corporations with limitations that would not be placed on competitors, since it's always open to review (judges hate being overturned), but as Judge Jackson has noted before, Microsoft has not obeyed previous consent decrees. No slap on the wrist this time. They get what they deserve.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
"But the issue is whether consumers have alternatives if they don't like Microsoft's product. The clear answer is yes. desktop users can get Macs or install BeOS. Server users can run Linux, Solaris, or *BSD. Yes, they have a large market share, but as long as there are alternatives, it's not a monopoly." Ok, so what youre saying is that when I go down to my local Best Buy and attemtp to buy a computer, I have the right to install an Operating System other than MS Windows right? I do have that right but why bother when it comes with windows, and I am going to pay for the cost of the Operating System anyway? I get to choose what hardware I want... what monitor I want... what manufacturer i want... but all of them have MS Windows installed by default out of the box. Oh yea, lets not forget the support that I am going to get when I install Linux. Not a single OEM company will provide you with the same level of support that you would get from using a Microsoft product. "A monopolist would raise their prices to $500, sit on their asses, and rake in profits" Im sorry, how much is Windows 2000 now? Oh yea, it costs more becuase it has more "Features." Note to my boss, lets switch from our 20 NT4.0 servers to 20 W2K servers. Dont mind the bugs and the newest problems with SR1 out. Those will go away in time. Oh yea, and could you please send me to get my MCSE for W2K now since my $12,000.00 i spent to get my MCSE before wont mean a thing in 18 months anyway?
I applaud your instincts, but you seem to misunderstand what is going on here. Two key points:
1. No new law is involved
2. The Judge and the government are bending over backwards to avoid regulation.
Point 1. The judge and the goverment don't need any new law, or any particularly deep grasp of technology, to prosecute this case. By way of analogy, murder is murder whether I use a club or an excimer laswer. Likewise, the rule by which we Americans decide if something is a monopoly, and how monopolies should be treated, have been around largely unchanged for decades.
Point 2. At every step of the way, Judge Jackson has tried to force a settlement. The one thing everyone in the case has publicly agreed on is that layers of bureuacratic oversight for Microsoft would be Bad (TM). Judge Jackson even arranged a high profile mediator (Judge Posner) before the case was decided! Many of state attorney generals have been pushing for a "structural remedy" (eg a breakup) becuase a "procedural remeby" (eg. an oversight board, like IBM had) is agreed to be hard to implement and detrimental to both Microsoft and the country as a whole.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
2) MS violated the Sherman Act by "unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system";
[...]
Ruling 2), on the other hand, is dead wrong, and I have a very difficult time believing any of you disagree. The simple fact is, every desktop OS/environment today has an integrated web browser.
IMO, what the ruling condemnes is not so much the actual integration of the browser to the OS, but the way in which it was tied to it. The FofF give rather explicit details about the way the integration of the browser literally into the core OS generally hurt consumers more than they benefit from it (less stable platform, more difficult to remove browser if not wanted, etc).
I find it actually reassuring that they are being punished for this.
3) "the effect of Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other companies" did NOT constitute "unlawful exclusive dealing under criteria established by leading decisions".
[...]
As for 3), I'd say that it is precisely MS's marketing arrangements that have made them an anticompetitive monopoly. I admit that IANAL and thus Judge Jackson knows the "criteria established by leading decisions" much much better than I do. However, if in fact MS does not meet those criteria, than I think a new precedent must be advanced, as MS has clearly effected the competitive landscape in the software industry for the worse.
I agree with you on this one. The business practices described in the FofF are disgusting at best. But being a european techie, I probably don't understand american business ethics very well. Maybe they're "common practice" in the US.
(Disclaimer: IANAL. And I haven't read the entire CofL yet, I will read it in the train in palm doc format just as I did with the FofF)
The link is here.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Oh, I'm just babbling. No one reads these things after a few days anyway.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Which one gets the development tools? Or do we end up with separate development tools and environments for each product line?
This really would make my life as a consumer exceedingly hard compared to the current position.
TomV
Well, I guess the judge just said that there has been no bullying of vendors, just of the consumers by the pricetag of Windows'98. The judge will have to relent on this one, development cost of IE4 is nothing on Microsofts budget, pennies per copies of Windows'98.
In my view, Microsoft didn't quite win. The marketplace lost.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Wow, I feel bad for anyone who had money in MS stock today. Look at the stock price drop in the article. And that was before the ruling. Better pull your $ outta MS, possibly all related tech stocks. This'll be a fun day on Wall Street. Oh, check out this article for more on the stock fall. http://www.wired.com/news/p olitics/0,1283,35364,00.html Sharkey
Badassmofo.com
www.badassmofo.com
Currently downloading at a speedy 52bytes a second. ." 15 U.S.C. 2. This language operates to limit the means by which a firm may lawfully either acquire or perpetuate monopoly power. Specifically, a firm violates 2 if it attains or preserves monopoly power through anticompetitive acts. See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The offense of monopoly power under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 488 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("Our 2 monopolization doctrines are . . . directed to discrete situations in which a defendant's possession of substantial market power, combined with his exclusionary or anticompetitive behavior, threatens to defeat or forestall the corrective forces of competition and thereby sustain or extend the defendant's agglomeration of power."). 1. Monopoly Power The threshold element of a 2 monopolization offense being "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market," Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 570, the Court must first ascertain the boundaries of the commercial activity that can be termed the "relevant market." See Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 177 (1965) ("Without a definition of [the relevant] market there is no way to measure [defendant's] ability to lessen or destroy competition."). Next, the Court must assess the defendant's actual power to control prices in - or to exclude competition from - that market. See United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391 (1956) ("Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude competition."). In this case, the plaintiffs postulated the relevant market as being the worldwide licensing of Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Whether this zone of commercial activity actually qualifies as a market, "monopolization of which may be illegal," depends on whether it includes all products "reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes." du Pont, 351 U.S. at 395. See Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("Because the ability of consumers to turn to other suppliers restrains a firm from raising prices above the competitive level, the definition of the 'relevant market' rests on a determination of available substitutes."). The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Findings 18-29. The Court has further found that no firm not currently marketing Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of such consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Id. 18, 30-32. From these facts, the Court has inferred that if a single firm or cartel controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market - and leave the price there for a significant period of time - without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Id. 18. This inference, in turn, has led the Court to find that the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide does in fact constitute the relevant market in the context of the plaintiffs' monopoly maintenance claim. Id.
And I quote, "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The United States, nineteen individual states, and the District of Columbia ("the plaintiffs") bring these consolidated civil enforcement actions against defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs charge, in essence, that Microsoft has waged an unlawful campaign in defense of its monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. They also assert that Microsoft attempted, albeit unsuccessfully to date, to monopolize the Web browser market, likewise in violation of 2. Finally, they contend that certain steps taken by Microsoft as part of its campaign to protect its monopoly power, namely tying its browser to its operating system and entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, violated 1 of the Act. Upon consideration of the Court's Findings of Fact ("Findings"), filed herein on November 5, 1999, as amended on December 21, 1999, the proposed conclusions of law submitted by the parties, the briefs of amici curiae, and the argument of counsel thereon, the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of 2. Microsoft also violated 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system. The facts found do not support the conclusion, however, that the effect of Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other companies constituted unlawful exclusive dealing under criteria established by leading decisions under 1. The nineteen states and the District of Columbia ("the plaintiff states") seek to ground liability additionally under their respective antitrust laws. The Court is persuaded that the evidence in the record proving violations of the Sherman Act also satisfies the elements of analogous causes of action arising under the laws of each plaintiff state. For this reason, and for others stated below, the Court holds Microsoft liable under those particular state laws as well. I. SECTION TWO OF THE SHERMAN ACT A. Maintenance of Monopoly Power by Anticompetitive Means Section 2 of the Sherman Act declares that it is unlawful for a person or firm to "monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations . . .
The Judge had his mind made up before the case even started. M$ took no risks in insulting him.
That would only have been a risk if he had an open mind to start with.
You have this backwards. If MS had settled,
then they would NOT have been admitting guilt
and the 'findings of fact' would effectively
cease to exist.
M$ would have LOVED to have settled, but only
if the terms were better than the scorched earth
that the DOJ & States were offering.
Apologies if this has already been posted, but the page seems to be loading really badly.
CNBC also pointed out that Redhat stock and VA Linux stock are both up. They implied it was due to the news MS lost, but having not followed the stocks progress I can't comment.
I hate to be a wet blanket, but this isn't solely an economic issue. It's root comes from the nature of american rights. Microsoft became part of the oligarky that is the US while still actively utilizing their "freedom to innovate". They burnt the candel at both ends. Twice as bright, half as long with somebody else's wax. There's definitly a deeper meaning here, a revealation of the standard practice of big-business to Joe-average. It all comes down to "good-good-good" to anyone without all their money in the market and a few (dare I say?) socialist morals.
Trolls, it must be cool to be that bored.
Wow. My Win95 (for games) crashes a lot, but I haven't head it screaming obscenties yet. Did M$ add that for Win98, or is it a Theme Pack?
Information wants to be free -- but informants want to be paid.
Not nessarily. Thats only if the BabyBills have the same thinking as did the larger company. Since they no longer have the resources to act on things as they did when they were all together, they can't afford to think like they did when they were much larger.
Overall, splitting up MS would probably leave everyone much better off then before. With several smaller companies, no matter how they were split up (into apps, OS, internet, or some other way) it would be in their best interests to make better products and to broaden into other OSes. If every BabyBill can create an OS, then Windows will fork by default. That means a mess just as bad as the Unix fork of the '80s. Eventualy, someone might come around and pick up the pieces (as Linus did for Unix), but will anyone care by then? If anyone does care, it will surly make a much better OS then we see currently.
I'm more worried that MS will appeal and this thing will be draged on for another 2+ years.
"One World, one Web, one Program"-Microsoft promotional ad
Not a typewriter
>Of course there are examples of people who have
>complaints about specific MS products, as is
>true with any product. But my point is that the
>vast majority of MS users are not up in arms
>about being "forced" to use their products.
Not that it's really relevant to the issue, but name me one M$ product that DOESN'T have more than a few "examples of people who have complaints."
>Your example actually proves my point. They
>*converted* to Exchange, presumably from a non-
>Microsoft alternative. Why did they do this? And
>what's to stop them from switching back if they
>don't like it?
Well, at *my* company, one of the people involved straight-out admitted that the biggest reason was that it was an M$ product. Despite the fact that, even 2 years later, most of the people who used Groupwise (not even a particularly good package here) would prefer to switch back, we're still on Exchange. Why? Because M$ has a monopoly, and no other software company is percieved to have a chance of *survival* against them. Not winning, surviving.
>I think NT is another example of Microsoft's non-
>monopoly. They have been trying to use the
>dominance of Win32 to take over the server
>market for years now. And yet apache has cleaned
>their clocks. People *certainly* have choices in
>the server arena.
The point is that M$ has managed to gain what, a 25% market share with a product that even it's boosters admit is technically inferior to the other options. How? By the leveraging of their desktop monopoly into another market.
And, if you recall, this case is about a DESKTOP monopoly, not a server one. NT has jack shit to do with this case.
>As I recall, Microsoft in most case simply
>required that IE be featured on the desktop.
>OEM's were always free to make Netscape an
>option. And even if they didn't, so what? The
>"obvious option" is called a modem. And it's
>laughable to say that IE was "crammed down
>users' throats." This is similar to saying
>cereal companies cram the little toy at the
>bottom of the package down kids' throats.
>Microsoft gave away IE *for free.* How can that
>do anything but help consumers?
It harms them in the long run by taking away their choice. Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows that the average user these days is an idiot who has a hard time using the software that came pre-installed on his PC, much less going out there, spending a couple hours downloading Nutscrape off a modem, and installing and configuring it. And why should he bother, when there's this browser already made part of his OS?
Also, IE *is* forced down your throat. Office *requires* it. VC++ *requires* it. You cannot remove it from 98. If you have a M$ product these days, than you have no choice but to have IE wasting space on your hard drive, and you have no choice but to use IE as the HTML renderer used with these products.
And at least one manufacturer (Compaq, IIRC) was forced to ship the systems they manufactured with IE as the default browser, when the manufacturer wanted it to be Nutscrape.
Finally, there's the reason they did it, to "cut off Netscape's air supply." They weren't doing it to increase their own profits, they were doing it to cut off Netscape's main source of income, thereby preserving their dominance in the software market. And they were only able to do it because they have a monopoly on consumer desktop OS's.
>Netscape is still being actively developed, so
>if the goal was to drive them out of business it
>obviously didn't happen. What's the problem?
Umm, apparently you missed the minor detail of them being bought out by AOL. M$ DID put them out of business. Navigator may still be in development, but Netscape is no longer a corporate entity.
>And the supposed purpose of antitrust law is to
>protect consumers, not competitors.
Actually, that's not true. Helping consumers is only part of it. The biggest reason for antitrust legislation is the political power a monopoly can wield. First, they can use their monopoly profits to just plain buy up politicians. Anyone remember M$ trying to bribe congressmen to cut off funding to the DOJ's antitrust division a little while back? Second, they can threaten to cut off the government from a product they are the sole supplier of. As in, "I'm sorry, but we we're currently not sure we can guarantee our survival as a company long enough to fulfill your order for 40,000 Windows licenses. Now if this antitrust suit were dropped, we might feel differently. Do you really want to tell the taxpayers you're going to just throw away the billions you've spent on making Windows your sole client OS (since we're the only one that gets shipped with PCs), and the billions more you've spent developing for it?" A monopoly can effectively control the government of a country. Despite what you libertarian types want to believe, the US government *is* the law of the land, and only the collective will of the majority of *ALL* the citizens should have more authority. For a company, whose only responsibility is to the wallets of a small number of people, to wield more power than our elected officials is both wrong and in the worst interests of everyone. THAT's why we have antitrust legislation, not because consumers are getting hurt.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Consumer OS: 98 and CE
Enterprise OS: NT and Win64
Personal Applications: IE, (and the OS divisions would have to license it), Works, games, etc
Business Applications: Office, etc
Enterprise Applications: IIS, SQL Server, etc
Development Tools: VC++, VB, etc
Hardware
The goal is to split the client from the server as much as possible; also to seperate the OS from the apps from the development tools, since their monopoly is based on controlling all three. They should be forbidden from remerging for not less than 25 years, and there should be government oversight to prevent collusion for at least the first 3 or 4 years.
And the names "Microsoft" and "Windows" should not be allowed to be used by any of the companies.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
I'm no expert on U.S. politics, but I have a feeling that the next federal election in the U.S. will greatly affect the outcome of the Microsoft antitrust suit.
Back in the late '70s and early '80s, the was an antitrust suit against IBM. When Reagan was elected, the suit was dropped.
Al Gore is one of the biggest backers of the Microsoft antitrust suit, and if he gets elected, Microsoft can only look forward to more punishment. But, I've heard that George W. Bush said he would never allow Microsoft to be broken up or severely punished if he got elected.
The next U.S. federal election will be in November 2000 -- only about seven months away. Microsoft has, apparently, been backing the Republicans by making all sorts of campaign contributions to them. I heard that George W. Bush's election campaign has (so far) cost 80 million dollars (U.S.), and that it was all funds from the private sector (not the government). I guess we know who one of his biggest contributors is, eh?
Like I said, I don't know much about American politics (so please correct me if I have any facts wrong), and I don't know how much influence a president has on court decisions like this, but it should be interesting to see what happens in November. Microsoft is sure to appeal and do anything in their power to stall any kind of breakup or severe punishment until well past the next U.S. election, in case Bush makes it in.
You need to read-over Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact. You are ignorant of many of the facts. I will not highlight all of these for you because they spill over into other arguments you have made, and I feel you need to read over his findings in order to consider yourself knowledgable about the issues at hand.
They have been trying to use the dominance of Win32 to take over the server market for years now.
This is using monopoly power in one segment to extend it to another.
OEM's were always free to make Netscape an option.
No, they didn't. Microsoft eventually prohibited OEM's from altering the installation, even to the extent that they could not provide guides for their own customers.
Its stockholders are now proud owners of AOL and Sun stock, and certainly better off than they were when they started. And the supposed purpose of antitrust law is to protect consumers, not competitors.
Stockholders are not consumers. Just because the people that own a company profited from it, doesn't mean that consumers of the industry profited.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
NASDAQ was already downward-trending before Monday. I wouldn't attribute all of the 350 point drop to MS.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
It is not an issue of whether or not they are a monopoly, because they do monopolize the desktop OS market and Judge Jackson wisely confirmed that. The issue is that they used that power to edge in on other markets, like web-browsers and the inhibition of Sun's "cross-platform" Java language. To me, the fact that they blatently changed the implementation of Java, in essence completely defeating one of the most useful aspects of Java (and most hyped), makes me furious. I have no experience with J++ but apparently the bytecode that compiles with their Java development tool may only be used on Windows. Like Visual C++, they altered the language to suit their on ends, even if a standard had been approved.
You can read the actual Conclusions of Law and Final Order here.
NO CARRIER
I am positive about what I have said.
This is not purchasing software for the computer labs being subsidized by bookstore sales, this software is for the students and it is paid for by the students.
Whats more is that many people don't even know about the software deal because you are not told that you get the software at the time you register. I would figure if at least you were being forced to buy a product, you would at least know that you get the product!! Many people that I have asked about this deal don't even know about it.
You pay for this software with hidden fees attached to your tuition bill!! This is a cut and dried scam!
But I guess when you have as much money as M$, anything is legal.
I wish that judge could have taken another look at those licesing deals. I seriously doubt that this is the only one that M$ has cut illegally.
The official conclusions are 896 lines long. This is a 126 line summary of that transcript.
- - t ml ]
."'
."'
Done extremely quickly but I've tried to get as many of the main points in along with quotes.
Hope it helps.
Cy.
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Jackson's Ruling
2:00 p.m. Apr. 3, 2000 PDT
[ unofficial summary taken from http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,35391,00.h
Conclusions of Law
MS defended its monopoly unlawfully - i.e it violated the Sherman Act by performing
'exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts' and attempted 'to monopolize
the Web browser market' (Section Two) and by 'tying its browser to its operating
system' (Section One).
I. SECTION TWO OF THE SHERMAN ACT
A. Maintenance of Monopoly Power by Anticompetitive Means
'Section 2 of the Sherman Act declares that it is unlawful for a person or firm to
"monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or
with foreign nations . . .
1. Monopoly Power
'"Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude competition."'
Based on all evidence, such as MS's share of the world PC OS market which 'exceeds
ninety-five percent' it is taken as fact that 'Microsoft enjoys monopoly power'.
2. Maintenance of Monopoly Power by Anticompetitive Means
'Microsoft sought to convince developers to concentrate on Windows-specificAPIs
and ignore interfaces exposed by the two incarnations of middleware that posed the
greatest threat, namely, Netscape's Navigator Web browser and Sun's implementation
of the Java technology. Microsoft's campaign succeeded in preventing - for several
years, and perhaps permanently - Navigator and Java from fulfilling their potential
to open the market'
Because this was acheived by 'exclusionary acts that lacked procompetitive
justification', it was deemed that MS maintained 'monopoly power by anticompetitive
means'.
a. Combating the Browser Threat
Court deemed that MS prevented Netscape's access to both major distribution channels
'pre-installation by OEMs' and 'bundling with the proprietary software of IAPs'
(Internet access providers).
i. The OEM Channel
MS's campaign had 3 fronts. First, it bound IE to Windows to ensure 'presence of
Internet Explorer on every Windows user's PC system'. Second, it prevented OEM's
from reconfiguring Windows to 'generate usage for Navigator'. Finally, it used
incentives and threats on OEMs to 'favor Internet Explorer to the exclusion of
Navigator'.
By performing this campaign, MS ' increased the likelihood that pre-installation of
Navigator onto Windows would cause user confusion and system degradation, and
therefore lead to higher support costs and reduced sales for the OEMs'.
'The response of OEMs to Microsoft's efforts had a dramatic, negative
impact on Navigator's usage share'.
'Internet Explorer is not demonstrably the current "best of breed" Web browser,
nor is it likely to be so at any time in the immediate future'.
ii. The IAP Channel
Using associations with the top ten Internet Access Providers MS aimed 'to
diminish Navigator's share of browser usage'.
iii. ICPs, ISVs and Apple
'By extracting from Apple terms that significantly diminished the usage of
Navigator on the Mac OS, Microsoft helped to ensure that developers would not view
Navigator as truly cross-platform middleware'.
b. Combating the Java Threat
'Microsoft employed an array of tactics designed to maximize the difficulty with
which applications written in Java could be ported from Windows to other platforms,
and vice versa' by 'the creation of a Java implementation for Windows that undermined
portability', for example, 'Microsoft also deliberately designed its Java
development tools so that developers who were opting for portability over
performance would nevertheless unwittingly write Java applications that would run
only on Windows'.
c. Microsoft's Conduct Taken As a Whole
'only when the separate categories of conduct are viewed' as a whole 'does the full
extent of the violence that Microsoft has done to the competitive process reveal
itself'.
B. Attempting to Obtain Monopoly Power in a Second Market by Anticompetitive Means
' The Court is nonetheless compelled to express its further conclusion that the
predatory course of conduct Microsoft has pursued since June of 1995 has revived the
dangerous probability that Microsoft will attain monopoly power in a second market.
Internet Explorer's share of browser usage has already risen above fifty percent,
will exceed sixty percent by January 2001, and the trend continues unabated.'
II. SECTION ONE OF THE SHERMAN ACT
'Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits "every contract, combination . . . , or
conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce . . .
A. Tying
Liability for tying exist where all four of the following four elements exist.
(1) 2 separate products are involved
(2) customers are offered no choice but to take the tied product(IE) to obtain the
tying product(Windows).
(3) substantial interstate commerce is affected
(4) the defendant has market power in the tying product market (Windows).
'This Court concludes that Microsoft's decision to offer only the bundled -
"integrated" - version of Windows and Internet Explorer derived not from technical
necessity or business efficiencies; rather, it was the result of a deliberate and
purposeful choice to quell incipient competition before it reached truly minatory
proportions'
B. Exclusive Dealing Arrangements
'each of these agreements with Microsoft required the other party' (Compaq, Apple,
and others) 'to promote and distribute Internet Explorer to the partial or
complete exclusion of Navigator'.
III. THE STATE LAW CLAIMS
'It is equally clear that certain companies that have been adversely affected by
Microsoft's anticompetitive campaign - a list that includes IBM, Hewlett-Packard,
Intel, Netscape, Sun, and many others'.
'Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct has significantly hampered competition'
'Microsoft argues that the attorneys general are seeking relief on the basis of
state laws, repeats its assertion that the imposition of this relief would deprive
it of rights granted to it by the Copyright Act'... 'the Court rejects Microsoft's
counterclaim'
Redundant, but face it, this is huge. No matter what happens, this is day that will be remembered in history. It'll be referred to just like AT&T has been referred to in this case. The question is, what monopoly are we going to be talking about then?
Historically, a significant part of the remuneration to MS staff has been in stock options. In the past, this was a great deal. But if the share price starts to fall, they will find it very hard to hire and retain the best people.
But that's okay because those are the same stocks they used to steal their top developers from their competitors. If they can't keep their employees, well, I remember some old saying:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
-Effendi
-Effendi
For everyone who is making a big deal out of the drop in Microsoft's stock value, let me point out that when AMD released their 1 Ghz chip, their stock jumped by 6 point. When Intel released their 1 Ghz chip a few days later, AMD's stock fell by 3 points.
The pissing war these two companies are involved in is silly. It's even more absurd to think that a few days difference in release date has anything at all to do with long-term viability or profitability. If anything, the pissing war worries me: It's just a matter of time until one of them hurries a chip to market too fast and releases it with a bad bug. (I'm betting it's going to be Intel, but we shall see.)
Note that AMD's stock was trading around $50 at the time that this happened, so the change in price was of the same relative order as today's slide in Microsoft stock.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
This is what I've heard.
1. Microsoft is basicly screwed if Judge Jackson gave a ruling.
2. Enter 569 years of appeals.
3. Microsoft press confrence at 6:00 eastern.
4. Jackson said words like "Shackeling technological inovation", which, according to CNN, is "...very bad for Microsoft"
5. Microsoft's stock will fall.
6. The bad side comes with people who have pensions and retirement plans linked to MSFT.
I hope this helps.
My email is real.
This is definitely going to be controversial...but here goes...
Microsoft has made the computer industry better for everyone involved. How could they get prosecuted for providing FREE software (IE), creating strategic deals with other companies, etc. They are using smart business practices. If every business that produced quality products was prosecuted, what would become of this world?
Why aren't Torvalds and Apache prosecuted for monopolizing on the server market? After all, they both have a significant hold on the server market.
About 10 years ago, MS was practically forced into supporting IBM's OS/2 operating system with threats that IBM would stop supporting Windows and DOS. Why doesn't/didn't IBM get prosecuted?
I'd say the US government has kinda monopolized on the government market in the US. Sue them!
What will become of a world where businesses are afraid to compete in fear of being prosecuted for anti-competitive transactions?
When MS released IE for free, Netscape was forced to do the same with Navigator/Communicator. Isn't this BETTER for consumers? I don't know everyone's opinions but I'd rather be able to download software for free rather than paying $20/$30 for it.
I guess what I'm saying is that Microsoft has been performing extremely successful business--but now they get prosecuted for that kind of thing?
Linux's new commercial:
Bah dum ba dee: Get your mom to understand Linux
Bah dum ba dee: Get your mom to understand Linux
Bah dum ba dee: Get your mom to understand Linux
------------
Tonight on Fox: Deadliest Executions Part XVII
So, basically, the gov is mad at Microsoft for...
*Creating superior products
*Beating its competitors
*Competing
Where I go to school, we've got all Macs--2 iMacs and about 45 75MHz Performas. Overwhelmingly, as in 100%, of people use IE--by choice! Netscape is installed on every computer, too! As easy to get to.
On these systems there is no default browser; you must log on to a central Apple IPShare server. That certainly says something about MS products.
Also, on those same Macs, is Microsoft Office. That's the only program they teach, however Appleworks/Clarisworks come(s) on all computers. If it wasn't a superior product, why is it being used?
On a side note...
I recently upgraded to Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional and was certainly pleasantly surprised. I needed tech support (it was my problem) and I called them, and in less that 35 seconds (I timed it) I was connected to the techsupport rep who helped me. He found and got rid of the problem in seconds; yet waited until he was sure it worked until he we hung up. Now THAT'S support.
Microsoft is an excellent company who simply competes. Just because the majority of users choose QUALITY products such as Windows 98 doesn't mean Microsoft is evil.
If Windows 98/NT4/NT3.51/2000/95/ETC are so bad, I have just one question. _Why_ are they in use?
It would take an average person less that $200 to go and get Linux, Be, etc. But not many people do? So, what does that mean? Let's take a look:
Microsoft's products are:
*Easier
*Powerful
*Comprehensive
*Well-supported
*Popular
*More stable
About the stability...
It's a good bet that, if your Windows OS crashed, say, 178 times in a year, that 177 would be purely software. Badly written software. It is not Window's fault. Microsoft neither causes nor encourages bugs but gets blamed for EVERY bug that is encountered! Now that's unfair.
------------
Tonight on Fox: Deadliest Executions Part XVII
Since stock options make up a significant part of most Microsoft employees' compensation, a dropping stock price, coupled with the anti-trust decision, could be a crippling blow for the company. They could lose their best and brightest employees to companies with better compensation plans, be forced to give up market share, and have no realistic way to get the market share back.
normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
I found a very intersting link placed in post #640
_ fleece/luke1.html
but after logging in under my user name I lost track of the post. I wanted to reply in gratitude to the gentleman who posted this link concerning the "corporate death penalty"
http://www.lightparty.com/Misc/CorporateDeath.htm
It made me aware of the fact that-
we the people actually have the power to challenge and possibly revoke a corporation's charter if, the corporation in question violates the law. And for those who scream free trade/free markets - all I have to say is that a corporation is not an individual, therefore, a corporation should not be held to any lesser or greater standards/laws than indivduals are.
Just remember if an individuals breaks a law they are imprisoned, which happens to be a very popular thing in this country right now-
http://www.superfluous.com/superstar/generation
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
People act as if the superexponential growth of Net users came about with $-costless IE, but in fact it'd been going on for quite some time before . (That's what spooked MS into making IE in the first place...) And I haven't seen any reliable metric that indicates that Net growth had been levelling off prior to the $0 release of IE.
It is impossible to prove "might have beens" but I think it's reasonable to ask that trends you claim to have averted were actually happening. But maybe that's just me.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Have you ever TRIED downloading Netscape through a modem? Thanks to AOL bloat, it takes about two hours... my ISP has a tendancy to lose the connection after 30mins (grr), so this means I'm stuck with IE. Also, most companies (and people) think "I've already GOT a web browser, why try another?"
Netscape is still being actively developed, so if the goal was to drive them out of business it obviously didn't happen. What's the problem?
It's ONLY being actively developed because they were bought by AOL for whatever reason - Netscape as a single company no longer exists. They were forced to sell their buisness due to preditory attacks by Microsoft - or they were forced to sell because Microsoft had the superior product. Take your pick. (I still use Netscape, even on Win32; in fact, where I work, Netscape is the standard, both for browser and e-mail (both client and server) No IE at all!) Oh, and that's really Mozilla being developed, but that's a whole other can of worms.
There are two other things to keep in mind. First, Netscape certainly doesn't look like it was hurt all that much by Microsoft's tactics. Its stockholders are now proud owners of AOL and Sun stock, and certainly better off than they were when they started. And the supposed purpose of antitrust law is to protect consumers, not competitors.
As stated above, Netscape was almost driven out of buisness - they were only "saved" by AOL - take that as you will. Also, if MS "wins" in the end, there is no longer any reason for them to innovate any more - there would be no compotetion left, and that would hurt consumers in the end. That's what anti-trust laws are designed to prevent.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Although I, personally, don't like Microsoft products, I do have to admit that they did do some good as a company. I believe that without Windows being so ubiquitous, the personal computer market would not be as big as it is. For those of us who know computers inside and out, and aren't intimidated by them, Linux or Unix is ideal. But for someone's grandparents or for someone who is technologically-impaired, Windows is great because you don't have all the worry of text-based config files, etc...and if you do run into problems, most techies that you know are proficient in Windows and can help out. Windows is for people who really don't care what goes on inside their machine. Although we may not agree with that position, computers wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are currently if those people didn't have a candy-coated OS to turn to. - Jen
"Oh, dear, it appears reality is on the blink again." - Hitchhikker's Guide to the Galaxy
Erm, was that post blatantly racist or is there another meaning for the term "negro" that I'm not aware of? Just out of curiosity...
MS will go to supreme court and that could take ages in computer time. :) ). ,money on the next windows "upgrade".
And how will this effect europe? Nothing?
No the only thing in the long run that can change the windows as the major OS for companies and users, is for them to chose another OS(Linux
That is the only way for MS to finally "lose".
This will take time as many employers at companies only knows to use windows, those will not urge for a change to Linux or any other "hard" OS.
A common view among none computer "nerds" is that they don't understand what MS has done wrong and think MS is wrongly accused.
And those users will probably still be happy to spend
I hope that in 2-3years Linux will be the OS of choose for ALL users, this will be interesting.
But who knows what an common OS will be like in 2-3years will it be a palmtop?
Time to sleep...
I am as dissatisfied with the poor performance of Microsoft products as anyone else, but I don't think that this is the way to beat them. Wouldn't it be more satisfying to have Microsoft go down because it was replaced by superior software than because of an act of government? I don't see why anyone would think of Microsoft as a monopoly when there are other commercially available products that provide similar if not insanely superior results. Just because most people don't want to, or don't know how to use these other operating systems doesn't mean that they don't exist. We are proof of that. I could be wrong, it has been known to happen every one in a while }:-{
I'm kinda torn up about this whole thing... On the one hand I want to see Microsoft torn to little bits. On the other hand we might be better off to let them dig their own hole.
I hate to see free economy intervention like this, because it lowers economic confidence. How many more bug riddled releases would microsoft have been able to make in the face of Linux 2.4, KDE 2.0, and GNOME?
The fact is, breaking up microsoft into smaller devisions is almost garunteed to make them produce higher quality software, especially if they are made to open the source. While I suppose this is good, it scares me. If breaking up microsoft simply leads to a bunch of lean and mean Redmond Machines, the result could be the opposite of what we want: MORE microsoft products, more monopoly type practices and more FUD, except now we'll get it from multiple directions!
My vote is to leave the sinking ship alone, just fine them and call it good.... Microsoft can't recover from this path of self destruction they are on, unless we help them.
------
www.chowda.net -- Student seeking summer intership. Chea... inexpensive programmer!
------
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
The trouble with derivatives is that they're too damn clever. IANAA, but here's an excerpt from the Economist article Bill Parish mentions on his website. It includes a quote from Warren Buffett, who ought to know what he's talking about:
Some maintain that these numbers exaggerate the problem: there is genuine dispute over how best to calculate and account for the cost of executive options. But this is quibbling. Warren Buffett, a well-known American investor, put the case succinctly for tightening the rules on share-option schemes in the recent annual report of his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway. "Accounting principles offer management a choice: pay employees in one form and count the cost, or pay them in another form and ignore the cost. Small wonder then that the use of options has mushroomed," he observes. "If options aren't a form of compensation, what are they? If compensation isn't an expense, what is it? And, if expenses shouldn't go into the calculation of earnings, where in the world should they go?"
Options are, indeed, a form of compensation.
But the issuance of this form of compensation does not represent an expense to the company. Not, not, not.
Option compensation represents a dilution of the value of shareholder equity.
Without hammering to much on your "complete" case (not, not, not), how does this analysis fit with the fact that companies can take a tax deduction on the exercise of options? Deductions are normally related to expenses.
OOG is a prophet! He hath fortold the drop in stock prices only two weeks before Dow drops 5% and NASDAQ 10% in one day.
Thanks for the insight. My ultra-capitalist stomach is churning at the thought of the DOJ mandating a break up. I guess I overlooked the news reports stating that M$ was paying less than acceptable wage rates to its workers or that, through bad investment practices, M$ has squandered away the millions and billions (trillions?) with which its investors have entrusted it. If so, then I apologize, and FLAME ON! I know somebody wants to anyway.
But making a shitload has never been against the law in itself. Having the foresight to license and market your product in such a way as to make it hard for your competitors, though, is not shitty, it's shrewd. I guess we don't like to recognize that anymore.
I agree, let the market decide. That's what we all are anyway. If you don't like a product, code your own or buy another. And if enough people feel the same way, then the better product will emerge.
--booyeah
You are so clueless. You can't possibly have a job or a life where you are responsible for others. First of all Linux does not have the apps/tools that people need on a day to day basis (in the real world) Second, the OS is not efficient to be used on a daily basis yet. And last, Source Forge has enough problems of their own let alone trying to take on a job of that proportion. The number of programmers at MS is far greater than at Sorce Forge and they know how their apps are coded. The court ruling yesterday is going to screw all of us not just MS!
Just when the internet was getting cool, and computing was going somewhere the gov't has to come in and screw everything up!!! Netscape and the rest of 'em, what a bunch of whiners... and they still haven't come up with anything decent in ages.
Any solution based on rules on what MS can or cannot do seems boneheaded. They already BROKE the rules, what good is making more specific rules going to do?
It could go on forever. MS breaks rules. MS gets taken to court. MS loses. Court imposes more rules. MS breaks rules....
It's like saying the penalty for murder should be to sternly tell the murderer not to do it again, and add that they're not allowed to murder people by stabbing them in the chest with a big knife.
http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/freedom .htm Lets give Micro$oft a comment!
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougneedham
I figure it to be about 13 billion us dollars. If 90% of his net worth is divested in Micro$haft stock, and he lost 15% of it, thats like, more than the US defense budget or something... (sucks to be him today...)
Personally, I would have liked to see Microsoft be crushed under the pressure of free open source software. It would have been a real victory, instead of these legal shenanaguns. The details of this case are so old that it's absolutely irrelevant to what's going on today. They are suing over MS giving IE away for free with Windows. I think that was the best thing they ever did. tingalingusob
Yahoo has a quite-unslashable mirror at http://biz.yahoo.com/msft2/
Am I the only one here who thinks that maybe breaking up MicroSoft isn't such a major victory as it might once have been?
Now that we have AOL/Time-Warner to worry about, I would think that MS would be at least a back burner issue....
After all, we've survived and even prospered this long with MS intact....
MS will eventually fail on its own, it doesn't need the government to break it up.
AOL/Time-Warner, though....they have the ability, the resources, and (dare I say it here?) the intelligence to survive long-term
and even grow larger and more powerful. That's the company we should be worried about, not MS.
Just my 2 cents.
For non-spammers, my email is brian6667 on yahoo mail. My opinions are my own.
Didn't think so.
Liberty in our Lifetime
A lot of /.ers have a deep, abiding hatred of Microsoft. Fine. So don't buy their products. Run your Linux systems with your Corel Office, etc., etc.. You keep saying that it's every bit as good as Microsoft's stuff -- fine, then don't give Mr. Bill any of your business. The market really does work, if only you give it a chance.
Fast-forward a few years, to that shining day that so many of you seem to be forecasting, when Microsoft joins IBM as a burning hulk alongside the road of progress, and Linux is the dominant force... what's to stop the Injustice Department from going after Red Hat? As someone once observed, "any gov't big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
Has Microsoft competed hard? You betcha. Have they harmed any consumers? Show me one. The fact of the matter is that they have successfully unified a previously fractured OS market, so that developers like myself can build a solution and be reasonably sure that there's a large body of customers who will have the environment that I'm writing for.
I'll point out that Linux did not spring into existence until there was a large installed base of Intel boxes out there -- which would not have been likely without the Microsoft success in building a consistent platform for Intel to sell into.
I think that everyone here would agree that this is a Good Thing.
Does Microsoft sometimes ship stuff that should have baked a little longer? Sure thing -- but when was the last time that you installed any software from any source that was utterly bug-free? That's what I thought...
To reiterate -- if you hate Microsoft, more power to you. But don't take away my option to do business with them, as they exist today.
Liberty in our Lifetime
I'd hardly call $90 stalling. I'll bet there are one or two companies that would love to "stall" at that price.
They won't get appealled successfully CNN's legal analysts suggest rather differently, noting that the appeals courts have been much more sympathetic.
If Windows were open sourced tomorrow... I'd probably go out and get a copy. I hate the software, but if there were a way to permantly dissable annoying paperclips, stupid UI elements and sloppy code that crashes even more often than my Mac, it wouldn't be a bad thing. But how long would it take to clean up all that code?
Not that I'd give it the chance to go anywhere my servers, but that's another story.
if anyone is unclear on why fighting rather than settling was predictable on MS's part, check out the article prior to the release of the verdict: Why MS Would Rather Fight by Declan McCullagh
"This item contains functional sharp point."
The whole point of having Anti-trust laws is to stop companies with monopolistic positions competing unfairly. What MS don't/didn't seem to understand is that, with power, comes responsibility. Actions that might be legally acceptable if you have 9% of a market are unacceptable if you have 90%. As for 'freedom to innovate' - what innovations have come out of MS?
Punishing past behaviour is a matter of fines or civil remedies. The point of a break-up would be to stop future anti-competitive behaviour (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish). I agree that MS's shareholders including BG would benefit greatly if the company were broken up (thier anti-competitive practices are ultimately self-defeating). But so would the consumer and the industry as a whole.
Ok, Microsoft was found guilty, so what? Will suddenly appear a new OS to overcome Windows? Will M$ stop selling Windows? I don't think so.
If M$ doesn't open Windows source it's going to be the same old shit! All this noise means nothing, and Windows will keep working 90% of world computers (successfully or not).
bah bah bah bah.
M$ will start losing when open source really stars wining, i think it's impossible to a paid OS overcome Windows without be free and user friendly.
Let's not think about ourselves, let's think about avarage user.
mazza.br
First off, the stocks aren't that far "dropped". They're still fairly high, considering the past year.
It's just that people who bought stocks last week are probably miffed to no end, about a severe loss they took with today's leveling.
On another note, if the company is broken up or somehow reassembled, how will Bill Gates be positioned, and how will his portfolio be with the company? To effectively seperate areas of the company, do they not have to enforce that Mr. Gates only own stock in one of these companies?
And while we're on the subject, I don't see many people holding onto stocks if they're just in it for the money and not the ownership of a part of the company. With this guilty plead, many companies who were unfairly kept from the operating system and browser field on Intel-based PCs have a precendence to sue for losses and damages. This could be billions of dollars. With an outstanding volume of 130 million, that could be at least $10 per share drop for paid judgments, not including costs for lawyers.
Would you stay around with the threat of losing even more money for lawsuits if you were just buying MSFT to better your portfolio and dividends?
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Paraphrased from the New York Times article-- this case could be affected by the presidential election. The new president does get to make appointments in the DOJ- appointments that may or may not be in favor of prosecuting Microsoft. My own thoughts- While Gore would be expected to follow the Clinton/Gore administration policy, I'm not so certain of GWB. The Times seems to think that he takes a narrower view, but they are a liberal paper. In any event Gates and company could certainly throw enough soft money around if they wanted to. 100 million or 1 billion would be pocket change for them. My guess is that in the long term money will win out over the facts and Microsoft will get off with a slap on the wrist-- if that.
shouldnt we suggest that DOJ halts shipments of win2k and so forth because Microsoft is bundling all sorts of other technologies into the OS ? things like COM+/MTS which is anti-competive tactics in the application server industry. things like IIS which is anti-compete in the web server field, etc?
While I may not be a big fan of MS, I have to realize that it is because of them that I have a job in the IT industry on this very day. I work in a large healthcare office that currently uses over 400 PCs and 6 servers. The 400 PCs run either Win95 or Win98 (with one or two 3.1xs in there) and the servers run a mixture of NT4, NT3.51, Netware, Linux Debian, or UNIX. I was hired because of my familiarity with Microsoft products (OSs, apps, etc.) as well as my ability to use the other systems mentioned above.
.
.
Enough about me, on to my thoughts on this matter . .
Todays litigious society is always ready to jump on someone for some slight, whether real or imagined. You just look at someone wrong on the wrong day, and you could face a lawsuit amounting to millions of dollars. When this happens, there are always several other people who are ready to jump in on it, to get their piece of the proverbial pie.
Face it, MS put out a damn good operating system and made it so ANYONE can use it. This is no way was hurting the consumers. This was actually helping consumers. Windows 95 made PCs enter the realm of the regular user. As a result, prices on PCs have fallen considerably in the past years. I bought my first Pentium machine for $1500, and it was not even top of the line at the time. Now I can get a top of the line PC for under $1000. More and more people have been buying computers because they are easy to use. This is way it should be.
Windows crashes all the time . .
Yeah, it does crash regularly. There are times on my home PC that I am ready to toss it out the window. But, in the 400 PCs that line my offices, it is rare when I get crashes. All problems are reported to me and I am aware of what goes on. Overall, the 400 PCs here crash far less often than my home PC.
On the same note, I have claimed 2gigs of my hard drive on my laptop for RedHat 6.1. I like Linux, it has a lot of good features and a lot of potential, but I am still regularly upset with it, because I cannot get sound to load, or I cannot figure out how to get it on the network. My Windows PC I have up and running on the network, sharing files and queueing print jobs, in roughly 45 minutes. I have been TRYING to get Linux to do everything I want it to do for a month or so.
Microsoft illegally tied the IE browser to their operating system, thereby shutting Netscape out of the market.
Question, what browser are you using right now? If you are in Windows, you might be using IE or Netscape. If you are in Linux, you are using Netscape. Those of you using Netscape are probably happy with the browser, but many people do not feel the same, and that is for a reason.
Netscape is an inferior product. Plain and simple. Microsoft (who had in the past included the deplorable older versions of IE) saw that they could make something better and did so. They in no way told people that they HAD to use IE. There was still the option to go download the Netscape browser. If Netscape really had a good browser, people would have still been buying it and using it.
The Sherman Antitrust laws are too old to apply to today's society. They way it stands, if you enter the market and have a tough time with it because a larger competitor has most of the market share, you can say they are making the marketplace unfair to you, and bring an Antitrust suit against them.
If you want to compete in this marketplace, make a product that is worth a damn. Netscape and the other people on the antitrust bandwagon have yet to put out anything that I qualify as worthwhile. Maybe if they put out a decent product, then maybe, just maybe, they might stand a chance to gain some market share.
When you consider everything MS has done to improve computing, no one would be happy to hear this verdict.
Quite the contrary. When you consider everything Microsoft has done *to* the computing industry, lots of people are going to be ecstatic over this ruling.
Yeah, it's awful how MS helped build it into a trillion dollar society-changing phenomenon not seen since the advent of the printed word.
Microsoft brought the computer to the masses, enhancing productivity and the usability of PCs.
It's not under question on whether Microsoft made Computerland "fun and easy", but it's a matter of HOW they got there. They strangled competition, and stifled any chances of anything else rising up into the market.
Oh really? So how do you strangle competition before you hold a supposed monopoly? Hmmm, could it be by making a better product that people choose to buy? That sounds like regular competition to me, not strangling. And I didn't realize that Linux couldn't rise into the market. I thought most MS bashers held that it was.
They actualy made it so EASY to use that even my 6 year old sister figured out how to use Win95 in a few hours.
Sit her in front of a Mac, and see if the same thing doesn't happen. Then take her and sit her in front of X. Graphical interfaces aren't that tough to figure out. (Oh, and don't be so quick to thank Microsoft on that. Thank Xerox and Apple.)
You have a point about the graphical interface being easy to use and not a MS invention. But I bet that same 6 year old could set up the computer, too. According to some people on here, that isn't what computing is supposed to be. It's supposed to be hard. Well, Linux is definitely helping in that regard.
Do you even consider how many corporations rely on MS products for all of their operations?
And you don't think that's sad? Even in the slightest?
No. Why would anyone think that's sad? Is it sad that the Edsel went out of business and a lot of people drive Chevy's? People use what works and what's easy. That's how MS got market share from Unix in the first place.
Their success would be impossible if the only available tools they had was a "superior OS" which they had to learn a ~200 page manual before being able to use effectively.
So? You think that's such a horrible atrocity to actually have to LEARN something? Many companies send their employees to schools and pay about $3000 for classes and materials for certifications that are essentially meaningless. If you were a company, wouldn't you rather spend $80 on that ~200 page manual?
Learning is good. MS makes it easy. Being a business owner, I say that if people can retain information from a $3000 class better than a $80 book, I need to send them to the class. What's easier to remember: lame-ass PowerPoint presentations or pounds of dry text with words like 'grep' and 'fstab'? Maybe you overestimate people.
About this browser thing.. imagine you were totally clueless about computers, and just booted to your OS. The first thing many in this age would want to do is hop on the Web..
Five years ago, this was not the case. Seven years ago, 87% of the population didn't know what the Internet WAS. This was the time period when I got my hands on the IBM-PC. These days, it's a shame that the Internet has become the "be all and do all" of computing.
Jesus, you sound like an old man. "My car gets 40 rods to the hogs-head, and that's the way I likes it!" Who gives a shit what it was like 5 or 7 years ago? Whether you like it or not, the Internet is the be-all end-all for most people in computing right now. That's how the majority of people getting into it are finding out about Linux in the first place. You should be happy.
but oh no! theres no browser!
Microsoft wasn't forced to weave Internet Explorer so tightly into Windows. That move was to squeeze Netscape out of the market.
No, MS wasn't forced to do anything, and won't be, at least not until the government tells them how to run their business. MS chose to integrate their browser. As they should be able to. It's THEIR PRODUCT. Netscape was on it's way out, anyway. Funny, I thought they were the ones with the browser "monopoly" at one time.
Integrating IE to Windows is FAR from "abuse of their monopoly powers,"
HOW do you come to THAT conclusion? Microsoft Windows runs on +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS. Netscape made a browser for the Internet. Microsoft said "WOAH. They're charging $40 for this thing. Let's make our own browser, and package it with Windows." BOOM. Now, +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS now come with Internet Explorer. Then, Microsoft said "We don't want Netscape cutting in on our action. Let's make Internet Explorer FREE, and integrate it real tight with Windows so users are FORCED to use it." BOOM. Now, +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS now come with Internet Explorer, have the option to download it for free, and are stuck with using it. And you think this is "just a way to help people out:"? This is doing more harm than help, my friend.
You live in a fantasy land. The number I saw was more in the range of 80%, but that's not important. I'd love to know how MS forces people to use their browser. I have IE and NS on this 98 box right now. I use both so I can design web pages effectively. But I prefer IE because it's a better product. I wish they made a version for my Linux box. How can you make an argument against downloading IE for free? Isn't that what's so great about Linux? You don't like free?
TO HELP THE CONSUMER.
Microsoft has proven long ago that they're in this business for self-interest. If they really wanted to help the consumer, they would make it a point to create better avenues for choice. (The sad fact is, almost NO company is truly out to benefit the consumer. Microsoft is no exception.
THANK GOD. Any business that's wants to make money, is in it for self-interest. Altruism doesn't pay the bills. The only way MS should ever help the consumer, is to make a better product than it's competitors. Then the customer can choose for himself what to buy, depending on how MS's competitors answer that challenge. What is sad is that some of them choose to compete, and some of them choose to complain.
e
I don't agree with everything you said, but I can appreciate someone who makes valid points. I mistook you for the typical denizen of these boards, i.e.; a kid who says, 'Linux rules, MS drools'. Obviously you're not. I also crafted an incredibly pithy response for the past hour in response to your last message. The irony is, my IE crashed when I went to post it. Haha. Anyway, the gist of it is, I don't want to fight with you about this anymore. I can respect your position as I hope you can respect mine.
Now let's go get that beer.
e
Morally bankrupt people like yourself may not care about ethics when the allmighty buck is involved, but rest assured there is a SIGNIFICANT population in this country WHO DO get conerned when hugely rich companies like Microsoft break the law to their own ends.
If you are going to start making exceptions to the law simply because your pocketbook will be adversely affected, WHERE WILL IT END?
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Jesus, does the world really revolve around money this much, at the expense of the letter of the law?
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Heh heh.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
here's my mirror
MS would merely need to convince the appellate court that another remedy would be better.
I understand that the court will not be inclined to go with Microsoft's remedy ideas unless the DOJ really goes overboard, but I'm curious about how things might play out. Could the DOJ hold up the last consent decree and examples of Microsoft's behavior to show that Microsoft cannot be trusted to offer their own remedies? It seems like letting them have a say in it is just begging to get burned again.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Fines / breakups wont succeed, and a regulated monopoly is still a monopoly.
Right, MS will still be a monopoly when the whole thing is over. That's not illegal and that wasn't the problem in the first place. The problem was that they were using that monopoly power in order to prevent other companies from competing with their products. That is what the remedy in this case needs to address.
At the moment 'real' solutions take second fiddle to browser and java crap. Focus on the big issue.
While the case focused on the browser and java issues as examples, if you read the FoF and FoL, it looks as though the judge understands that the issue is larger than either of those things. That those are just the most obvious (and provable) examples of Microsofts anti-competitive actions. I think he understands the need to impose a remedy that will prevent them from doing anything similar in he future.
Something that makes end-consumers say 'I dont want windows' has to happen. Support for 3 years for 98 seems shabby, as I use 95 still.
Consumers don't have to abandon WinXX right now. If Microsoft's bullying can be controlled, then something else will have a chance at changing the status quo. Consumers will see this new thing and buy it. Not because they just don't want WinXX, but because they like this new thing even more. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers need to see that there is something out there that is better, and they need to feel that the company offering this new thing will be around to support the product. That's been a key problem with Microsoft around to threaten the viability of any competing company. Nobody will buy an OS from anyone but Microsoft because they know that Microsoft can financially and/or litigiously squash any smaller company and leave them with an unsupported OS. Once we do something to make sure Microsoft can't prevent such a product from being brought to market by another company, and that they can't undermine that company's ability to compete by throwing a lot of money around like they did with Netscape and DRDOS, we'll have the kind of open and competitive market that has been absent in the desktop OS arena for so long now.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
A fine isn't a likely remedy. Jackson is supposed to impose remedies that will prevent future abuses by Microsoft, not to punish them. That will be taken care of by the coming flood of civil suits. Should be fun to watch. They've had it coming for a long time now.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
>Nonsense. The CofL are, among other things, dependent on Larry
>Lessig's construction of the previous appelate court ruling in US. vs
>Microsoft.
Not hardly. Lessig's brief is adressed in a footnote as *another*
wayt that the conclusion might be reached, which the court *declined*
to take.
>If that construction is flawed, then Judge Jackson's
>finding of a section 1 violation is trashed.
Not at all. And even if it were, the section 2 findings would stand.
>Given that opinion
>contained the juicy quotation concerning "allowing judges and
>incompent attorneys to design software", I would suggest that
>Jackson's CofL are exceedingly brittle.
??? He's not arguing for that at all. He also considers
the prior appellate decsion at length. He doesn't rely on attorneys
and judges, but what other firms did in fact produce and market..
hawk, esq.
The court looked at length at what the appellate court said. It noted
both that taken literally, the decision would conflict with Suprem
Court precedents, and that the appellate court noted that it did
not have a factual record available, which could change its opinions.
At that point in the proceedings (preliminary injunction), Microsoft
was entitled to have potential evidence viewed in the best possible
light. After the findings of fact, this just doesn't hold.
hawk, esq.
Options are, indeed, a form of compensation.
But the issuance of this form of compensation does not represent an expense to the company. Not, not, not.
Option compensation represents a dilution of the value of shareholder equity.
When Buffet suggests otherwise, he is playing a propaganda game.
It doesn't get any simpler than dilution of the value of shareholder equity; calling that an expense is simply not correct. The fact that some people are either not sufficiently literate in finance, or perhaps incapable of comprehension, does not make it legitimate to call it an expense.
If the option plan's provisions are disclosed in the enterprise's financial statements, as appears to be required by FASB/AICPA/SEC/CICA rules, then those that want to play pretend games and call option plans "expenses" can adjust for them as they like.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
While local phone monopolies suck, I find it hard to accept your assertion that they suck worse than a complete country wide monopoly on phone service and equipment. Do you think that the internet as we know it would have been allowed by AT&T. They didn't even allow people to own their own phones.
In any case, the opening up of local long distance and CLECs is a case of regulation for the purpose of promoting competition (a good thing). Without strict government regulations, there would never be competition in the local phone space because the telcos could leverage their natural monopoly on phone lines to get a monopoly in everything else.
Less regulation is not necessarily better if it means less competition. Of course the same is true of more regulation. We need to remember that it is competition, not deregulation that is key to getting the benefits of a free market. Anything which takes away competition without offsetting benefits, whether it is an monopolistic corporation or stupid regulations, should be stopped.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
MSFT is a NASDAQ listed stock. The Dow is a weighted average of a select group of NYSE and NASDAQ stocks.
This isn't entirely true. They allowed manufacturers to sell computers without Windows pre-installed. They just wouldn't license Windows to you, or made the license fee per PC exorbitantly high enough so it didn't matter.
Yes, this is a Bad Thing too, but don't spread misinformation.
One of the BIG things the DOJ wanted Microsoft to do, as part of the settlement, was to admit guilt. They wouldn't be prosecuted by the DOJ, but they'd still have to admit they'd broken the law.
That's why Microsoft didn't dare settle. And now they're in even more danger because of the lawsuits. I feel sorry for the innocent workers there; they were just doing their jobs, some of which will undoubtedly be lost in the aftermath of this decision. But the people who've put Microsoft's policies in place deserve one hell of a smackdown. They've been holding back the industry for well over a decade now. They've lied, cheated, stolen, betrayed... suffice to say they've done it all, just for the sake of The Almighty Buck. Success is one thing, and a good one, if obtained by honest, honorable means. But Microsoft didn't -probably couldn't- play by those rules.
You called the industry's tune, Microsoft, for years. Now the piper wants to collect. Will your money save you now? We'll all see...
Splitting along product lines would merely create several smaller monopolies in smaller niches. It would be the equivalent of splitting Ma Bell into Baby Bells, which as we know did NOT result in more competition. Ma Bell should have been split into several national competitors, each with access to the whole network and all consumers. Regarding Microsoft, leaving Windows in the hands of a single company would hardly leave us any better than before. A little better, but I'm not convinced it's much.
Perhaps a split-up remedy could state that different Windows teams could share code, but any shared code must be made openly available to anyone. ;)
What talent?
Take a look at Windoze (any version). Take a look at Office and that fscking paperclip. Take a good long steamy gawk at Outlook. Do you really want people capable of such abominations working for your company?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Alright, to wrap up. Microsoft wants the freedom to innovate and we're seriously hurting their and everyone's freedom to innovate by supporting the judge's ruling. So stop the biased "Hoo-rahs" and take a look at the bigger picture here. People will be afraid to try new and exciting things because it may crush or obsolete the current standards or de-facto favorites, but then again people used to think taking a sharpened stick and rubbing it in between your teeth was a good way to clean them before the toothbrush was invented.
Although I agree in part with you on the browser issue, I think you missed the key point (and as I posted earlier the one that changed my mind): that MS[1] was found guilty of anti-competitive practices not for trying to monopolize the browser market per se or by harming Java, but that both were evidence of a larger practice of using existing monopoly to prevent inovation.
A quick summary of the idea behind the judge's ruling based on my reading:
First part: MS enjoys a monopoly in OS which allows it to control the API used for application development. Because there is a symbiotic relationship between OS and apps, this application issue creates a significant barrier of entry for new OSs into the marketplace.
Now this is just a distillation of the killer or essential app idea that has been running around the PC world since at least the spreadsheet. Although some may argue about the reality of MS's monopoly, this section isn't out to lunch.
Next, the ruling is that both N$[2] Navigator and Java represented a significant inovation: middleware that allows platform independence. Again, we can argue about this (and as I'll discuss later, this may indicate one of MS's chief points of counter-attack), but this idea isn't out of the mainstream of thinking.
Finally, MS engaged in business practices designed specifically to prevent these inovations from gaining market share for middleware not to maximize MS profit in the middleware market but to prevent the development of the mareket itself. This is a key point of the ruling. If you read closely, had MS been able to show that their drive to replace N$ with IE in order to PROFIT FROM SALES OF IE the actions would have been much less suspect. The fact (in the judge's opinion) that MS never intended for IE to generate revenue, but to simply control the market implied it was designed to prevent development of web based software that made the Windows API irrelevent. Similar activity occurred with Java according to the ruling. Had J++ not been so broken relative to the Java standard, MS could have claimed it was merely trying to compete with Visual Cafe and others.
This is how the ruling actually changed my opinion on guilt (although I'm still out on penalties...I guess I'd be leaning more to forced separation of the Computer/OS market as the best, but I'm still thinking). By focusing on MS efforts to deny me, as a developer, multiple options for applications development by monopoly power, they seem to have violated existing anti-trust law.
Although most of the ruling focuses on N$, I get the impression that MS's actions to create incompatable JVMs was the key to their loss. The judge seemed to see compatable JVMs as important to web based middleware being a valid application development platform (and this was an idea in common currency when the events occurred) as well as a separate market. Without the Java parallels MS might have been able to argue they were merely overzealous in competiting and not anti-competitive.
It is here when MS both lost the main case and have grist for appeal. If the case had been IE vs. NS the middleware arguement could be countered by MS by stating that IE was simply insurance that if OS independent middleware took off MS was in the game. MS could argue, and if they had played nice with Sun on Java this would be a very strong case, that by providing IE MS was endorcing and furthering the development of this 'new' area. MS could argue that instead of quashing this inovation they were trying to do it better. They can still argue this on appeal because IE is fairly compatable with N$ anymore. If the MS JVM and J++ had been 100% pure java (or whatever their calling it now) this arguement will be damned near unassailible. With the parallel behavior on Java and the percieved importance of the JVM to browsers at that time, MS not only lost a key arguement, but boosted the case against itself. Still, this may be their strongest line of action.
You are quite correct to worry about competitors using similar suits in the future. Much has been made about the fact that some of the companies driving this were very active in DC, while MS really only got into lobbying after the cases started. I had long thought this was primarilly political, either a reward to contributors or punishment for MS not contributing (or both). The focus of the ruling on the larger middleware and platform independence issue, as opposed to the narrow browser market, have lead me to conclude that this case was brought on merits (even if I still don't find them as strong as many do). The direction penalties take will be the final piece of that picture.
[1] For the AC who flamed my earlier comment as meaningless because I used M$: Look, I've gotten smarter.
[2] For the same AC: Look, equal opprotunity abuse.
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
What changed my mind? That the ruling spent the most effort (and yes, I just read it) on establishing that the attack against Netscape was not an attack for a monopoly in the browser market, but to prevent middleware from making the monopoly that M$ has on the Windows API. Given my view that M$ greatest abuse of a legitimate monopoly[1] was the use of the Windows API to make Office a monopoly and the symbiotic relationship between the two since.
Thus, the judgement does deal with what I consider M$ real abuse: the Windows API and the use of it's current status to prevent competitors from being created. I think the key to making this case wasn't Netscape, but the parallels (and relationships) shown between the Netscape and Java strategies that M$ pursued.
As for judgement, I'm not sure. I don't think breaking M$ up addresses the key issue here, at least not as discussed. Seperating apps from OS would only allow the OS company to pull a repeat of the earlier API stunt, because I doubt cross-platform versions of Office would take hold. I'll have to think about all of that.
[1] Nasty tactics aside, the line from the original IBM contract to Win 3.1 dominance seems to be driven more by a mix of luck, good choices, and helpful opponents. The two exception is the DR-DOS/Windows 3.1 message and per cpu licenses. I honestly question how effective the first was (to be aware of it you pretty much had to have an ear to the developer world where most people have enough of a clue to know it for what it was). The latter is more probamatic, but still seems to me to be overshadowed by M$ biggest victory: IBM support ealry.
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
You say The whole tech industry has flourished (in the US) partly because no one government paid attention to us at all and pretty much let all problems be solved by technical means and by market forces.
But this is completely false! The Internet was designed on government contract. The net exists in the form it does today because of a previous breakup of a big company by antitrust action: the AT&T breakup in 1984. Even pre-84 the only thing stopping the phone company from killing any attempt at networking dead in its tracks were consent decrees. Unix (and therefore Linux) only exists as well because of legal constraints on the old phone company; otherwise it would have been an unreleased internal research product.
Up through the early 1980s half of the revenues for the electronics industry in the US came from the Dept. of Defense; in other countries it was government money as well. The Japanese (Sony) were the first to make a commercial success from electronics (here "commercial" means a taxpayer wasn't paying). Many successful US tech firms are spinoffs of university research projects that got their funding from the taxpayers.
Both CERN and NCSA were government-funded entities, meaning that the taxpayers of Europe and the US put up the funds for the creation of the Web, Mosaic, etc.
The Internet has prospered because up until recently, market forces were not running the show: the IETF was deciding things based on consensus and engineering excellence, not by a dollar-based bidding war of corporate alliances.
Now, there are nice things about the market, especially when it works the way the textbooks say: many buyers, many sellers, perfect information (all the buyers know all the prices and quality available from each seller, etc). But it isn't and never was the whole story.
http://www.mlinux.org/ms-conclusions.pdf
Get it while its hot.
Tony
My God! It's full of Voids!
Quite the contrary. When you consider everything Microsoft has done *to* the computing industry, lots of people are going to be ecstatic over this ruling.
Microsoft brought the computer to the masses, enhancing productivity and the usability of PCs.
It's not under question on whether Microsoft made Computerland "fun and easy", but it's a matter of HOW they got there. They strangled competition, and stifled any chances of anything else rising up into the market.
They actualy made it so EASY to use that even my 6 year old sister figured out how to use Win95 in a few hours.
Sit her in front of a Mac, and see if the same thing doesn't happen. Then take her and sit her in front of X. Graphical interfaces aren't that tough to figure out. (Oh, and don't be so quick to thank Microsoft on that. Thank Xerox and Apple.)
Do you even consider how many corporations rely on MS products for all of their operations?
And you don't think that's sad? Even in the slightest?
Their success would be impossible if the only available tools they had was a "superior OS" which they had to learn a ~200 page manual before being able to use effectively.
So? You think that's such a horrible atrocity to actually have to LEARN something? Many companies send their employees to schools and pay about $3000 for classes and materials for certifications that are essentially meaningless. If you were a company, wouldn't you rather spend $80 on that ~200 page manual?
About this browser thing.. imagine you were totally clueless about computers, and just booted to your OS. The first thing many in this age would want to do is hop on the Web..
Five years ago, this was not the case. Seven years ago, 87% of the population didn't know what the Internet WAS. This was the time period when I got my hands on the IBM-PC. These days, it's a shame that the Internet has become the "be all and do all" of computing.
but oh no! theres no browser!
Microsoft wasn't forced to weave Internet Explorer so tightly into Windows. That move was to squeeze Netscape out of the market.
Integrating IE to Windows is FAR from "abuse of their monopoly powers,"
HOW do you come to THAT conclusion? Microsoft Windows runs on +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS. Netscape made a browser for the Internet. Microsoft said "WOAH. They're charging $40 for this thing. Let's make our own browser, and package it with Windows." BOOM. Now, +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS now come with Internet Explorer. Then, Microsoft said "We don't want Netscape cutting in on our action. Let's make Internet Explorer FREE, and integrate it real tight with Windows so users are FORCED to use it." BOOM. Now, +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS now come with Internet Explorer, have the option to download it for free, and are stuck with using it. And you think this is "just a way to help people out:"? This is doing more harm than help, my friend.
TO HELP THE CONSUMER.
Microsoft has proven long ago that they're in this business for self-interest. If they really wanted to help the consumer, they would make it a point to create better avenues for choice. (The sad fact is, almost NO company is truly out to benefit the consumer. Microsoft is no exception.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
If people follow your advice to the lemmings, they'll pull their money out of all tech stocks, resulting in a severe NASDAQ crash...such advice just fuels the paranoia. If they wait several months, their (non-MS) tech stocks should rebound.
Disclaimer: I have no training in stocks or securities training, nor does this message proport to be giving investment advice.
--
Face it, Msft is just an overblown code works that takes itself much to seriously. They have a long history of taking other people creations out of the obscure computing world and making X86 knock offs and marketing the heck out of it to people who have never seen a real, rock solid computer work. Win2k? - ohhhh, you can mount a drive on a directory! You have distributed file systems!! Wow! Look at THIS innovation - a network directory service!!!! Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Still, even if it is better, it didn't get to be better fairly. Microsoft poured billions of dollars of their stockholder's money into IE, then gave it away for free; while at the same time well-nigh forcing people to install it at the expense of Netscape.
That is what the Judge is saying is illegal, and he is right.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Ma Bell was a government-granted monopoly. Microsoft has attained its position without any significant help from the government. And if Microsoft is broken up, how is that going to improve things? Whichever piece gets Windows will likely continue to charge the same prices, and even if multiple versions of Windoze results, the prices aren't going to come down that much-- most software packages cost at least $50.
Maybe some think the law shouldn't exist, but that's a different issue
I do. I think the Sherman Act is a terrible law and should be repealed. Perhaps Judge Jackson has the obligation to enforce it, but that doesn't mean I have to improve.
I also don't think Microsoft has a monopoly. Sure, Microsoft has a monopoly on commercially viable, desktop OS's for x86, just as apple has a monopoly on desktop PPC OS's, and Sun has a monopoly on UltraSparc server OS's. But the issue is whether consumers have alternatives if they don't like Microsoft's product. The clear answer is yes. desktop users can get Macs or install BeOS. Server users can run Linux, Solaris, or *BSD. Yes, they have a large market share, but as long as there are alternatives, it's not a monopoly.
And even on the terms of antitrust law, it's not clear that they are guilty of abusing their monopoly. They have not acted like a monopoly. They have kept their prices pretty much constant-- Win98 is about the same as Apple charges for OS9, and NT is in the same ballpark as commercial Unices. Their pace of development has not slowed. And although I hate to admit it, some of their products aren't that bad. The Mac version of IE (the only MS product I use regularly) is better than any other browser on the platform IMHO.
A monopolist would raise their prices to $500, sit on their asses, and rake in profits. The fact that MS hasn't done this tells me that they don't believe this would be profitable. So how exactly are they abusing their monopoly?
Of course Windows isn't perfect. No product is. But the point is that none of the alternatives are any better. Mac OS is going to crash just as much, and the other fringe OS's simply don't have the user friendly interface, productivity apps, nice installer, etc, that are necessary for a useful desktop OS.
So no, not all users are happy with everything about MS products. But on balance they prefer them to any of the alternatives. And there are very few users who feel they are being treated unfairly by Microsoft.
Programming, like all engineering, is about tradeoffs. Some OS's have been built with stability first, while others have concentrated on features, speed, backwards compatibility, etc. In some cases, Microsoft opted for less stability and more of the other things. That's an engineering decision. The fact that it crashes more does not automatically make it inferior.
I suspect MS could make a completely stable version of Windows if they just took out a lot of the features and concentrated on debugging the remaining ones. Do you think that consumers would prefer this version? Some might, but I suspect most wouldn't. A well configured Windows box running standard apps doesn't crash all that often.
Besides, Linux might never crash, but X certainly does. And if you're working on a GUI-based document, the machine might as well have crashed for all the good it does you. Perhaps Linux zealots should concentrate on bringing Linux up to par with Windows as a desktop OS, and then we'll see if consumers start switching.
I am pretty sure that I am being baited into this, but here goes anyway.
What makes you say that? Is defending Microsoft's freedom to innovate so out there that it's automatically flamebait?
The big one here is that the organization has recently converted mail to Exchange, and the complaints are loud and constant.
Of course there are examples of people who have complaints about specific MS products, as is true with any product. But my point is that the vast majority of MS users are not up in arms about being "forced" to use their products.
Your example actually proves my point. They *converted* to Exchange, presumably from a non-Microsoft alternative. Why did they do this? And what's to stop them from switching back if they don't like it?
As for NT being a joke, I disagree. No, it's not a particularly good server machine for a lot of purposes, but it makes a fine workstation, and if properly configured it can be quite stable. And its GUI and setup are vastly superior to the Unix alternatives for a novice user. I don't particularly like NT, but that doesn't mean that others don't find it useful.
I think NT is another example of Microsoft's non-monopoly. They have been trying to use the dominance of Win32 to take over the server market for years now. And yet apache has cleaned their clocks. People *certainly* have choices in the server arena.
Microsoft leveraged it's Windows monopoly by forcing vendors to install ONLY IE at the cost of a higher price tag on Windows.
As I recall, Microsoft in most case simply required that IE be featured on the desktop. OEM's were always free to make Netscape an option. And even if they didn't, so what? The "obvious option" is called a modem. And it's laughable to say that IE was "crammed down users' throats." This is similar to saying cereal companies cram the little toy at the bottom of the package down kids' throats. Microsoft gave away IE *for free.* How can that do anything but help consumers?
Netscape is still being actively developed, so if the goal was to drive them out of business it obviously didn't happen. What's the problem?
There are two other things to keep in mind. First, Netscape certainly doesn't look like it was hurt all that much by Microsoft's tactics. Its stockholders are now proud owners of AOL and Sun stock, and certainly better off than they were when they started. And the supposed purpose of antitrust law is to protect consumers, not competitors.
The government needs to reign in MS to allow the market to give a better alternative, be it Linux, BeOS, whatever, a chance in the first place.
Frankly, however good it is as a server platform, Linux isn't ready for use by average users. And since it is not a commercial product, Microsoft tactics aren't going to stop it in any event.
As for Be, they seem to still be there, and the market seems to still be funding them. Would this be happening if they didn't have a chance? A change in the de facto operating system would be a big deal, so it's not surprising that it's difficult to convince users to do this. But having Be there at the very least guaruntees that Microsoft will continue to keep Windows development moving forward, because if they stumble, Be might very well move in and take a big chunk of their marketshare.
The final sentence was not related to the others. I should have put it in a separate paragraph.
There's that phrase again: "Freedom to Innovate." I've gotten positively sick of Microsoft parroting that phrase.
/. since summer '98, so yes I'm familiar with Linux's growth. And when it's ready for use by average consumers, then consumers will start using it. I fail to see how antitrust law is going to make a difference one way or another there.
I use it because that's the issue. Microsoft is being sued for (among other things) adding a web browser to Windows. If MS is not allowed to add features if it might hurt a competing product, then that impacts their choices as to where they can take their software.
So? I admit it--I was practically in love with Microsoft, too. At least, until I was exposed to alternatives. Now that I have a broader experience with operating systems, I can safely say I am so much happier on Linux that there will never be a reason to go back.
Um... yeah. This is what we call an ad hom: "you must support Microsoft because you don't know any better." For the record, I don't use Windows, and don't particularly like it. I have a Mac at home, and use Solaris and Linux boxen at work. In fact I avoid Microsoft products for the most part. (although IE for the Mac is pretty good)
If you had watched it's grow in just the past six months, and I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you haven't, it's growth is simply mind-boggling.
If you look at my slashdot userid, you'll see I've been reding
Do you consider it fair competition in a footrace for me to trip my opponent? Is that going to result in a better outcome for human achievement?
No, but it's also a really bad idea for the government to be telling companies how to design software. Laws based on motives (rather than overt actions) are a really bad idea.
Even granting that companies shouldn't be changing features to deliberately break competitors products (and it's debatable in any given case whether that's what MS did) I still don't think the government should make that illegal. Doing so hurts Microsoft as well as the company they're hurting, and if they do it too much, customers *will* get pissed an switch to a different product. And in the long run, such tactics aren't going to work too well, as some customers will choose to not upgrade Windows rather than break their favorite app.
You are just painfully naive, I think.
And you are engaging in an ad hominum attack, I think.
the features that crash M$oftware are the ones we do not need anyway. Why should my WORDprocessor do GRAPHics?
This is the kind of narrow-minded thinking that seems to characterize slashdotters too often. The fact that *you* don't use a feature doesn't make it unneeded. A lot of people like to be able to embed graphics or spreadsheets into their WP docs.
Why would Microsoft put in a feature that no one wanted and that crashed their machiens more? They wouldn't. They obviously believed that *someone* wanted that feature. That someone obviously wasn't you. The fact that you consider a feature useless doesn't mean that it should be taken out of the OS.
Ok, so what youre saying is that when I go down to my local Best Buy and attemtp to buy a computer, I have the right to install an Operating System other than MS Windows right?
Best buy has chosen to carry only computers that install Windows. You don't have a right to dictate what inventory they carry, or what liscences OEM's sign or don't sign. If you want a computer without Windows, you can get one. It's just a little harder, but that's because hardly anyone wants anything other than Windows.
If there were really a huge clamoring for a better alternative, then some of those non-Windows vendors would have a large enough market share that Best Buy would have to carry them. There's simply not that much demand for alternative OS's, so they don't carry them.
Oh yea, lets not forget the support that I am going to get when I install Linux. Not a single OEM company will provide you with the same level of support that you would get from using a Microsoft product.
So now Microsoft is responsible for the support policies of OEM's? OEM's support Windows because that's what most of their customers are using. There are Linux vendors who will give you support there.
Im sorry, how much is Windows 2000 now?
Windows 2000 is not a desktop operating system, and is priced similarly to Mac OS X server, Solaris, and other commercial server OS's. If you don't like the extra cost of NT, then buy Win 98.
I agree, but punishing the bad monopolist (as opposed to just plain-old monopolist) does not entail telling companies how to design software.
Except that "the rules" are so vague and overreaching that companies will end up looking over their shoulder to make sure anything they do won't be looked at as monopolistic. Antitrust law gets reinterpreted practically every time it is used, and things that are considered perfectly legal in one decade will become illegal in the next.
If antitrust law were written in a clear and unambiguous way, then I'd agree, but it's not. It prohibits "combinations in restraint of trade," "unfair competition," and other similarly vague phrases. The only way a company with a large market share can ensure it not run afoul of the law is to not enter new markets and not do anything that might hurt a competitor. But in a market like this one doing so would be suicide.
You can't be serious. Do you mean the punishment for negligence causing death ought to be the same as for capital murder? It'll be a cold day in hell before I agree to something like that.
There's a big difference between writing laws based on whether you meant to do something, and writing laws based on *why* you meant to do something. For example, differing punishments for intentionally and accidentally killing someone are reasonable, but laws that punish you differently if you did it out of "hate" is a terrible idea.
Besides, it's always illegal to kill an innocent person, it's only the sentencing that's different. But under antitrust law, an action might be illegal if you are a large company and you did it to hurt a competitor, but might be ok if you were simply doing it to improving your product. The difference is strictly in the mind of the person doing it. And it should be obvious that the line between the two is very fuzzy, since any improvement to your product is going to hurt your competition.
Considering all other elements of the computer market have dropped in prices you are proving they have a monopoly.
That's not really true. Most *hardware* has dropped in price, but software in many cases hasn't. The price for Win98 is on par with that of the Mac OS, which clearly doesn't have a monopoly.
It's also not unusual for people trying to survie a monopolist to have prices in the same range. If they drop thier prices lower to gain market share the monopolists just drives them out of business with lower prices. If they raise prices they get killed.
OK, now you're just making things up. You're saying that Apple doesn't cut its prices out of fear of Microsoft doing likewise? Or that Red Hat would raise its prices if Microsoft did? That makes no sense at all.
Not to mention the fact no smart monopolist ever charges the max they can. All that does is allow competion into the market place.
Exactly, which is what's so ridiculous about antitrust law. No monopolist keeps his monopoly unless he continues to provide what customers want. There are always up-and-coming challenges. Look at AMD, for example.
Max price does not equal max profit.
This is true but irrelevant. If it were really true that no one had any choice of OS and never would, then the revenue-maximizing price for Windows would be a lot more than $100. MS keeps the price down to $100 in part because if they set it too high, that's an opportunity for a competitor to come in and take market share away from them. In any event, $100 is not an unreasonable price to pay for an operating system, and I doubt it would go down all that much if Microsoft got serious competition.
I suppose you're doing it to show the MS flag or something. Fine. If I were you, I'd do it in a more neutral forum, but it takes all types, I guess.
Actually, I don't particularly like Microsoft or its products, and I have no interest in promoting them. What I *do* care about is economic freedom, the rule of law, and justice. I think all of these are being trampled by this case. (And by antitrust law in general, but that's another issue.)
Thay have broken the law with no regard for the consequences.
Which law? Antitrust? Antitrust law is so vague that almost every large company breaks it repeatedly. And the standards of antitrust law change with every new administration and every new judge. Other than that, I can't think of any laws they have broken. If they have committed any real crimes (like fraud, for example) I'm all for pubishing them for that. But adding features to your OS shouldn't be a crime under any circumstances.
You claim that MS's politically connected competitors are driving this lawsuit.
Um... Netscape, Sun, and Oracle? Do you think it's a coincidence that one of the DOJ's biggest cheerleaders is Orrin Hatch? Netscape couldn't keep up with Microsoft in the marketplace, so instead they are turning to the courtroom. I don't think that's something that deserves our admiration.
...they buried it into Windows so that you couldn't get rid of IE in order to take over the web browser market.
OK, I basically just don't think that should be a crime, although I'll admit that a plausible case can be made that it is under current law. Netscape is free to find partners for its browser in the same manner. In fact, that's essentially what it did with the AOL merger. And even with the tying, many users stuck with Netscape.
And why, pray tell, do you avoid MS products?
Because I don't like them. UI-wise they're inferior to Mac OS, and for development and as a server they're generally inferior to *nix alternatives.
But stamping out all alternatives so as to force you into using their products just isn't right.
I understand the sentiment, but I don't think it's right. There are still alternatives, and really good products *do* have a chance in the marketplace. And I don't see how the antitrust case is going to do any good. Consumers are going to continue to buy what they're used to, and so even if a breakup occurs, Be and Linux are going to be in about the same position as always. I think this is more due to consumer choices than anything Microsoft has done.
Switching platforms is a lot of work, and even if Microsoft hadn't done any of the nasty things it's accused of doing, it would likely still be the de facto standard. And even though Be's a nice OS, it doesn't have anywhere near the applications support it would need to be a useful desktop OS. So yes, they deserve a chance, but I don't see that Microsoft has done anything to them.
Surely you must concede that Linux is a kick-ass server platform.
Absolutely.
But you seem to regard it as if it were intended for desktop use
A lot of people on Slashdot think it is, and if the folks at KDE and Gnome intend to make that happen. Whether it will is an open question. Right now, Linux is a mediocre desktop platform for geeks, and an unusable one for novices, but I can see that changing rapidly if companies keep pouring money into it. I recently started playing with KDE, and it's a hell of a lot closer to a real GUI than fvwm.
So I guess my point is that right now, Windows is the only reasonable desktop OS for x86, but that if Microsoft abuses their customers too much, there is a real chance that either of them could become a serious competitor. Microsoft therefore can't afford to act like a monopolist.
Ok, I hate to start Yet Another Flame War, but I'm annoyed at the overwhelming anti-Microsoft sentiment that seems to exist here. IMHO, Microsoft has done nothing particularly evil, and should not have been sued in the first place. I hope that the appeals courts reduces whatever penalties Jackson makes to spare Microsoft from unjust punishment.
Microsoft is in essence being punished for being too effective a competitor, and for not lining the pockets of enough lawmakers. You will notice that with the exception of a few Linux fanatics, most Microsoft customers are quite happy with their products. The ones that are driving this lawsuit are Microsoft's politically-connected competitors. Yes, Microsoft has done things that caused harm to its competitors, but that's what competition is all about. It's absurd to expect a company to compete, but not compete "too much" or "unfairly."
Microsoft wrote Windows and has every right to set whatever terms it likes for its use. That includes requirements such as those that OEM's pay per processor to pre-load it. Computer manufacturers are free to decline to use Microsoft's product, and can then install whatever they want at whatever price they want. The fact that OEM's choose to purchase Windows says something about the value of Windows to consumers.
Microsoft has done nothing that many others in the computer industry has done. Microsoft just did a better job of it. This antitrust case is a travesty of justice, and I hope it gets thrown out on appeal. Microsoft makes mediocre products, and I hope a better alternative comes along and takes over the market. But the government should butt out and let the market do its work.
Was a news-site version of 'first p0st, suckahz!,' but with less useful information.
What tripe. Anyone got an article with, I dunno, newsworthy details, in it?
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Switching operating systems is such a pain in the butt that nothing will change unless something catastrophic happens. That is why I think the only real solution is to revoke Microsoft's corporate charter and send the whole bloody works of their employees packing. This will create thousands of competing Microsoft consultants who can help people maintain their systems. Then and only then would the playing field be levelled.
> Nowhere does it mention that they made Windows incompatible with another piece of software, or that they used hidden APIs in any of their products, which would be the biggest argument toward opening part or all of the Windows source code. Since neither of those is mentioned at all, or even alluded to, I believe that opening their APIs/source code isn't a likely penalty.
It does seem to mention windows 98 / MSIE 5, where the browser used OS hooks to override the normal UI.. if that isn't "hidden APIs" i don't know what is.
Although that's probably not an example relivant to your point, because opening the windows source code would probably not be as effective in terms of allowing other web browser makers to override the windows interface as a breakup.. seeing as with open code the browser maker would have to sift through and reverse-engineer a huge amount of code, whereas with a breakup the OS MS would be forced to create an open API for browser embedding in order for the App MS to integrate (hey, i'll bet apple would be willing to liscence the code for Opendoc/cyberdog.. **laughs evilly**) which seems like it would make, say, Netscape's job a lot easier than having to read the windows source.
i _don't_ think there's any good reason for the windows source code to be opened, or any reason they will. That's not my point here; i'm just making the admittedly not very large point that "secret APIs" are not a complete non-issue.
Here's to hoping the gov's solution will be better than nothing.. and maybe even a breakup! woohoo!
--- i know nothing and you shouldn't be listening to me. ---
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Aha. i apologize.
i was not aware of what you mention, possibly because i have not looked at any windows SDKs or APIs, do not have an MSDN account, have no windows programming experience beyond stdlib console, do not use or own windows, etc. I know nothing beyond what others have told me, which had lead me to believe that internet explorer 5 is almost impossible to uninstall or detatch from win98.
From the fact i had never seen anyone other than microsoft in ie5 attempt to replace the windows GUI, i assumed there was no microsoft-provided way of doing so.
Apparently i was wrong.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Alright, I'll be the first one to agree that in the end this will probably be a Good Thing for us all, but my idealistic libertarian instincts still tell me that it's wrong for the Government to be doing it, and that in an ideal world, the people themselves wouldn't let anyone get away with the kind of crap that Microsoft has been pulling out for decades, and there would be no need for regulamentation. Ah well.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Perhaps like people who had invested in standard oil they will reap the bennefits of not just one proffitable company, but 3-5 proffitable and fast growing companies.
I don't see people losing money on Microsoft now or for a long time.
the question is *who* should be remedying this situation
A multi-national, multi-hundred-billion dollar company has too much power. Who but a government can resolve this with any degree of certainty?
A gradual erosion, courtesy of net appliances, the free software movement, or anything else, was the best hope for change
And if MS resasserts dominance? If they prove resilient enough that they embrace and extend non-PC platforms or free software? Who could fix it then? If an entity is too powerful, it isn't enough to state that something, somewhere, sometime may weaken it. It comes down to the question that we all (even those elected to govern) must ask of ourselves - if change is necessary, even inevitable, do I wait for it to happen, or do I make it happen?
Some may whine about setting dangerous precedents, but I don't believe that doing the Right Thing (tm) is ever dangerous.
I guess the question is would an appeal be like an "annulment" or a "divorce" of the ruling.
Also, is there any way we can make MS pay the lawyer fees for the USDOJ in this case? I think Boies was charging us the "bargain" rate of $300 per hour. Let's see, ($300/hour) * (18 hrs/day) * (300 days/year) * (3 years) = a whole lotta money. And that's just for Boies.
Another question: when did this case begin? Can anyone give me a date?
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
MSFT stock could very likely be heading for a 2- or 3-1 split
Not bloody likely. MSFT share price seems to have stalled out at about $90, absent some spikes in the last couple of weeks in anticipation of a settlement and a brief surge at the end of last year for who knows why (everything seemed to surge briefly then, millenium madness perhaps).
Take a look at the moving average over the past year, (eg here which doesn't include today's drop), they've been on a downward slide for a while, and the stock bounced around 90 for most of last fall.
Microsoft has never done more than a 2:1 split, and they split to bring the per share price back into the territory where it's trading now. If the slide continues, they may even do a merge (say, 2 for 3) to make the number look a bit nicer.
The NASDAQ drop is only partially related to MSFT, some of it is due to rationalization of dot-com prices in general. Heck, Linux-related companies went up in value today.
-- Alastair
So you believe that because the company is so large it should be outlawed? So any company lets say that reaches a 300 billion dollars in market captialization should be outlawed correct?
I would submit for your approval that Intel and Cisco have FAR more influence on their industries respectively then Microsoft. Of course they have business competing directly against them. Unlike like Microsoft who has MILLIONS of people giving up their free time coding for their platform (Linux), along with a market that is changing so fast as to make its platform near obsolete (PalmOS), as well as traditional competitors who are innovating just as or quicker then they are and can support themselves through hardware sales (Sun and Apple). Let's get right down to it. This is an EXTREMELY competitive market, in fact, I would applaud Microsoft for hanging on this long.
Is the hostility towards Microsoft or is it directed at an envious population of Bill Gates. Love him or hate him, he has made Microsoft into a money generating business. Keyword: Business - A entity that generates value for its stockholders. You could not be a great business if you are not a servant. I would submit that Microsoft has been the ultimate servant.
Think about it, whats the chance that Internet would be what it is today if Microsoft had not made the browser free? Would the Internet be as large a communitity?
> Will those lawsuits start to be filed with this decision? Or does that have to wait for final punishment?
Charlie Rose had Boies, one state's AG, and two (brace yourself!) apparently clueful journalists on his show tonight. (He had also invited BG and SB, and says he expects them later in the week.)
At any rate, one of the guests pointed out that AOL, proud owners of Netscape, could now sue for triple damages under anti-trust laws, and that the triple damages could amount to billions of dollars.
The guests also related that a number of suits have already been filed, some by businesses and others by consumers. However, none of the really big software players have jumped in yet, and the guests generally agreed that the biggies would likely wait until the smoke cleared a bit more before deciding what to do.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> They drew the conclusion that Microsoft was likely to be convicted
I concede your point.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Could I trouble someone to annotate that post and label the purportedly "insightful" parts, for the benefit of those who are invision impaired?
Or is this MS-insightful? You, know, like MS's alternative definition of "innovative".
Though the main thrust of that "insightful" post isn't worth commenting on, I can't resist gigging the author for one thing he mentions in passing:
> I like running IE 5 - it has a tendency not to crash my system like Netscape.
If Netscape crashes your system, you should have been quicker to change systems than to change browsers. An OS that crashes due to a problem with a user-level application should be named I-N-E-X-C-U-S-A-B-L-E.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Not to bash you, since we seem to agree on the essentials of the situation, but here's a thought provoker:
> But without the untrained stock investor that probably shouldn't be involved in the first place, would the stock market be as high as it is today?
Without suckers, would pyramid schemes ever turn a buck?
You've hit on exactly why a few of use think the whole stock market scam is a moral outrage. It's not like the * aren't getting *er fast enough already.
> Granted they probably shouldn't be in it at all, but they are, and if too many people got scared, it could cause problems.
You're right, and I'm not quite so unsympathetic with The Little Guy as I may sound.
However, it is probably better to scare them out now rather than waiting 2-3 more years when they will have foolishly invested 2-3 times as much of their "spare" money in overinflated tech stocks. The only shame is that those who shouldn't have been in it couldn't have been scared off 12-18 months ago, when all the tech stock hype first went into overdrive. [Yes, I'm guessing at how long ago it actually was.]
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Let's start being capitalists here and realize that, no matter what, if you have a better product, you'll be successful.
Wrong. Counterexamples could be named by the score.
More to the point, your counterfactual claim draws attention to the whole problem with monopolies: they allow the monopolizer to prevent the market from deciding who wins. Those posters who advocate letting the market decide should actually be the most rabid advocates of this suit, not the most rabid critics.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
just out of curiousity, are you finding the term negro to mean black as racist, or the statement that a black man would be giving him ianal. Personally I prefer a black man to give me iaal (I am a lawyer.) That way I can ask him what he thinks of this case :)
The issue of employee stock options is on my mind too. Let's face it, most Microsoft employees are there for the money. Heck, I wouldn't be at my job if it weren't for the money, but I believe in my company and I'd stick around through a rough patch if one came around. But Microsoft doesn't strike me as a company that inspires rabid loyalty among its employees -- it has its defenders, but most tech people who defend it seem to have a financial stake in defending it.
Microsoft employees who were hired recently now have stock options that are essentially worthless -- they have the option to buy at a higher price than the stock is currently trading at. If the price keeps dropping through the next phase and through appeals then Microsoft can no longer woo or retain employees with options.
So does this mean that Microsoft will start losing employees? Will they have to start paying higher wages? 1/3 of Microsoft shares are owned by employees, that means Microsoft employees as a group lost more than 25 billion dollars today!
Nah, Microsoft should only split into two parts:
The first half can take care of coding OSes, designing keyboards, etc. The second half can take care of drafting OEM agreements, shrink-wrap licenses, and suing whoever pisses them off.
>Then again, it may be just desserts for backing an unethical company
I don't disagree with this sentiment, and probably go so far as to agree wholeheartedly about individual speculative investors who may have bought M$ stock to make a profit without concern for their suspect business practices.
It's things like 401k and pension accounts and others that are managed on behalf of a group where I feel the most pity for those who could be hurt by a sharp(er) dip in the stock valuation. I'm lucky enough at my company where you have a coice of elections for different investment instruments, and I tried to steer clear of M$ as much as possible. Some are not as fortunate, I would imagine. My dad is on a pension that invests in funds like Franklin that have a lot of assets in M$ stock. I'll temper my enthusiasm for any victory against M$ with concern for how this could ripple down.
Don't get me wrong, they screwed up and got caught. They deserve whatever happens now. No tears for them. Just thinking a bit about the bigger picture.
So you believe that because the company is so large it should be outlawed?
It's not about being large. It's about being large and stepping on little guys. It's about *abusing* being large, instead of *using* being large (i.e. limiting the market to make your products look better vs. making better cheaper products utilizing economies of scale)
Think about it, whats the chance that Internet would be what it is today if Microsoft had not made the browser free?
No chance, DAMMIT! Oh, you think it's in good shape.. compared with nothing else I guess it is. I can see you haven't surfed without IE for a while. Oh what's that, you switched a while back after *certain* sites didn't work right with Netscape? How free was that browser after all, eh? Compared with what looked possible even 5 years ago...who's to say. I'll bet we'll know M$'s true influence in 5 years without them, but by then you'll have your own customized Mozilla with your shopping bots, news bots, and an OS that doesn't crash and only needs restarting for new kernels (and perhaps not even then;), so maybe that's not fair. But, then again, fair and Microsoft have never been comfortable in each other's presense.
--
+&x
You mean, nothing more illegal that what they're already doing? Microsoft stock is a ticking time bomb on Wall Street. When the house of cards keeping it up falls, many investors, mutual funds, and company 401k's will be hurt by their deception. Just look at the NASDAQ today. It was down over 200 points this morning just from the break-off of negotiations this weekend.
I'll be happy to see their stock burn, but I worry that too many people will be hurt by having recklessly invested in the company. Then again, it may be just desserts for backing an unethical company.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I hope that today will be remembered as a great day for all of us who have suffered from Microsoft business practices. Personally, I'm going to party like it's.. oh, wait... that was last year.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Try the Judiciary Act of 1789 (declared unconsitutional by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison) and the Judiciary Act of 1801. There are a few rare instances where the Supreme Court IS obligated to accept a case, but they're very rare.
IANAL, but I believe that there is legislation that allows the government to take antitrust issues directly to the Supreme Court on the first appeal, secifically to prevent companies from delaying via appeals like Microsoft (I believe it's been mentioned in other comments here). The Supreme Court is not required to accept the case, but it would be sent directly there.
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
Other than Wired itself, of course, /. is ahead of just about EVERYBODY. CNN, AP, Reuters, no one has it yet. Hee hee, power to the nerds!
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
OK, here's a primer on what to do. Note: I assume you have money and an open brokerage or retirement account. If you have neither, then you're probably going to stay poor. Like most people.
1. Retirement funds. Easy - DO NOTHING. Wait until MSFT bottoms out. Then, if you have money sitting in non-tech, shove it in a fund with major MSFT holdings to get rich on the upswing. You don't have to worry about capital gains, so go for it.
2. Have cash, can buy stock. Easy - buy MSFT after the EU sucker punches them tomorrow. Don't put more than 25% in it. Hold it for at least a year, then sell at 20% capital gains rate. If you have an IRA with cash, buy there, but sell earlier, in about six months, since you don't have to worry about capital gains.
3. Have MSFT stock. Easy - WAIT. MSFT will make money no matter what - ride this out.
4. Have MSFT options. Easy - exercise them on Thursday, after the EU gives them a second kick down. Take the capital gains hit at a low price, then ride it back up for at least a year so you get the low capital gains rate on the ride up. You are now rich. But you will pay much taxes next year, so be ready to borrow to cover this. Ignore your bosses - they want you not to do this, so that they can get away with doing it.
5. Have RHAT. Um, hope you got in at the IPO price. Well, expect some nice kicks up over the next few months. Be patient.
6. Can't trade in MSFT due to legal restrictions. Um, thanks for doing such a fine job.
Will in Seattle
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The government remains many steps behind the fast-moving industry, and is never in tune with the real world. But now they slam Microsoft, and all of a sudden the judicial system knows what's best?
The courts make rulings for and against industries they don't understand all the time. This is what expert witnesses are for. In fact, it is not the judicial systems place to make a judgement about the technological merits of Microsoft's products. Microsoft is a business, foremost, and it must play by the rules of law as a business. A predatory monopoly is illegal regardless of which industry is being considered. It is the court's job to decide whether Microsoft's business practices have been illegal. That tech is a fast-moving industry is irrelevent. The only thing relevent to the court is whether Microsoft has used its monopoly power illegally.
Put another way, prosecuting criminals is exactly what the courts are for. If any company (not just Microsoft) behaves illegally, should we just leave it to the free market to punish them? I doubt that this would be very effective. All the company would have to do is look good to a majority of the public or offer the public something they want and the company could get away with just about anything.
By the time the remedies take effect, will the browser market (the heart of the whole case) look even remotely the same?
If it weren't for the DOJ case, the answer would most likely be, "No." The fact that Microsoft is being called to task about the browser issue has significantly increased the chance that we may now answer your question in the positive.
No, we shouldn't look the other way, but any sudden disruption to Microsoft is going to cause major, major collateral damage.
What are you saying, exactly? We shouldn't ignore it but we shouldn't do anything about it, either? Allowing the monopoly to continue stifling competition isn't damaging enough to justify the pain of striking them down?
A gradual erosion, courtesy of net appliances, the free software movement, or anything else, was the best hope for change.
And you believe that Microsoft wouldn't strong-arm their way into net appliances the same as they have done in every other market that they decided should be theirs? In fact, they have probably already got that ball rolling.
If Microsoft were left unchecked, don't you suppose they might develop a plan to deny open source entry into the market by subverting open standards with proprietary extensions? Oh yeah, they did that already. Isn't it interesting how innovating and stifling innovation look like the same thing on the surface? But the results are very different!
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
IANAL, but I did read through the entire judgement. Damning, to say the least. But most intersting is the bottom two pages. Judge Penfield has entered his orders:
1) MS has violated Federal & States Laws
2) US claims 2,3 & 5 are granded (ordered).
3) US claim 1 is dismissed with prejudice.
4) A whole bunch of the states claims are granted.
5) States claim 5 is dismissed with prejudice.
6) MS 1 & 2 claims for relief are dismissed with prej.
7) The Court will make a further order for relief, including costs.
Just what are in the key US/States claims that have been granted? And how much more can the Court order?
I put up a page with links to official government sites and mirrors of the Judge's ruling. Both html and pdf versions available:
m l
http://www.rosecomputing.com/microsuck/index.ht
I admit I've just read the opening few paragraphs--what might be called the abstract were this a scientific paper--but I really have to say that I think this ruling has it precisely backwards. From the opening summary of the judgement, the judge ruled that:
1) MS violated the Sherman Act by employing "anticompetitive means" in an "albeit unsuccessful" attempt "to monopolize the Web browser market";
2) MS violated the Sherman Act by "unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system";
3) "the effect of Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other companies" did NOT constitute "unlawful exclusive dealing under criteria established by leading decisions".
I really have to disagree. Now, I haven't read all of the Conclusions of Law, but I did read nearly two-thirds of the Findings of Fact, so I have heard much of Judge Jackson's reasoning on this case, in excrutiating detail. I think his finding in point 1) above is more or less right, except I disagree with the end he projects for MS's illegal practices: that is, I feel like he still, after all this time, doesn't understand the internet well enough to realize that "monopolizing the Web browser market" is not an end in itself, but rather a means to a further end. That is, I get the feeling that Judge Jackson thinks that once Netscape was out of the way, MS was going to start charging for IE, or stop porting it to the Mac, or some other such ridiculous thing. Instead, of course, MS wanted IE to have large market share partially so that they could influence web standards and have a platform to launch proprietary web protocols that they could tie into IIS and Win2000 Server, and partially so that they had a strong platform from which to attack Java's cross-platform compatability. Perhaps he addressed these things later in the ruling, so maybe he got this one right. On the other hand, his assertion that IE represents an unsuccessful attempt to monopolize the browser market is ridiculous. IE has been successful beyond what even the most arrogant MS exec could have predicted--after all, how could anyone have expected the quality of Netscape Navigator to become so awful so quickly? And more to the point, who on earth would have guessed that MS would produce a quick, relatively standards compliant, stable program???
Ruling 2), on the other hand, is dead wrong, and I have a very difficult time believing any of you disagree. The simple fact is, every desktop OS/environment today has an integrated web browser. Some (MacOS, BeOS) are less integrated than others (KDE 2.0, Win98), but the less integrated OS's are *worse off for it*, and they will all be more integrated in the future. There is absolutely no way anyone can convince me that an integrated web browser won't be as essential a feature of a desktop OS in five years as, say, a clipboard is today. This is one of the few legitimate innovations MS has made in the last few years, and it's ludicrous that they're being punished for it.
As for 3), I'd say that it is precisely MS's marketing arrangements that have made them an anticompetitive monopoly. I admit that IANAL and thus Judge Jackson knows the "criteria established by leading decisions" much much better than I do. However, if in fact MS does not meet those criteria, than I think a new precedent must be advanced, as MS has clearly effected the competitive landscape in the software industry for the worse.
In the end, though, I have to say that I'd probably almost rather this case were dropped. I believe MS probably has violated antitrust laws, and caused some pretty serious harm. On the other hand, I think that there have been some positive effects on the consumer experience of the computer industry from having MS's monopoly around, and that it's damned difficult to know just how much better things would have been had MS never existed, or had MS and IBM not split ways back when they were developing OS/2 together.
Frankly, I think MS's market power, and consumer choice in general, has been severely impacted by the internet, and just might be just as severely impacted by OSS. And I'd much rather see Microsoft's dynasty of mediocre software fall to the forces of better products within the industry than to legal regulation from outside.
Oh please. The stock has been bouncing between 90 and 115 for the last year or so. It was down in the upper 80s a week or two ago. The only people losing money are speculators who were betting on a settlement.
Wah.
--LP
When you consider everything MS has done to improve computing, no one would be happy to hear this verdict.
Microsoft brought the computer to the masses, enhancing productivity and the usability of PCs. They actualy made it so EASY to use that even my 6 year old sister figured out how to use Win95 in a few hours. I doubt anyone can say that they prefer any pre-MS computers to a PC with Windows on it..
Do you even consider how many corporations rely on MS products for all of their operations? Their success would be impossible if the only available tools they had was a "superior OS" which they had to learn a ~200 page manual before being able to use effectively.
About this browser thing.. imagine you were totally clueless about computers, and just booted to your OS. The first thing many in this age would want to do is hop on the Web.. but oh no! theres no browser! How many of your parents know enough about computers to configure a dialup and then FTP to get a working browser? Integrating IE to Windows is FAR from "abuse of their monopoly powers," just a way to help people out: TO HELP THE CONSUMER.
Just my two cents...
Time for a M$ 'refund-day' suit?
Orpheus, Judge Jackson was not just unbiased - he was one of the best judges that MS could have drawn. Back in the mid-'90s, when the DOJ had won the initial rounds of the antitrust battle (leading to some of the behavioral remidies that have proven so feeble), the government gained an injunction against the release of Win 95. MS appealed, and the judge who drew the appeal was Jackson. Who won? Well, as you can tell from what's on your desktop, MS. That's right, you can thank old T. Penfield for the commercial availability of Win 95. I'd imagine that qualifies as pro-MS. Jackson is also a conservative judge who would normally be against government interference in commerce (unless it has to do with sex). In this case, I suspect rather strongly that MS's poor trial performance, including that rigged videotape and their incompetent expert witnesses, swayed the jurist.
As for speed, I'll bet on quick (for the justice system) myself. DOJ wants to take care of this ASAP so that the process won't get disrupted by the changover in administrations (or simply cancelled if George W. is elected). The states want to take care of this quickly so that the AGs can get famous and the statehouses can get the $$$. And MS wants to get this over with so that what we're seeing happen to their stock now doesn't happen everyday. So I imagine we'll have a final appeal this year.
here's a link to the good stuff:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
According to the wired article:
"In the next few months Jackson will announce what penalties he will impose on Microsoft."
I would expect Microsoft to appeal the penalties instead of the ruling, but I could be wrong.
--
The shareholder is always right.
From the wired article:
A Microsoft (MSFT) lawyer outlined the company's appeal strategy, telling call participants that its defeat included "no mysteries here -- it's what we all expected."
That's the first time in a while I haven't heard a spokesperson from the "losing" side use the word "disappointed". Is it possible that the ruling might have been less harsh than Microsoft really expected it to be?
--
The shareholder is always right.
You probably used the wrong simile there unintentionally, but the way you worded that, it sounds like people dropped sold their Microsoft stocks because they knew MS was evil, or because they knew that MS had been anticompetitive in an illegal way. I doubt either of those is the case -- why would the stockholders wait until the day of the announcement to hold their stock?
Instead, stockholders saw that that the government and Microsoft had reached an impasse in their settlement talks. They drew the conclusion that Microsoft was likely to be convicted; they had already decided whether or not they saw the company as unethical, immoral, or anti-competitive.
--
The shareholder is always right.
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate a possible outcome. Who knows how it will really turn out in the long run?
I think they'll break Microsoft up. The attitude will be "it worked with IBM, it'll work with Microsoft." My gut feeling is they're not going to get creative and try something new.
The baby bill that continues development of applications will probably do well. They'll start to develop for other platforms than Win and Mac. I don't use anything from MS Office very often, but most people that do seem to really like it.
The OS itself is doomed though. I don't want to rehash all the same old stuff, but does anyone really still believe they'll be able to turn Windows around? If they couldn't do it with all the money they've had over the years it's never going to happen. If you haven't installed and used both Win2k Pro and Redhat 6.2 yet, please don't talk to me about ease of installation and availability of drivers. I'm not going to deny that there are plenty of things about Linux that still suck, but it gets better every day. I honestly can't say the same for Windows.
I'd even consider that Microsoft may have already figured this out. They must've known a while ago that their flagship product was sick and dying. So they made as much money as they possibly could off of it before it died. As punishment for their sins, MS will have the dead weight of Windows amputated, along with the other crap they've accumulated over the years but never did anything hugely important with (other than stopping competition.)
So, I feel the only really worthwhile piece of Microsoft will end up being it's apps. I'm not sure if IE will get to stay with Office. In the end, I think losing the dead weight of Windows will be good for the apps.
Anyway I'll reiterate the part about this being speculation in case anyone missed that. I don't see the future so I know that I'm more likely wrong than right. I'm not a legal or business wizard either. I'm just some guy.
numb
I think they'll break Microsoft up. The attitude will be "it worked with IBM, it'll work with Microsoft." My gut feeling is they're not going to get creative and try something new.
:)
All I can say is "duh" about this part. I was just thinking, "wait, what the hell was I talking about? They didn't break up IBM."
I do think they'll stick with something more traditional than opening up the source though, so I'm sticking with the "breaking up Microsoft" guess. I'll try not to post on two hours sleep next time.
numb
My favorite quote?
:)
"With respect to the latter assertion, Internet Explorer is not demonstrably the current "best of breed" Web browser, nor is it likely to be so at any time in the immediate future."
Buahaha.
Maybe I was on crack, but didn't I read that Jackson made Microsoft conceeding to the Finding of Fact a requirement of any settlement and that was what Microsoft balked at?
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Actually, I read the first 37K of the judgement. The judge has convinced me. Overall a very good explaination of the ruling. I'm sold on it. I'm sure the appeals court is going to side with MS on at least enough counts to justify (to them) overturning a structural remedy. I can almost stand a Republican congress, but a Republican supreme court is almost dangerous.
_______________
To start off, IANAL. Deal with it. :P
Why is it that everyone wants to break up MS? I just don't get it. I'm not a big Windows fan (I dual boot, mostly for gaming, spend most of my time using Linux). I detest MS development tools (not to mention the Windows API). And their business practices leave much to be desired (I feel that same about Sun and a few others). But how is breaking them up going to help?
Just look at the main reason that it's so hard for OSes like BeOS, Linux, *BSD, etc to compete with MS OSes. Is it stability? Speed? Features? No! [at least I don't think so]. It's because, through historical accident, DOS and later Windows is what is shipped with most computer systems. So there's a "Microsoft Standard", but noone else knows exactly what the standard is (and it's contradictory and changes every release anyway).
Basically what I'm saying here is that if MS were forced to document their APIs, file formats, and network protocols (completely and without omission), the playing field is even. If people want to use Office on Windows 2000, they can. If instead they want to use a OSS program that converts Office 2000 docs to PostScript on Linux, they can. It seems to me this is much more benifical to everyone concerned than a breakup would be.
"Bill, I think you should know that if you insist on strongarming this company, as you presented yesterday, we will break MSFT up! We have the evidence right here on tape....would you like to see it before you answer?"
from the ruling text:
Finally, Microsoft's willingness to make the sacrifices involved in cancelling Mac Office, and the concessions relating to browsing software that it demanded from Apple, can only be explained by Microsoft's desire to protect the applications barrier to entry from the threat posed by Navigator.
Sounds like Apple testified loud and clear on MSFT's tactics. I was wondering why apple "decided" not to release OS X for x86 and allowed MSFT to own 25% of Apple after MSFT agreed to release Office98 for Mac.
If those meetings had been bugged (by the GVMT as nobody else can legally do so without the consent of the other party) we would of had a much faster and better resolution to MSFT's monopoly abuse and we might have MacOS on x86 hardware by now. We also would have companies paying a lot more for (netscape browsers) but that may have been a good thing...Netscape may have become much better with a large infusion of cash, or mabey not but things would be more fair
I don't much like the idea of further GVMT regulation/oversight but whats to prevent a baby Bill from continuing these practices. We need a mechanism to react fast to tech related issues (with appeals later). Tech changes so fast that by the time the DOJ actually makes a move on this the damage is already done. It will be the same in the future unless a new fast acting mechanism is implemented.
Any good ideas of how to make the legal system run as fast as technology? A percentage TAX on e-commerce used to fund a "tech business court" that can rapidly deal with issues?
no sig.
Find the Constitutional passage that gives Congress the authority to force the Supreme Court to do ANYTHING. The only thing that Congress can do to the Court is affect their pay and the number on the Court.
Alex
Then I think the computing world would be a much better place. However this has to happen voluntarily or it won't work old loyalties will die hard and bitterness will be pervasive. No this is a change MS has to go through on it's own, before they fall down too far. Just remember folks once upon a time IBM was the Big Evil Corporation (tm) that was choking the life out of the computer industry, today we sing their praises as cool and hip for understanding and embracing our beloved Linux better and faster than any other established company. Remember things change, and usually for the better if those involved are left to sort them out on their own.
Didn't this occur because of the extreme degree of regulation that IBM faced from the government in the 80's which included such tactics as having IBM tell competitors what they were working on at any given time? One could say that the reason IBM is so well behaved now is because they do not want the level of involvement by the government ever again.
PS: Moderators R U on crack? Someone suggests that maybe we should let MSFT go on its merry way and maybe it'll split on its own instead of maintaining a stranglehold on the software industry that has created the world's richest individual and ruined/defeated countless competing companies (Netscape, Caldera, Corel, Borland,etc.) using mafiaesque tactics. I suggest rereading the Halloween Documents to clear up your misconceptions of the worlds second most valuable company.
As to not be dependant on a single business for our software in the commission, it was decided to use netscape as the standard browser, and the microsoft browser was hidden in the depths of our configuration so that the user couldn't use it. While still using an old e-mail (Route400)it was decided to move to an Exchange/Outlook configuration. To do so requires the installation of Internet Explorer 5.01, Outlook AND outlook express (outlook uses some of the code from express for its POP handling). As we needed to install completely IE5 there was no choice but to make IE5 the standard here, thereby knocking netscape for six.
This is exactly the reason why microsoft has tied the 3 softwares together originally, and why they tied them with the OS. They achieved their goal of stifling the competitor.
Now, what needs to be done is not to split the company up willy nilly, but in a useful way:
Section 1: OS family of products including Windows 95/98 and Windows 2000 and any updates. Interface documentation (API's) being freely accessible to anyone who wishes to develop using them. Source code available for the OS (but not with a licence to compile into usable OS) so that it can be examined and scrutanized (to check for hidden functionality).
Section 2: Office suite of programs plus other software (games, autoroute, encarta etc), not including outlook and online tools. Interaction with OS being employed using the freely available API's.
Section 3: Internet accessing applications. Internet Explorer, media player, msn messenger etc. ALL should be freely accesible source code, freely available for modification as long as licence held to use application. This means the user can personlize his/her version if he/she desires. I believe that the internet should be a free speech/free expression area and as such accessing software should also be in the same vain.
Section 4: Mail tools and other servers. Outlook, outlook express, Exchange server and other servers (IIS, FTP, TELNET, etc.)
This would make four companies which do not have much need to stay together. Each domain could advance in their technology before the other catches on. Competitors will have a much smaller mountain to climb as they do not have to compete against a whole OS with all the trimmings such as Windows is.
Just my two pennies worth,
c0rarc
Yeah, I saw that before. They're running RedHat and Apache for the site.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
It's evil and it fits nicely into most overhead compartments...
kwsNI
A minimal http daemon (static files only, no CGI) is vastly different than a complex HTML rendering engine that needs to process poorly validated and nonstandard HTML. You can put the first into a kernel without much change of kernel instability, but not the latter.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
First, it wasn't my claim that IE was in the NT kernel, but I was replying to the preceeding message which claimed that IE in the kernel was no different than httpd in the Linux kernel. Do try to keep up.
But, if IE is not in the NT kernel, how does it manage to write outside of its assigned window on my Windows NT system? It shouldn't be able to do that.
Furthermore, the Rich Text control in Windows has a buffer overrun exploit that can run arbitrary code. Oops!
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
>You'd think these people were actively rooting
>for MS in the case, and get a stranglehold
> on the software world's air supply on the rebound
I don't find this surprising at all. CNN = Time/Warner = AOL, who doesn't want to find themselves up next on the Monopolist chopping block. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Sure, it has been pretty easy to get a large amount of momentum against M$ and Windows -- who hasn't watched win95/98 crash while screaming obscenities? How much more difficult will it be to bring public opinion against TimeWarner? I'm talking the non technical unwashed masses here, not those who understand the implications of an AOL dominated world where the Internet becomes the next Pay-Per-View, and the freedom of information is a distant memory...
the real question is: have we been ranting against the wrong force all this time? I'm much more concerned about TimeWarners/AOLs ability to control the flow of information than I ever was about M$'s shoddy products.
'course, maybe I'm all wrong, and AOL will turn out to be the best thing since DVDs, Region codes, and encryption being made illegal. *shrug*
Fight Spammers!
Finding someone who windows did not crash on is not impossible, just highly improbable.
Fight Spammers!
I live about 30 miles from Microsoft headquarters in Redmond. For the last hour there has been a noise coming from their direction. It kinda sounds like a whimpering dog...Gates? I'm sure he is happy, though, he got out of the spotlight by giving up his job now. Has that already taken place? (his he the software design psychic yet?) Does anyone know?
In concern to Microsoft tying products with Windows and if I were the judges ruling this case, I would enforce the obligation to Microsoft not to include anyfull version of their products but some more tiny and limited.
I see no objection to see Windows tied with Internet Explorer 2, a simple web browser with partial HTML3 support. Every Windows user would have access to Internet in order to download/buy the latest version of Netscape or IE.
In the case of technology and standards(Java, Kerberos...), I would oblige Microsoft not to create any derivated versions (ie "embrase and extend") and to buy the licenses/pay royalties (if any) to include a fully standard version without any incompatibilities with existing implementation.
The relationship with all the OEM should be fair. A same price, no special deduction if they include a Microsoft software instead of someone else and no OEM revocation if they don't follow Microsoft directives like installing a boot manager in the MBR to load alternative OS loaded beside Windows.
--- Bouh !!! ---
Microsoft has been options churning for several years. To keep up their share price they buy and sell their own options.
What's interesting is that the outstanding options will accelerate a negative trend if the stock drops below a certain value.
I understand that the Wall Street whisper number is that Microsoft becomes insolvent below a share price of 55.
What is not clear is how fast it would become insolvent. It might be quick.
Note that very large market forces will try to push the stock up or down depending on who owns what put or call options.
I have rarely seen anyone outside of geekdom and academia that had so much obvious bias against Microsoft than Judge Jackson. What I am (and many are) going to be disappointed about is the extremely slow process that will take place before any action is taken. It might be years before we see something along the lines of open sourced Windows or corporate breakup. Also the floodgates of civil suits will likely slow down MS, so don't expect that bug fix anytime soon.
So let's not go about the streets singing "Ding Dong the Witch it Dead" because vigilance from the Justice Dept. (when dealing witht the appeals) and from the companies MS has disenfranchised will be the key to victory.
Of course, it's a sad day for those brave souls who support the open source movement but actually work at MS for whatever reason. I can see the memo now... "The payroll buget is under review..."
Orpheus2000 - To Hell and Back, again!
Usually I'm a troll who writes stories about Perl Necklaces Vs. Python, and Jon Katz having gay sex with Cmdr. Taco, but today I'm a bit vexed and think I ought to point some rather important things out.
I'm a Linux developer and proponent and am not the world's greatest Microsoft fan. Then again, I'm not the world's greatest Microsoft critic either.
Microsoft did nothing to monopolize the browser market. They did what was the natural evolution of browsing, and information management/retrieval. They did exactly what the folks at KDE did. They merged the concept of file, shell, and web browser. It's quite admirable, actually, and hardly something worth making a major fuss over.
Netscape would have died a slow and ugly death anyway, with or without Microsoft's help. Let's face it, their browser sucks. It crashes way too much for an application that's supposed to be in the 4.X versions no matter what platform you use it on. I actually use IE for Solaris because it's more stable even though you basically have to install the entire damned Windows API with it. Netscape has also done nothing to help the web forge ahead in the technology front. And though Microsoft hasn't done much more, at least they're a major contributor to XML technologies which are absolutely the future of the web.
Regarding Java. Sun Microsystems has done more on its own in the past 2 years to destroy Java and its original promise than Microsoft could have ever accomplished, even if they had gone on unchecked. Sun's pulling out of ECMA, their constantly changing "Standards", and their forced-branding after the fact for J2EE to put a choke-hold on Application Server vendors is just as dirty a tactic as Microsoft has ever attempted.
To accuse Microsoft of monopolizing the browser market is like accusing the guys who wrote bash of monopolizing the shell market. It's everywhere, it's the default, and it's the best, BUT if you don't want to use it, you sure as hell don't have to. Microsoft didn't put hooks into the operating system to keep Netscape from operating properly. Netscape does a great job of crashing and misbehaving on its own.
Alright, to wrap up. Microsoft wants the freedom to innovate and we're seriously hurting their and everyone's freedom to innovate by supporting the judge's ruling. So stop the biased "Hoo-rahs" and take a look at the bigger picture here. People will be afraid to try new and exciting things because it may crush or obsolete the current standards or de-facto favorites, but then again people used to think taking a sharpened stick and rubbing it in between your teeth was a good way to clean them before the toothbrush was invented.
Microsoft's business practices aside, this is a VERY SAD DAY for software developers, whether they target Linux, Windows, Mac, or BeOS. We're opening ourselves up to having our competitors file lawsuits for putting them out of business just by doing what we think is the most natural thing to do... Do it better.
thank you.
Hah hah!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
They won't get appealled successfully, if that's what you're asking.
And since these new CofL were pretty much pre-ordained by the FofF, folks haven't been waiting--I think I've seen a figure of over 100 already filed.
However, these conclusions are what they'll use; they're the actual finding that MS is a monopolist.
MANY people lost money, a lot MORE people will lose money VERY soon. When people start receiving their first and second quarter mutual fund reports, fund managers are going to have to say due to a sell off in technology i.e. Microsoft and every other tech company, we lost 10% of your money this quarter. This translates to anger against the government. Why is the DOJ ripping Microsoft and my stock. Call representatives in Congress and ask what the hell they are doing about this situation. Not a pretty picture.
/Secretary of State/etc...)
You forget one thing: this was one day. A quarter is MUCH longer than one day. The 300-point drop can be expected to be temporary. Microsoft's stock is going to get hammered probably for the rest of this week, but then we will see it start to recover as the market hysteria dies down. In the meantime, I don't think it's at all unprobable that the stock from Microsoft's competitors is going to get a sizable boost. Still sucks if you've only invested in Microsoft, but frankly if you've pinned your entire portfolio into a simgle company, no matter what that company may be, you deserve a hammering. Even the most idiotic of investors knows better than to do that.
Also, you seem to get the idea that because Microsoft's stock nose-dived, all the other tech companies followed suit. Not true. Many stocks took a slight hit, but that may or may not be related to the case. The 300-point drop in the NASDAQ was due, mostly, to Microsoft alone.
Bad stock markets days like this make things VERY rough for Mr. Gore. Bush will be putting this on Gore for the rest of the campaign. You want an out of control DOJ that sues EVERY company (Smith & Wesson, the Tobacco industry, Microsoft, Glock) and puts your stocks in the toilet: Vote Al Gore. Not a very pleasant thought considering the majority of those who buy stock also vote.
So Gore has something to worry about. I wasn't planning on voting for him anyway.
Now, that we have thought about this rationally. Think about what would happen if Bill Gates said "Fine, if you don't want us to innovate then were going to shutdown Microsoft and return all value to the shareholders." Think about how many industries, businesses, individuals are affected by Microsoft financially both directly and indirectly. I would venture a guess that you would see a depression unlike any other since the 1930's. Believe it or not, a great deal of the expansion of the U.S. economy over the past 15 years can be attributed to Microsoft. Whether they did something bad or not doesn't change the fact that you, me, the businesses we work for, the schools we go to, and just about everything around us is effected by Microsoft.
One: That's just something M$ might say. Of course, it's a lie; they've never innovated anything at all. There is absolutely nothing they've ever done that someone else wasn't already doing. And usually better, at that.
Two: Your depression bit is little more than an alarmist scare tactic.
Three: Even if that bit is true, it only works against you. Should the entire U.S. economy really be so closely tied to one company? Think about that. A company which holds that much of a monopoly needs to be put into check. A DoJ ruling isn't the only thing that can cause a company to go sour, you know. It would be like the President dying with no system of succession in place (Vice President/Speaker of the House/Senate President pro tempore
And one final point. One which I'm sure people would find interesting. Look over the trial. You'll see a lot of things said. You'll see Microsoft claim that its software is innovative, competitive, and so forth. But you'll never once hear Microsoft claim that its software is the best. They knew exactly what they were doing: cramming mediocre software down people's throats, using dirty tricks to trip up competition, and so forth. At least, though, they didn't commit perjury by claiming superiority.
--
The Findings of Fact were very clear, and we have heard a lot about the potential lawsuits that would depend on quoting them. OTOH since a final ruling had not come down, those lawsuits couldn't yet be filed.
Will those lawsuits start to be filed with this decision? Or does that have to wait for final punishment?
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
According to WashP ost Msft is still going to build a web browser into the 'os' - (so thpppppt!! Take that you mean ol' judge) - whoppee. Clinton was impeached and still probably gets all the 'comfort girls' he wants in the office. You can't 'punish' a popular person, no matter what 'crimes' they committed, why that'd be a public outrage! Obviously the judge is at fault here, and Msft stock will eventually recover and soar on to new heights. Indeed, it may be a good time soon to buy msft stock!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I'm not particularly concerned whether Microsoft gets slapped on the wrist with a drinking straw or gets obliterated from the face of Corporate America. Either way, if I had my druthers, I'd make sure they honored refunds on their damn products.
Sometimes I *like* Microsoft products. I do! Windows is easier to use than Linux for a lot of things, even if I enjoy using Linux more. And I can't beat Excel yet. But I want to have the *choice* to use a Microsoft product, or an alternative, and not have to pay for the products I *don't* choose. If I buy a PC and it comes with Windows, and I want to use Linux on it, then Microsoft should have to send me a refund when I send them the product back, as their licensing agreement states they will. If only ONE thing comes out of the ruling, it should be this.
Finding God in a Dog
Alright everyone take a deep breath......that's good. Now lets all think about this rationally for a moment.
1. Microsoft will appeal the decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals, aCourt that has already overturned a Jackson decision (see the 1997 anti-trust suit by the DOJ). Chances are this will happen again and even if the DOJ decides to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, the Court has the right to put it back into the lower courts.
2. MANY people lost money, a lot MORE people will lose money VERY soon. When people start receiving their first and second quarter mutual fund reports, fund managers are going to have to say due to a sell off in technology i.e. Microsoft and every other tech company, we lost 10% of your money this quarter. This translates to anger against the government. Why is the DOJ ripping Microsoft and my stock. Call representatives in Congress and ask what the hell they are doing about this situation. Not a pretty picture.
3. Bad stock markets days like this make things VERY rough for Mr. Gore. Bush will be putting this on Gore for the rest of the campaign. You want an out of control DOJ that sues EVERY company (Smith & Wesson, the Tobacco industry, Microsoft, Glock) and puts your stocks in the toilet: Vote Al Gore. Not a very pleasant thought considering the majority of those who buy stock also vote.
Now, that we have thought about this rationally. Think about what would happen if Bill Gates said "Fine, if you don't want us to innovate then were going to shutdown Microsoft and return all value to the shareholders." Think about how many industries, businesses, individuals are affected by Microsoft financially both directly and indirectly. I would venture a guess that you would see a depression unlike any other since the 1930's. Believe it or not, a great deal of the expansion of the U.S. economy over the past 15 years can be attributed to Microsoft. Whether they did something bad or not doesn't change the fact that you, me, the businesses we work for, the schools we go to, and just about everything around us is effected by Microsoft. You want to run Linux, that's fine. I like running Windows 2000. You wanna use Netscape fine. I like running IE 5 - it has a tendency not to crash my system like Netscape. We both have a choice.
Let the market slug it out, its already making Windows obsolete anyway (anybody heard of Palm and little OSs running on cell phones).
CNN just came out with a "This just in" announcement, about 5:10 EDT.
In their report, they described the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as "a vestige of the 19th Century".
Earlier today, well before the announcement, they mentioned that MS stocks had dropped like a rock (clue enough, IMO, that everyone knows they are guilty as sin), but they still unashamedly reported that MS could still string out the appeals for years, and therefore "might still be able to dominate the internet software market". [Sorry, quoting from memory - probably not the exact words.]
You'd think these people were actively rooting for MS in the case, and get a stranglehold on the software world's air supply on the rebound.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yawn. Everything is as expected.
The most interesting thing will come in several months when the Judge will issue his ruling on the remedies (as in, shall we break Microsoft up?). That, of course, will be followed by years of appeals, etc.
So all people who are waiting for Microsoft to implode can exhale now and continue breathing for quite a while.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
'Twas 2000, and the FSF
Did hack and wibble in the wabe,
All caffeinated were the borogoves,
And the l33t hax0rs 0u7gr4b3.
"Beware the Microsoft, my son!
The bugs that glare, the clauses that grab!
Beware the browser integration, and shun
The frumious file.cab!"
He took his vorpal source in hand,
Long time the bogus foe he sought.
So rested he by the CVS tree
And stood a while in swap.
And as in grinding swap he stood,
The Microsoft, with bugs unnamed
Came crashing through the tulgey wood,
And GPF'd as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
His vorpal source went snicker-hack.
He left it blue-screened, and with its windows cleaned
He went gallumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Microsoft?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Callooh, callay! O frabjous day!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas 2000, and the FSF
Did wire and wibble in the wabe,
All caffeinated were the borogoves,
And the l33t hax0rs 0u7gr4b3.
I wrote this just now. I deserve a pat on the back. Thank you.
~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.
If Microsoft closed it's doors, I don't think we'd have another "great" depression. Just because they go away doesn't mean their software and all of their support people do. Companies would still run Windows for a while, and they'd still have support for it. (There are 250,000 MCSE's after all)
Very true. The world would not have a recession, but more likely it would be a minor correction, allowing third world countries to start using Open Source software and cheaper alternatives, given lesser barriers to entry.
The US might have a minor setback, but even MSFT is only a bit player in the total tech sector valuation based in US corporations.
Now, here's the ouch painful part:
Washington State might have a recession. Boeing is in a downturn, apple sales are off, and it's only MSFT and SBUX that keep us going.
Redmond would have a recession. This would be wonderful, as all the Californians would move back home and we could finally get rid of all those SUVs that clog our roads.
Seattle might have a recession, even though most Seattle businesses are more webcentric, and have little to do with MSFT. For example, Adobe (three blocks from my house, in the Center of the Universe (aka Fremont)) might lose a small fraction of its business.
Over all, this would be a good thing for the world.
Will in Seattle
I'm not so sure myself. This scares me. The whole tech industry has flourished (in the US) partly because no one government paid attention to us at all and pretty much let all problems be solved by technical means and by market forces. Now a great many people who don't understand the technology involved think they understand this industry well enough to meddle, this may bring increased regulation to all parts of the tech industry. Now I personally dislike Windows, alot, and prefer Linux so much more that my home machine spends less than 5 hours a month running windows, and then only for games. And I certianly won't defend some of their business practices that came to light during the trial, but I'll take a MS monopoly with all it's power, bad software and underhaned practices any day over bad laws written by myopic legislators, designed to fix a problem that will have corrected itself by the time the bill is signed into law. I prefer the monopoly because I can openly defy a monopoly by using or writing (if i ever become a talented enough programmer) free software and they can do nothing to me. If I openly defy a bad government I'll be arrested.
To make matters worse, once an industry becomes regulated someone has to do the regulating. Human beings are called upon, often underpaid, overworked civil servants are called upon to enforce laws written by legislators who need lots of money to get re-elected, who are subject to a little push or suggestion from those with money, and an agenda. You can bet that large companies in regulated industries have an agenda, and the money to help fund campaigns. So what happens? The regulations intended to protect the people from the big evil corporations end up being twisted into a tool used to maintain monopoly power. Now all of the sudden it is illegal to openly defy a powerful monopoly by using or writing free software (can you say DeCSS?)
Now I think we can all agree that MS should breakup, not be forcably broken apart by the justice dept, but completly on their own. If their applications and developement tools divisions wern't forced to not only limit themselves to windows, but to also tightly integrate with windows I think MS would be able to produce some very high quality software. The problems is they know that Windows (all flavors) cannot stand on their own as they are if it wern't for the massive application and tools support they enjoy. People put up with windows because they want/need to use Office, or play AOE. If MS spun off it's major divisions into say:
OS's
Applications/Games
Tools
Then I think the computing world would be a much better place. However this has to happen voluntarily or it won't work old loyalties will die hard and bitterness will be pervasive. No this is a change MS has to go through on it's own, before they fall down too far. Just remember folks once upon a time IBM was the Big Evil Corporation (tm) that was choking the life out of the computer industry, today we sing their praises as cool and hip for understanding and embracing our beloved Linux better and faster than any other established company. Remember things change, and usually for the better if those involved are left to sort them out on their own.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
"Nevertheless, both prudence and the deference this Court owes to pronouncements of its own Circuit oblige that it follow in the direction it is pointed until the trail falters."
The Judge then goes on to base his argument largely on Supreme Court precedents, leading me to suspect that Judge Jackson is anticipating a direct Supreme Court appeal under the Expediting Act. The ultimate disposition of case may well turn on whether the Supreme Court accepts the direct appeal.
There's no business like show business.
Seastead this.
Well, this is hardly unexpected. I mean, Microsoft couldn't settle, because they would have had to admit guilt and they would be liable for hundreds of suits from other companies.
so....
What does everyone think the long-term effects of this will be?
Will they be IBM, where so much of what they do becomes legal driven during the years of appeals we all know is coming? Will they lose all focus? Will they emerge later? (like IBM is now).
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
And the brethren went away edified.
I mean, I know most of the ./ community thinks so, but just look at what happened to stock today. MSFT dropped 15 points. That caused the NASDAQ to drop 300 some points. At that trend, the stock market is really going to suck.
I'm all for Microsoft being broken up and getting other OSes out there, but I think the adverse effects of the non-technical stockholders selling what they have could be a major problem.
Well, that ought to spark enough flame mail for the day. I'll have to be sure to check it regularly.
kc8apf
Assuming that MS loses all the appeals it makes, which would take quite a while to begin with, and Judge Jackson decides to go with the most extreme remediation -- breaking up the company -- will Microsoft really suffer?
If MS were to be split up into 3-5 different entities, each company would have more room for expansion and capital growth as its management would be less of a hassle. Breaking up MS might actually help each one of their major software products (BackOffice, IE, Office, etc.) and hardware to be more properly developed and marketed. As it is, MS has begun to operate like the mother of several smaller companies with separate marketing, development, and research departments. Even though Gates may not appear to be the official "king" of his empire anymore, the leaders of the new companies will most certainly have either the same aspirations, or they may simply be "pawns" as some of the readers suggested.
The MS empire will most likely not degrade under these circumstances, but be permitted to take over the other industries in the IT sector. The decentralization of Bell, for instance, never seemed to harm the actual company, but rather create more localized monopolies.
.sig: Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. - Bertrand Russell
Microsoft will survive this, but the big hammer they use on competitors will be taken away. Probably a good thing.
I go to school at the University of Texas and down here you can see one of the most corrupt software deals M$ ever made. Our school has signed on with M$ to sell all "major" M$ products ( I am talking about Office Frontpage NT etc....) for $5.00 a cd. To most people this looks like M$ is giving away all its major products to our students. This is not so, I found out that we pay for M$ products as part of our tuition!!! This is a corrupt deal if I have ever heard it. We were never told of or even asked if we wanted their products. Ladies and Gentlemen this is bullshit.
This is the kind of corrupt deal that makes me want to see M$ disapear. Yeah our school officials were definitely part of the deal but so was M$ for taking the money from the school for this licensing deal.
These kind of tactics are definitely against most legal principles I have ever heard of. This is a state instituion! run with public money!!
This is a very crafty scheme indeed. Not only does take the money without even truly selling the software but it hooks the students into this school into their software.
If M$ gave away the software I wouldn't be against it. Other companies do this and I believe its a fair practice, and so is giving very steep student discounts. I understand that getting students hooked into brands of software is importent. But this deal is rediculous and corrupt.
This is just what I personally have seen of M$, from what I have heard these deals get much worse.
I will be happy on the day that such business practices are punished. Even software developers need to be a little fearfull of trying unfairly to eliminate the competition and pulling people unwittingly into tricky deals.
We punish this practice on other businesses, why do people think that technology is seperate.
Personally I think that the people oppose the punishment of M$ sound like people who are trying to defend themselves because they fell for the tricks of this corrupt scheme. They went along and now have to justify why they were a sheep in Bill Gates' flock of morons.
Personally I hope they will wake up and think for themselves. This is much harder than going along with everybody else.
Cheers
TECH STOCKS BEEN HYPED AND OVERPOPULAR FOR QUITE SOME TIME!!! AS RESULT, STOCK MARKET RAPIDLY CLIMBING IN VALUE TO RIDICULOUS HEIGHTS!!! BUT OOG KNOW YOU CANT EXPECT CURRENT STATUS QUO OF PROPSERITY TO REMAIN CONSTANT!!! EVENTUALLY SOMETHING TRIGGER MASSIVE SELL OFF IN TECH STOCKS, WHICH SET OFF CHAIN THAT BRING STOCK MARKET DOWN!!!
OOG REMINDED OF EVENTS BEFORE GREAT DEPRESSION AND 1929 STOCK MARKET CRASH!!! BACK THEN, EXCESS MONEY PUMPED INTO STOCK MARKET THROUGH SPECULATION AND BUYING ON MARGIN!!! ECONOMY RISE, BUT ACHIEVE HOLLOW PROSPERITY WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP!!! WHEN SELLOFF OCCUR, BANKS NO ABLE TO GIVE CUSTOMERS MONEY AND MARKET CRASH!!!
THOUGH SITUATION NOT AS EXTREME AND GOVERNMENT MORE PREPARED FOR DEPRESSION, SHOULD NOT OVERLOOK POSSIBILITY!!! CURRENT MARKET BLOATED AND INFLATED BY TECH STOCK AND ECOMMERCE HYPE!!! AT SOME POINT STOCK MUST GO DOWN AND MARKET MUST DROP !!! HOPEFULLY INVESTORS WISE ENOUGH NOT TO SELL ALL AT ONCE, AND DOJ WISE ENOUGH TO SLOWLY RELEASE RESULTS TO LESSEN IMPACT!!! STILL, TECH STOCK MORE OF TREND THAN ANYTHING ELSE AND NEED BE BROUGHT DOWN EVENTUALLY!!! OOG JUST HOPE NO DEPRESSION OCCUR AS RESULT!!!
OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN!!! OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
Now enter the obligatory 5 years of appeals...
Seriously, does any legal-type know what happens now? If so, please share with us before we have to endure 400 "They're dead now!" posts from people who (like me) have little understanding of the next step.
I mean, how many appeals avenues are left? What exactly can they appeal, and what is set in stone? Is this ruling likely to have teeth, or is it only the first move in an endless and boring dance?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
(congress.nw.dc.us is hosting the freedom to innovate network? huh?!)
---
I don't remember this case being "rushed to trial" in fact it seemed to take forever for this case to get moving, let alone all of the delays M$ threw at the DOJ/State Attorny Generals.
In fact I read half of the Findings of Fact, I've still got to finish that 200 page document...damn good reading. I can't see given the findings of fact, how M$ can claim that the document didn't show they were a monopoly. I'm going to curl up with Judge Jacksons's Conclusions, and sit back and watch the appeals and the other lawsuits that are opened up due to this ruling. All I can say is "Burn Micro$oft, Burn!" You get what you deserved. Let's hope that the punishment is as stiff as Judge Jackson's Finding of Facts document was worded.
Heck even if Judge Jackson only slaps them on the wrist with something as minor as not being allowed to preannounce hardware/software, they'd be royally screwed. Think of it, who would want to buy something called an X-Box when they could have a Playstation 3? I'll take the Playstation, at least all of the games I've currently got for the Playstation 1 will work on the 3, but much better... :-)
"If you insist on using Windoze you're on your own."
How's this for a suitable pnuishment? Microsoft should be required, by law, to ship only bug free products. Think about it -- fixing all those bugs will require an enormous amount of work, and be very expensive; it's a suitably tough penalty. Further, this action will benefit Microsoft customers (who have been shafted for years by being forced by monopoly considerations to buy defective products). Plus, can you imagine Microsoft's appeal? What is Gates & company really going to say, "We demand the right to continue shipping defective products?" The specific details can be worked out (how much of a per bug fine will Microsoft have to pay, whether Microsoft can "sell" their current stock of existing products under a 100% revenue fine, etc). I sure wish I was a friend of the court right now. (Anyone from the Justice Department reading this?)
So here I was, at home with a cold, watching and cheering as I watched the CNN coverage of the findings of Law. Pretty good coverage I thought, I was happy they hadn't broken for a commercial yet.
So finally they broke to commercial. First ad:
NASDAQ -- you know, their series of ads saying "where do you find companies like this? Nasdaq, the stock market for the next hundred years" Their featured company: Microsoft
I'm not sure if my throat hurts more from the cold, from the cheering or from the laughter.
As long as this case is open, Microsoft has to behave, at least behave better than they would otherwise. Free software has been helped a lot by the fact that Microsoft couldn't squash it using all possible means because that would have hurt their case in the courts. The appeals mean that Microsoft has to be careful about their bullying. Whatever the final result is, Microsoft will not be the same. The IBM antitrust case is a good example here; IBM eventually won the court battle, but they lost a lot in the market.
I've skimmed the conclusions of law, and it's interesting to me that Judge Jackson's reasons for concluding that Microsoft violated the Sherman anti-trust act read like a list of what everyone thinks is wrong with the UCITA and the DeCSS case. For example:
"...Microsoft bound Internet Explorer to Windows with contractual and, later, technological shackles in order to ensure..."
Replace Microsoft's tying with the DVDCCA's attempts to control players, and you get the same situation. And for the same reason -- attempting to abuse monopoly power.
Or,
"...extent that Microsoft still asserts a copyright defense, relying upon federal copyright law as a justification for its various restrictions on OEMs..."
Of course, attempting to justify anything and everything by being protected under copyright is exactly what the UCITA is about.
Personally, I think Jackson's finding of fact shows a poor understanding of the situation -- yes, microsoft had a monopoly, but they faced a highly elastic long term demand, and couldn't reap outrageous profits. But, I think his conclusions of law will supply a lot of material for anyone who wants something to quote against UCITA or the DMCA.
--Kevin
We wait again for the remedies to issue.
We knew that microsoft had lost as soon as we read the findings of fact,
which were a determination of what happened.. This just draws the only
possible conclusion that could be reached from the facts: illegal
conduct.
The FofF can be appealed, but the grounds are essentiall "no reasonable
person could come to this conclusion from the evidence presented." This
is close to impossible, and can be disregarded. The CofL can be
appealed on the grounds that they're incorrect given the facts, but
there's only one possible conclusion, monopoly. Analogy: he laid
in wait, then tortured and killed the victim. The only possible
conclusion is murder with special circumstances.
Next come the remedies, which can be appealed; MS would merely need
to convince the appellate court that another remedy would be better.
However, the court will usually defer to the trial court's judgment
on such matters unless it's clearly on a limb, as the trial court
heard the evidence and has spent much more time on the matter than
the appellate court possibly can.
In short: very little room on appeal for MS, unless the judge
does something *really* wierd for remedies. Breakup will be
examined closely, but would likely stand. It is highly unlikely
that anything short of breakup would be overturned.
hawk,esq.
I'd like to make this comment a place for people to put their favourite comments from the ruling, so reply to it with your faves. Mine so far are:
and...
and especially...
Microsoft counterclaims that the DOJ is using a federal court to enforce state laws in conflict with Microsoft's federally guaranteed rights.
Judge Jackson responds...
Yeah! Accuse your presiding judge of being an instrument in the subversion of federal law. That will make him like you.I haven't read the findings yet (no-one has), but this is only the beginning.
First, the remedies will be announced. Then, the appeals start. Realistically, these will take years.
However, I understand that the findings can be used by the *many* class action suits. This will hurt MS badly. The real damage will be to their share price. Historically, a significant part of the remuneration to MS staff has been in stock options. In the past, this was a great deal. But if the share price starts to fall, they will find it very hard to hire and retain the best people. Unless this is very carefully managed, it could easily lead to a vicious circle.
It will be very interesting to see what MS does over the next few months to shore the share price up. I hope they don't do anything illegal in the process. That would be tragic.
I remember when the Findings of Fact came out, and Slashdot had a bunch of legal experts analyze it. Will they do the same for the Findings of Law?
www.eFax.com are spammers
(Older info is also available at the US v. Microsoft page at the the U.S. Department of Justice website)
--
The shareholder is always right.
(disclaimer, IANAL)
... after all, that's muscling vi and emacs out of the market). This one is very scary since it tends to suggest that the government might try to take a role in OS design.
After skimming over the decision, I have some ideas as to where the eventual penalty in this case might go.
There are a few major issues that the decision seems to rest upon: Microsoft's exclusive contracts with OEMs to which it used to muscle Netscape out of the market, its corruption of Java, the fact that it tied IE in with Windows, and its high prices.
Nowhere does it mention that they made Windows incompatible with another piece of software, or that they used hidden APIs in any of their products, which would be the biggest argument toward opening part or all of the Windows source code. Since neither of those is mentioned at all, or even alluded to, I believe that opening their APIs/source code isn't a likely penalty.
A large portion of the decision is dedicated to Microsoft tying products into Windows, so I'd expect strict rules as to what can and cannot be built into Windows in the future (watch, WindowsME will ship without Notepad
I don't know if anything in the decision really seems to point to Microsoft potentially being fined. I'd think that there probably will be a fine levied regardless, since it's such an easy thing to do. It looks like if anything is done regarding money, however, it might be that rebates will be offered to consumers, and future pricing on Microsoft products will be regulated. The "fines" will likely come in decisions in other lawsuits that will spring up now that Microsoft is officially an "evil monopoly".
The sections of the decision about Microsoft's business practices... it's exclusive contracts, and that it used its monopoly power to try to build a monopoly in a second market are very interesting indeed. There are definite shades in the decision that suggest the judge might be open to ruling that Microsoft be split in some form.
Up until today, I thought splitting Microsoft up was such a remote possibility based on what I've heard about the case so far, but after reading the decision, it seems like it might be a distinct possibility. Based on some of the wordings in the decision, a split would likely break Microsoft into seperate but equal, competiting companies, rather than along product lines. A break along product lines wouldn't solve most of the problems outlined in the decision.
Regardless, after the appeals are all through, what finally gets decided will be interesting to see.
NO CARRIER