Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Break-Up To Be Proposed?
lowLark writes: "The Seattle PI is reporting that the feds and most of the states have agreed to pursue breaking Microsoft into two companies." One company will be in charge of 'Bob' and the Mouse, the other will be everything else :)
There's a very good article in the Washington Post with lots of details. It also talks about the restrictions that will be placed on the Baby Bills - limits on bundling, uniform licensing, etc.
-David Ziegler
-dziegler@hotmail.com
-David Ziegler
-
I agree that Microsoft needs to be broken up, but will two seperate companies be enough to ensure competion?
-Dead Lesbian Witches! Think about it!
Non-sucky
- Barney
- cream-coloured optical wheelmouse
- Age of Empires
- most other microsoft hardware
- Word 2
Sucky
- "Nike" mouse
- anything that stops working unexpectedly
I think that covers it all.
-- Don't believe everything you read, hear or think
Despite the /. anti-Microsoft propaganda machine, the forced break up of Microsoft would be a bad thing for the computing industry as a whole, and harm consumers more than anyone else. Persoanlly I think this whole mess has gotten well out of hand, and it's now being used as an excuse for blaming Microsoft for everything from the Fall of Man onwards, which is blatently untrue.
The fact of the matter is, Microsoft practically single-handedly turned the PC from the haven of 31337 tech-savvy "gurus" to a domain where anyone could use a computer to browse the internet, write letters and play games. Whilst I know that /.ers seem to think that only they should be allowed to use PCs, Microsoft pushed the idea that everyone could benefit from a PC, and it worked, because people wanted that.
Face it, the only people who have anything against Microsoft are the very people that disdain to use it since it isn't based around a CLI. Breaking the company up will harm the average user, since a high level of integration means a greater ease of use. And for once, /. should stop and think about the average user rather than blindly following some dogmatic principle.
To force Microsoft to make new versions of Windows POSIX compliant and then to also make them only create POSIX compliant applications(ie Word, Visual Studio, minesweeper(lol), etc). If vendors were smart at this point they would only create applications that are also POSIX compliant, because they would be available to a larger group of users(windows, *nix, etc) as opposed to solely windows users. It seems a perfect solution to me, except the inevitable "microsoft flavor POSIX" that would surely follow. hehehe
Micro and Soft?
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
I mean uh here http://live.altavista.com/scripts/editorial.dll?ef i=932&ern=y&ei=1743700 .
I wonder why I can't get to work properly. I need to relearn html.
19 states and the american ministry of justice have a recomendet that microsoft should be devided into two seperate companies. This happens because of the result of the other MS case, microsoft has until 24. may 2000 to come up with some defence afainst the prosecutor recomendations. Microsoft still dont think they are doing anything wrong..
:o)
A little, kinda funny *note*
When the danish national radio news announced the that microsoft lost the first case. they repported, and i quote:" Microsoft has been commited guilty of breaking the unitedstates antimonopoly law, by using their position to spread their INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE, INTERNET EXPLORE.." i found that pretty funny
"Theres alotta savages in this town.."
It makes one wonder at the power of the federal government that it can easily whisk in and steal a child that has one lawyer, but can't punish a corporation that has seventy (or 100 or more).
-Omar
The only way to allow other companies to truly compete will be to break things like Word into a seperate company and Excel into another. Even the compiler divisions would need to be broken out by languages.
The only competitors to MS that are alive today are a result of the cash inflow from the tech stock get rich fast scheme which seems to be at the end of its rope. Now that these companies will have to compete and pay their employees from sales of products and not stocks most of them won't survive.
- Services (MSN, Hotmail, MSNBC)
- Internet Explorer (Surely this can't be part of the OS!
:) ) - Hardware
- Development software (VC++, VB)
- MSDN (Developer services, training)
- BackOffice (Server apps)
- Non 'Office' Software (Games, educational software)
All of those are key players in Microsoft's unified Juggernaught. Any two of them in combination provide all kinds of competitive advantages to MS.I don't see any simple way to divide the company in two to remove the monopoly power.
If I were MS, I'd be very quiet right now, with perhaps an occasional mention of how much competition MS faces from Linux, Apache, Oracle, AOL, Sun, etc.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
And the computer industry is one of those places where you can't stop working for even a few seconds without falling behind (or farther behind in microsoft's case). I'd think the actual break in progress that this is going to cause in microsoft's work, due to logistics, confusion, and morale issues, could be more harmful than intended.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!!
Sorry, I just think it's kinda funny that so many slashdotters claim to be libertarian and then turn around and expect the govt. to break up MS. Personally, I would rather see the market punish MS. Move from MS products to quality products. MS will either be forced to change to what the market wants (instead of what MS wants), or they will die out. Iron_Slinger -- Pain is just weakness leaving the body.
according to the wall street journal:
in French
in English
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite free!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
See the latest I, Cringely article at PBS online for why this is all irrelevant at this point (see towards the last half of the article). If you don't have your I, Cringely slashbox turned on, I'd say turn it on. The guy always has some interesting points, a better pundit than Dvorak.
-JD
I think it's great that Microsoft will fianlly be breaking up. This will give Netscape a chance to reclaim the browser market and maybe even open up a good competition of Operating Systems. This will definately help Linux and all the open source movement. :)
Daniel Bendorf
According to the article 'Microsoft faces an enemy worse than competitors: uncertainty.' - what utter bullshit. Everybody knows that Microsoft's future is not looking as rosy as it has, and that the fall of their share price is quite sensible - but not because of the anti-trust suit. People keep saying this verdict has come too late, but I'd say that's not because the browser war has already been lost, or that they've already secured their dominance, but simply because (finally) the market is getting to the position it should have got to years ago if Microsoft hadn't acted illegally - competing product - better products - are getting the publicity that they deserve. Linux is finally being recognised, and with various handheld devices all sporting other OSes, Microsoft's position is not looking good.
It's great that the investors are readjusting to a more sensible valuation of Microsoft in the current climate - it would be even nicer if they did it for the right reasons!
Breaking up Microsoft will not work.
Let me repeat again, it will not work.
The only thing that will come out of the breakup is streamlined business processes. They will still have the same communications link. Even though this worked for AT&T a while ago, this will hurt consumers.
Some people like CLI's, and others like their hands held by Artifical Intelligence. We should not force our beliefs onto others. Once we tell them the facts (truthfully, like the lack of applications for Linux; this is changing though) we should not interfere with their decision.
If they want Windows, let them. If they want Linux, don't torture them because they chose RedHat or something not as "elite as Debian."
This will be the only way we can attract more people away from Windows.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
... by this suggestion. Given that Microsoft has been found guilty of illegally leveraging their monopoly on the Bob and mouse markets, I see to reason to believe that the Bob and mouse "baby Bill" would act any differently.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
I've been reading articles that talk about how "great" Microsoft is for consumers but I can not dismiss my own experienece with their software. I have used all the major version of Windows (Except for Win2K). I've used MS Office on Windows and MacOS. I still can not get over the impression that MS produces software that is "just good enough"- not excellent. That's the mentality of much of the US today, don't strive for excellence just do something that meets the bare minimum of expectations and put some flashy graphics up to make it look interesting, but do not go out of your way to do something that is outstanding.
I am beginning to think that breaking up the company would actually be a good thing. It might bring a breath of fresh air into a world and an industry that desperately needs it. That's one of the major reasons that I am a big fan of Apple.. they are willing to take risks and try to introduce change in th their industry- and are willing to deal with the flack (ie. all the complaints about the iMac, G3, G4, MacOS X, etc).
And before you dismiss me as an overzealous MacMarine, I do acknowledge the things that I believe Microsoft has done correctly- one of the most recent things being the Optical Intellimouse Explorer (I bought one for my G3 at home and also for my PeeCee at work)- it's a fantastic piece of hardware. I wish that all MS products were as well engineered as that mouse.
I also get kind of frustrated at reading the comments made by people that are saying the DOJ is wrecking their retirement portfolio. Folks, investing is a gamble - there are no guarantees. If you invest heavily into a single stock, then you should be smart enough to realize what will happen if the stock drops in value. If you are not, then you should probably not be investing in the stock market at all- until you educate yourself a little more. The same goes for the businesses that build their livelyhood soley around a single customer base- like well-to-do Microsoft employees.... you should be aware that there may come a time when your customer base dwindles or changes significantly. You need to be able to deal with it... and not complain to the newspaper and act shocked when it does happen to you.
Ok, enough of my rambling.
Microsoft has not really been good for the computer industry, but your general thesis is right:
Breakup is bad. We'll just have lots of companies with monopolies.
What needs to happen is for MSFT to disclose APIs of all products, so they can actually be a commodity.
So, If I want to integrate my company's browser with their OS, I can... If I want to to use ext2fs, I can make a patch. If I want my word processor to be integrated with Office. Well.. you get the picture. There.. monopoly broken.
So to sum it up: Open the source... duh!
ICQ#2584116
-- d'arcy poirot
CNNfn is running a poll on whether MicroSoft should be Split.
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
My local ABC Radio affiliate was running this in the National hourly news update. I had no doubt that the DoJ would seek this.... but can we really hope for this to come to fruition?
woof!
Microsoft finally pulls off the release of a mostly decent product (W2K) and now they get broken up. I never thought I'd be saying this, but "poor Bill".
During the trial the judge was often visibly angry at MS due to falsified evidence and other lies. If anything this may be one of the biggest reasons almost all of the DOJ's case was found to be true.
Hasn't Slashdot milked this enough? How many "Microsoft-will-die" stories must be posted to satisfy the drooly/giggling anti Microsoft fanatics?
It's been stated already, this will go on to appeals and will probably not come to a conclusion in our lifetimes, get over it and report some real news already instead of playing the old podium game.
Realize also that any breakup of Microsoft will have very little impact on Linux. If a hardware vendor doesn't give a rat's ass about Linux, it certainly won't change it's mind like magic after any ruling.
So instead of having just one dirty handed, predatory, monopolizing business, we're going to have two! What a great solution!
The feds are going about this entirely the wrong way, they're thinking that software is somehow like oil, when infact it isn't anything like it.
The product has different properties which make breaking up the company ineffective.
1. It costs virtually nothing to copy data
2. Source between these two companies can be shared in such a way that they can basically keep operating as one company
3. The two companies would have different products (OS / Everything Else) and therefore don't have to compete against eachother unlike the oil and phone company breakups!
It's just a bad decision, I've said it from the start, and I'll say it 'till the end.
-- iCEBaLM
You realize, of course, that Microsoft 2.0 will have all the features of Microsoft 1.0, plus added functionality: MsEmailSafe (tm) will no longer allow damaging emails to leave Microsoft Exchange Server, and wind up on Open Source web pages. Exchange will lock up and spit blood instead, and the users will never notice, having become accustomed to this. MsPropaganda will be upgraded to 3.2.1, incorporating the latest kernal upgrades from the MPAA and the Public Confusion Algorithm (MSPCA), in particular. And Bill Gates will finally get a decent haircut.
Error 503:
Break up as proposed is good, but I think the initial rumours of 3 separate companies (OS, Applications, Internet) would be better. After all, what if they start integrating IE into Office? We don't want to go through another DoJ...
:)
The behaviour of Gates and Ballmer are not surprising. Gates has been defiant from start and very arrogant indeed. In fact, should he have accepted the initial measures before the trial, he could have avoided the whole anti-trust embarassment and gotten away with a minor hand slapping. Instead, he chose the path of defiance and he now reaps the consequences (I think he lost over 40b in the past few weeks and the #1 position on rich list, not to mention the bad PR M$ is getting).
He should have learned from Slobodan Milosevic not to fuck with Uncle Sam
My £0.02 ($0.035 approx).
No one seems to have pointed out that one of main things that gives Microsoft an edge over all of their competitors is that they have full and exclusive access to the Windows API. Breaking the company into two would mean that any information being tranferred between them is "on the market" and therefore available to anyone that's willing to pay for it. So next time they change the whole of the Windows OS in order to make Word work correctly (you'll notice that almost every system dll is replaced when you install Office) they have to tell everyone what they changed. No more undocumented API calls (in theory ;-)). Woohoo.
--- If something doesn't feel right, you're probably not feeling the right thing.
Unfortunately, the way this trial has been presented to the public, it's all about that "poor" Netscape thingie.
While Microsoft's arm-twisting conduct was (partially) exposed, IMHO the gov't said nothing about the most important aspect of Microsoft's monopoly - API (both hidden and open).
Does anybody remember the time when Win95 just came out? Almost everybody was using Lotus 1-2-3. But 1-2-3 couldn't handle that great "software innovation" of Win95 - long filenames! The next release came too late for 1-2-3.
IMNSHO splitting Microsoft in the sense of putting the Office developers on equal footing with the rest of the industry is The Good Thing.
By the way, CNNfn is conducting a poll today on whether Microsoft should be broken up. As of now, about 2/3 of the votes are against. *wink* *wink*
Breaking up MS into OS and apps doesn't destroy or even affect Windows, Office, or IE as products. It prevents the MS marketing dept from misusing their monopoly position. You may think differently, but there is very little benefit gained by the integration of apps with the OS. In fact, I see very little integration at all, aside from default file associations, and the fact that MS Office just uses the Windows OS better than competitors, who don't have the same information. IE has been used to enhance the desktop and file manager, but those enhancements could be done independently of the browser.
Remember that Bill Gates didn't write DOS, he bought it. He didn't invent the interface, he copied it. He didn't invent any applications, he just copied and improved competing applications. If MS never existed, we'd be still have PC's, good apps, good OS's. We will never know what things would be like if MS hadn't been around. I won't say things would be better or worse, because I don't know. What I do know is that things would definitely be better if MS had never broken the law.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
the same thing as M$ does today. If M$ is so bad, just make another company just like them. Watch M$1 try to kill M$2 by changing file formats all the time! Watch M$2 try to kill M$1 by making IE incompatible with windows! watch them both die!
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Think of what it has been like for the past 10 years: "hey, I've got an idea for a product... nah, if it made any headway at all, Microsoft would just crush it." Like they did with everything else:
Those who've come to the industry recently forget that Apple and the Mac pioneered ease of use for the masses (having borrowed the ideas from PARC), only to have the credit stolen, along with, quite literally, technology.
But now...
Now, this is a propitious moment, because the open and free software movement waits in the wings, along with the (now well underway) digital convergence/network everywhere/handheld revolution. Because, make no mistake, these things are unrelated. Microsoft was a monopoly before the internet and despite Linux and BSD (and some tools from an outfit calling itself gnu). The breakup of the Microsoft monopoly is the right thing to do on the basis of Microsoft's history, without regard to competition that they currently or in the future will face.
The huge windfall for consumers would have come about whenever the breakup occurred, but it would have taken some time. But having the alternatives offered by "Linux" (heck, too tiring to list'em all again) and the internet and all the new chips at this moment... It is just so cool, so glorious, so... yeesh! I gotta go get to work on the future
Happy day, /.ers!!
Gates and Ballmer will have that division. :-)
I think that the breakup of Microsoft will be good for them. You would have a hard time convincing me that departments within Microsoft don't use the Windows api for personal gain. Exposing the complete api would probably keep this from happening internally, and the apps that people make for Windows would be better and more stable.
I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft doesen't realize this. However, I was about 5 years old when I realized that it was not a good idea to tell my parents that whatever punishment they had for me didn't bother me. So, Microsoft will play up what a horrible thing the breakup will be, and get free publicity and public sympathy in the process, while laughing all the way to the bank! Not only that, it means they can split there stock again without approval from the SEC.
love is just extroverted narcissism
> Perhaps a third for services (MSN etc), but I don't think that is neccesary, since that leg is standalone anyhow. Same goes for hardware.
There is no need to cripple MS, just to take away the "unfair" advantage. Once you have a real choice about what applications to put on a preinstalled PC it is no longer possible to pull an "internet explorer"
All opinions are my own - until criticized
They are not going to weaken their stand in any way, because any sign of hesitation or capitulation will be translated as admitting guilt. If you were Microsoft, you are NOT going to admit you're guilty, even if you know you are. Basically, they are taking the "never surrender/go down fighting" mentality, and they should.
Let me put it this way, if they allow for a hint that they might have done "a little wrong", then people will jump up and down and say "see? you even admit it yourself that you did the wrong thing". If Microsoft show any sign of weakness, it will be devoured quickly into oblivion.
1) Microsoft did not turn the PC from its haven of the techy into the realm of the user. That title went to the Mac, good _marketing_ gave the PC its edge as well as the massive failure of IBM to spot its power.
2) The rise of the PC and of Microsoft is of the same sort of community that is contained in
Now onto the rest. Microsoft _has_ done a good job in promoting and extending the PC. The problem is that it has done this _at the expense_ of the consumer on many occasions. Few would argue that MS-DOS was better than DR-DOS, yet strangely DR-DOS died. This was a result of MS pushing out the opposition by using their dominante position.
Microsoft have succeeded by realising two things
1) Quality doesn't matter, being first matters
2) Marketing can over come most evils.
Using these two commandments they have created the PC market place. However when competition loomed they used their command of the market to crush the competition, not in the interests of the consumer or because their product was "better", soley because they have the first hook that every user sees. This is bad.
The internet, windows, the web, the mouse and all the other things that make the world a better place for the average user were not invented or even best implemented by MS. They were best marketed by them and opposition removed by other means.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I know it's a joke, but those two do NOT belong together.
Bob was a flop, but some of Microsoft's mice are great. My trusty Logitech Cordless finally died after two years (thumb button stopped working), I replaced it with an Intellimouse Explorer - It's an excellent product, one of the few that MS has.
While some people don't seem to like the mousewheel, I love it. Microsoft claims to be an innovator, the only case where they're telling the truth is the mousewheel. (Correct me if I'm wrong and someone did the mousewheel before MS...)
As to the rest of the groupings, I don't know. But IMHO the hardware division should be seperated. Not because they give/receive an unfair advantage, but because whatever "Baby Bill" it's stuck with, it'll be dragged down. I hope MS decides to sping it off for similar reasons to Lucent getting spun off by AT&T and Palm Computing getting spun off into a seperate company from 3Com.
Note: Don't buy any MS Cordless mice. Logitech's been doing cordless for much longer, and from what I've heard of the MS Cordless mouse's battery life, it REALLY shows. I replaced my batteries every 6 months or so, I know someone who replaces their MS Cordless batteries every 3-4 weeks or less.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The joint state-federal plan calls for breaking Microsoft roughly in half. One-half would be the operating-system company; the other would hold everything else, including Microsoft's applications software, such as the word-processing program Word and the spreadsheet program Excel, and the Internet properties.
I have a feeling that Gates has known for a while that Windows was doomed--this is not a troll--I honestly believe Windows is beyond saving. Rather than completely dropping support for Windows he gets to have it artificially amputated instead.
So Microsoft can appeal the decision as long as Windows is still profitable, then "give up" when it turns into dead weight. The dying operating system that they no longer want to support becomes someone elses problem automatically. Gates can just shrug and say "Hey, it's not our fault the DOJ broke us up. It's a shame to see the operating system I created die at their hands."
As for now, his "go ahead and break us up, I dare you" attitude doesn't suprise me one bit.
numb
Over the years, Microsoft has produced a lot of great software and given us many innovations such as windows, mice and trashcans on our desktops. I maintain that they are a great company and that Bill Gates is one of the greatest and most innovative talents of out time. I firmly believe that Microsoft will continue to create great products for many years to come.
Guide to M$ English:
great: mediocre / terrible
innovate: buy/steal from other companies
HH
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
She's just dressing, goodbye windows, tired starlings.
I agree. Raid the living daylights out of MS rather than announce the breakup. This way you take all of their hard drives and so on... and search them for secret corporate memo's that probably say something like "After we're broken up, the secret API will be _____ and it wont be secret anymore, we just wont comment the code and we'll make it incredibly difficult to understand. To facilitate the software half of the company, there will be a commented and documented version at this FTP site: FTP://blahblahblah" I'd be willing to eat a windows CD with my dinner if they aren't doing something underhanded like that. To let them get away with it would be worse than not breaking up the company in the first place. The problem is, will the proposed breakup do as much good as could be done? I don't think so. I think we need 5 companies. ServerOS Microsoft ConsumerOS Microsoft DesktopSoftware Microsoft Internet/Network Microsoft (MSN, hotmail and other network products as well as Internet Exploiter) Hardware Microsoft (keyboards, joysticks, mice, USB products.... maybe they could take a good chunk of MS's money with em and move into the printer market and desktop as well, heck, maybe even mobo chipsets? Maybe then we'd get better printer drivers... then again, maybe not.) Microsoft's cash reserve would be split more or less, with hardware getting maybe a double share to allow it to become more competitive. The only problem I see with this: companies buying "All Microsoft systems" and service/support groups supporting all microsoft products but not others.... allowing MS certified IT monkeys to re-monopolize microsoft. I feel that if we break MS up in this method, competitors will be able to take on individual baby bills, just like AMD is challenging intel's processor market, and VIA challenging the chipset market. Anyway you look at it, more baby bills= more competition= fairer market= better prices and products. Besides, we'd get more baby bill's to make fun of.
But then ms came from nowhere and inialated them. No one had to use windows. It was the best and most available at the time.
Nothing came up to challenge it sufficently. Okay OS2, MAC OS, but MS always came back ?
All the kiddies on this site seem to forget this. Remember the apple2 ? Remember the BBC micro, hell even the ZX spectrum where a lot of computing gurus grew up.
But if apple had dominated, we would be in a much worse position now, what with it's proprietary hardware and software etc...
No linux then my friends !
Equally if IBM had pursued the copyig of it's BIOS by other companies (notably compaq who reverse engineered it) then again we would have another unfriendly giant to content with.
Never forget what microsoft has done for the industry, but the fact remains they got WELL out of control.
They should be broken up, into different division and FORCED to release their APIs to the OS, and also make sure that the other baby bills did not get early access to them.
Consider this also, if everyone was using different apps, operating systems etc. how would they all transfer files without being messy ? Yes HTML, PDFs etc...
Another law should be passed to provide a common file format for all applications (one for word apps, another for spreadsheets...etc..). This would solve a lot of compatability issues.
I really don't like MS, and use linux a lot at home because it I can do more easily, but it has to be said, MS did certainy help make PCs avaiable to the masses.
Just think for a minute what would have happened if the corporate giants at the time would have had there way.
Aso think Bill was once a geek, but he really MADE it and fair play to him.
Alanp
The fair solution would be split the company as so:
Microsoft Operating System: This company produces the operating system and that is all. No microsoft software would be allowed to integrated into the OS.
No OEM would be forced to sell the OS with any microsoft software installed.
The clever bit is the OS company would be forced to sell the OS unrestricted at the same price to anyone and also make publically availlable all API's and source code.
Thus Redmond Windows would have to compete with Redhat Windows et al
Microsoft Hardware: The intellimouse, barney, Bobvodoo dolls etc who cares what happens here they'll probably go away and invent the Microsft toaster(and call it the video toaster no doubt or surf board to put on your pee-cee (hmm A**** used that idea before as cover, but I won't mention their name because of the curse)
Microsoft Applications: Office, Encarta etc. Office is the only worry here make them release details of all file formats prior to the release of them publically in any new office product and make them publically available on the web. Office can get as bloated as it likes but if you've still got compatability who cares
Microsoft Server: BackOffice, Advance Server and all the other so called server stuff. Liet it die a slow death, bah Apache's got bigger market share now even against the Billopoly.
Microsoft Programming: Visual Studio will no longer require you to install explorer or any other Microsloth software aprat from ofcourse requiring the core OS. All source code will be released and all future releases to be GPL.
What about the division of MS that puts their name on the mice, keyboards, joysticks and whatever other hardware MS is making? Granted it's not a monopoly like the software biz, but look at the desktops around you and see how many MS mice there are. Not that MS makes bad mice or anything. The wheelie thing is the next best thing to the mouse itself. Sure there's Logitech and Kensington, and other cheapie mouse makers out there, but how many computer makers bundle those with their computer systems?
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
"Microsoft has delivered tremendous benefit to consumers as an integrated company," Murray said. "And there is virtually no information in this case to support these radical steps."
"Even though you found me with the bloody knife standing over the dead body, with me covered in blood" Says the defendant. "I still don't see why I'm on trial here."
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Microsoft throws the word 'Innovation' around like they invented it. I don't think they really know what the word means. Does somebody want to send them a copy of the Webster's dictionary?
The opinion of DOJ is irrelevant. What matters is the opinion of the judge. Strangely enough (at least on the surface) they have managed to piss him off, too with their faked video evidence and snotty behavior. I'm surprised he hasn't fined them for being in contempt of the court.
Given that judge Jackson is already familiar with judging Microsoft, and that one of his decisions - namely the infamous "consent ruling" - was overthrown in the appeals court, one has to wonder whether their strategy is deliberate.
If Microsoft were to manage to get Judge Jackson enough, it might prompt him to give out an extremely unfavorable, which in turn would a better chance of being revoked through the appeals process.
Of course, this conspiracy theory of mine might give too much credit to those criminals.. after all, one shouldn't explain with malice what can be explained with ignorance (or incompetence).
I don't think there's a meaningful way to simply "divide" the company. I think if they want to do it right, they have to DISMANTLE the company. Like so:
- Marketing in one company, engineering in another. Each half must independently regrow the other half and thus cannot simply repackage the same old crap with brand new FUD and claim it as 'innovative', MS Engineering will have to EARN its respect and I can't imagine many engineers wanting to work for MS Marketing.
- Hold a public auction to sell off each and every one of Microsoft's products. The only stipulation is that no company gets more than one product. I can see logistical problems trying to make sure there's no collusion or secretly connected "subsidiaries" involved trying to accumulate a whole other Microsoft, but this WOULD END THE MONOPOLY. The two Microsoft companies described above would be allowed to bid, but each gets only one product. (Plus it would flush out the back catalog of stuff MS just sits on; anything not purchased goes GPL, which means freeware ROMs for lots of emulators and fully commented source code for old goodies like EDTASM.)
This won't happen, because I can't imagine the DOJ having the cojones to attempt such a radical solution. I figure they'd be afraid MS would win the appeal. But even THAT might not be so bad. Ponder this sentence:
The Microsoft of 1995 would never have allowed Linux to get where it is today.
In other words, Microsoft behaves itself when it's under the spotlight. Simply keeping the light in the giant's eyes for a few years has been enough to allow alternative OSes to capture the MAINSTREAM's eye for probably the first time since the late 1980s. If Microsoft appeals, it's likely that the spotlight could remain on them for years to come - hopefully long enough that their 90% market share in multiple markets will erode to something more surmountable, that well-equipped competitors can climb.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
Believe me it is probably better for the whole industry if Microsoft stays as one company. If MS is broken up, then it will provide them with the flexibility they need and a chance for the office suit department to go after markets it wouln't have with Windows shackled to its feet. With Linux taking on a greater role, it would be only a matter of time before MS shoots itself in the foot with its closed technology solutions.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
--
What good will that do?
As of this writing, there are 2419 responses, and the results are:
Yes: 28.48%
No: 67.96%
Yes: 68.06%
No: 18.12%
Yes: 29.94%
No: 63.67%
I think though that the poll is a little bit pre-fabricated (incidentally or intentionally) for a certain outcome. If you look at the answer buttons on the poll page, you'll see that the answers (Yes, No and Not Sure) are ordered differently on the different questions. It just happens that if you always choose the first answer, it will be "No", "Yes" and "No", indeed a very Microsoft-supportive poll answer.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
What happens 5 or 10 years down the road? I realize in the computer world this is an eternity, and lots can change in that time interval. AT&T was broken up by the gov't, and lately we've been seeing a good many of the baby bells merging together to form bigger baby bells that provide services over large regions. It seems reasonable to project that the same thing will probably happen in the future with the mini-MS companies that form from this breakup. MS will metastasize and spread out over the computer landscape and continue to swallow up smaller companies while it competes with it's former self and other companies. The cycle will begin all over again.
Then again, the resulting mini-MS companies may disappear to be replaced with another.
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
I am as much of a non-Microsoft fan as the next guy, however, I don't believe a break up at this point would make sense. The court case the decision has stemmed out of is irrelevant now. Technology changes too fast. I mean even Apple is making a comeback. The break up really won't accomplish anything.
Salsa Shark. We're gonna need a bigger boat.
I think the real problem is breaking up microsoft is not that they don't deserve to be punished, but think about the ramificaions of the precedent it would set. What about other companies that decide to package their operating system with "integrated" software packages. I think giving the os browser capabilities was a step in the right direction, but it was their business practices that were flawed and the punishment should be dealt accordingly.
Forcing them to release api might be a good idea but forcing them to release source code is ridiculous and wouldn't slve anything. I am just as much an advocate for free open source software as the next guy. But only because i beleive it produces *better* products than closed sourced companies do
that's my 2 cents.
Again, I see a LOT of comments about "great, now we'll have a streamlined monopoly". Most of these arguments depend on an assumption of collusion between the Baby Bills. But I see no reasoning to back up this assumption.
Can ANYONE give me ANY reason why (and how) the Baby Bills could cooperate to continue the MS Monopoly into a Baby Bill Cartel?
Inconvenient facts you'll have to explain away:
1) As soon as Office is free of Windows, Linux will be a MAJOR draw for a porting effort.
2) As soon as the OS company doesn't need to keep the hidden APIs/changing features to force software adoption, all of these resource-hogging, stability-threatening items can go away--making other (standards compliant) software work a lot better.
3) The Feds will be looking over everyone's shoulder.
Remember, it's not enough to just say "MS is evil, therefore the Baby Bills will collude."
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Why don't they want to split it up into several vertical lines: NT+development tools, 98+Office+EI, CE+extra's?
Though this would certainly endanger Windows 2000 development, it might just benefit a bit of ``company-internal'' competition...
Thoughts, anyone?
I dissagree. Breaking up MS would be a Good Thing(tm) if done properly. I am very afraid that too few people know this and that it will not be implemented. If not implemented then you are completely right, we will have two big bad Microsofts.
The key lies in the restrictions placed upon the baby Bills. They want to tightly integrate applications into the OS. Fine let them. But this means that the OS company has to make the OS specs avalible to the Applications company. What must be prohibited is the OS company making an exclusive aggreement with the Applications company for the OS specs. The OS company must be forced to release the OS specs to anyone that wants them. This is what will foster compition! Imagine wine that actually works..... :-)
Jack Neely
This is just a threat. Every negotiation starts with an outrageous demand. This allows the DOJ to back off slightly to a more reasonable solution, while allowing MS to feel that they have dodged a bullet.
Watch for a MS counter that is a little bit more resonable than their usual "slap on the wrist" offers.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
The power of the invisible hand is mighty indeed, but it couldn't have stopped Al Capone from controlling Chicago. Market forces only work when there is a free market. Microsoft has done everything possible to prevent fair competition. They didn't use clubs, but the principle is the same. They're not being punished for their success, they're being punished for their illegal actions.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
If anything this may be one of the biggest reasons almost all of the DOJ's case was found to be true.
That is incorrect. The only reason almost all of the DOJ case was found to be true was because there was overwhelming evidence proving beyond even an unreasonable (much less reasonable) doubt that Microsoft was guilty of the crimes they were accused of. The judge's anger at Microsoft's blatent dishonesty, arrogance, and lack of respect for the legal system probably didn't even significantly effect his choice of verbiage. It certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with the verdict and findings of fact themselves.
Sounds a bit reactionary, let's give the idea a minute to sink in.
1. It costs virtually nothing to copy data
Yeah, so what? It also costs nothing to copy data between Lotus and Microsoft. They don't exactly have a Cartel going.
2. Source between these two companies can be shared in such a way that they can basically keep operating as one company
This is why they need to be two companies. The Fed can dictate the terms of the break-up, and include a clause about conspiratorial practices. I expect that the terms of break-up will REQUIRE that communication between these two SEPARATE companies be conducted on open channels, via published APIs and public company press releases. Again, M$ and Lotus style. The Fed can not exert this kind of control on separate departments of one company, but they can on separate companies.
3. The two companies would have different products (OS / Everything Else) and therefore don't have to compete against eachother unlike the oil and phone company breakups!
The purpose of a company is to make money. The more money the better - since a company must show profit to it's stake-holders.
An applications company will necessarily develop for all platforms, since it will not care about the success of a particular one. Office for Mac and Linux is right around the corner. An applications company will seek to maximize profits by making it's product available on all possible platforms.
An operating systems company will seek to support as many different applications as it possibly can, to make its product OS(es) as desirable to customers as possible. It will be in the best interest of such a company to make the OS easy to code for, and to make the API available to all application developers.
If an applications company and an OS company share information 'under the table', they will be guilty of conspiracy to form a monopoly - this problem has been solved before - they are just like oil afterall.
In the case of Standard Oil, SO consipired with rail shipping companies to give preferential treatment to SO's business, and to squeeze other competitors out of the market.
If MS-Apps were to play footsie with MS-OS, they would get slapped with Sherman Act faster than you can say MONOPOLY. Besides this, they would be more PROFITABLE without conspiring. That is what business is all about, profits, not control of the market. The two often go hand in hand, but with the Fed's fingers in your pie, it's just not doable.
The point of the break-up is not to force MS-OS and MS-Apps to compete against each other. The point is to make it un-profitable for the two product lines to bolster each other's success in the market place. The point is to make all apps compete for all platforms, with no one specific combination of the two (MS-OS and MS-Apps, for example) profitting a single company.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Last I checked the Apple released the Mac in 1984, Years ahead of windows 3.0 ( the first usable version). The Lisa a year or two before that. And guess what, your lord and savior bill gates had nothing to with that. Artsy types at the college library were using macs to do word processing and graphics in 1985-86. I'm not a huge mac fan either but, this crap that MS brought GUI to the masses is just not true. Oh yeah, Macs also had the first build in networking was well. Point is The computer industry was rolling along quite well with MS as part Player. Name me great Innovations MS brought to computing?? We know they were'nt the first in the Gui dept. What about Browsers, no not there, Network OS (Novell was doing that in the 80's), Development tools ( a bastardized version of C++, and Visual basic everywhere....... NOT), ahh Ahh. There's nothing, they've built their empire from defato standards, and squashing anyone they deemed a threat. When you break the law, and continually do it, after a couple of warnings, you get nailed. They have no one to blame but themselves....
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
If Microsoft is broken up into some form of components that include OS division/Apps (read: Office) division, it is possible that nothing much would change. Your right: the two (theoretical) companies would not compete directly with each other. However, I believe that assuming a clean break-up (i.e., no back-door dealing between the two allowed), things would change for the better.
If Microsoft Apps is suddenly it's own company, free to do with it's products what it wants, what would be their first new product? That's right, Office for Linux. I'm guessing there are a lot of companies out there looking at various Linux distro's as a desktop replacement, and Office compatibility is one major hurdle. StarOffice and Corel Office each have a lot of good things going for them, but in my experience the Office compatibility isn't ready for prime time yet. Bringing Office to Linux would be a very attractive prospect for both businesses as Microsoft Apps.
Assuming a large number of companies do move to Linux on their employee's desktops, we could then expect to see a move to Linux in the homes as well. After all, if Joe User uses Linux 8 hours a day at work, he's probably going to want to have what he's used to at home as well. Maybe he notices that Linux doesn't crash as much as Windows, and let's him (finally) have 10 apps open at the same time. Also, perhaps by this time, we are starting to see more games for Linux as well. Granted, this wouldn't happen over night, but it's not unprecedented. The explosion of home computing can be at least partially credited to the explosion of business computing.
So, now we have Microsoft OS, losing a big foothold in the business world, and starting to see sales slip to home users. What do they need to do to stay competitive? Give the customer what they want: stability, security, a more robust operating environment, etc. Even if they wouldn't open source Windows, they would at least be forced to make a better Windows, or see their sales decline.
The end result? Competition. Competition between Microsoft OS and the various Linux distributors, and perhaps other OS's we haven't considered; competition between Office, StarOffice, and Corel Office; competition between makers of other types of applications, to see who can best support their now Linux-savvy userbase. And that's what this whole mess is all about: competition, or Microsoft's lack thereof.
I have a problem with any breakup that groups IE with MS apps. Straight text is a dinosaur document format suitable for log files and such but not much more. Any OS in the future should provide the means for a program to easily incorporate HTML/etc. (any format written to a open standard should be OS provided) display. I think the breakup is formatted along lines that pander to one particular party-- Netscape. Sure MS deserves sanction and I agree with breaking out the app division from OS, but I think IE deservedly belongs with the OS.
Well let's see...
It would be VERY BAD for customer confidence if the Monolithic Microsoft decided to port it's applications (MSO is a cash-cow after all) to another, competing OS - especially a free one.
What sort of message would that send to customers? "Microsoft has no confidence in it's OS".
But if the Big Bad Fed huffs and puffs and blows Microsoft apart, then the MS-Apps can happily port to Linux, and be justified in doing so, in the name of competition ( or Innovation(tm) ). Subsequently MS-OS can 'partner' with other applications companies, (under NDA of course) and glean what it is that they do better than MS-Apps; after all, MS-OS is just trying to do what's best for the customer ( Innovation2k(tm) ).
This 'break-up' might be good for Microsoft. On the App side they would 'embrace and extend' Linux. Yes, it's open source, but if you NEED some key daemon (closed source of course) to run that hot new version of Office... Well, all but the purists and the zealots would oppose, and they don't run MS-Products(tm) as it is.
On the OS side, poor, battered MS-OS could 'take a peek' into how MS-Apps competitors do things (in an effort to help them compete, of course). And while communicaton between MS-OS and MS-Apps would be Federally monitored, the board members of these companies would regularly play golf together. What's more, developers at either company (OS or Apps) could easily 'job-hop' across the street, with their lap-top PCs, every couple of months. I wonder how well this developer migration would coincide with each companies release cycles.. Hmmm.
Back, and to the left. Back!... And to the left!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I read (in real paper) this front page story in the Post. Here are a few of my thoughts:
Interestingly, the attorney representing Florida wanted to break MS into three competetive companies instead of two (preferred by almost all other states) or leaving MS as one (preferred by only Ohio). I thought his point was very strong: What will happen to MSN, MSNBC, etc...? Are they operating systems or office suites?
There was no mention of interim conditions, but I imagine there must be some. Otherwise, MS could tie things up in appeal for half a decade making the whole point moot. This is, after all, what happened with DR DOS.
A couple other thoughts: Apparently some of the state attorneys feel "slapped" by the microsoft response. MS reports to employees and shareholders that a breakup will never occur.
The proposal to split the company would require Gates and other top execs to choose either the OS or the app company to put their stock in. That I hadn't heard before. Common shareholders get stock in both.
But as far as I could tell, all this must be regarded with a grain of salt. The article was littered with journalistic reservation. "Sources close to the matter say..." and "people who have seen the proposal indicate..." The whole thing was written as if the journalist from the post really had no first hand information. Pretty queer for a front page story in a supposedly first rate rag.
The best mouse that I've ever bought was a Logitech "Gaming Mouse". It's weighted and shaped differently, but it practically hovers across the mouse pad, and the buttons are so sensitive they're practically thought-operated. Highly recommended, even if you aren't a gamer.
Of course, the reason that I bought a new mouse was because my cheap Logitech 3-button developed an annoying jumpiness after only three months and became unusable in the X direction. The $15 boring-shaped 3-button mouse is NOT recommended.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Instead of breaking M$ up into little "baby-Microsofts" why don't they just require full disclosure of any and all APIs, file formats, and streaming media protocols for the next 10 years or so? I don't really care if they continue to produce their masterpieces of "innovation" (ahem) so long as they can't pull any of the proprietary tactics proposed in the Halloween Document.
Send Bully Bill, and Butthead Ballmer to jail, do not pass go. Let's face it, there's a certain amount of resolve already - you can now buy a PC without Windows, it's become a discussion point that Microsoft software is at it's highest price ever (check the cost of Office 2000, Win2000 if you don't believe me) while all other vendors are dropping their prices. The smartest thing is to remove the US government requirement for M$ as the standard platform, and *then* let the market decide.
It's not the best solution, but it's better than nothing.
This is patently untrue. Apple and Amiga pioneered better UIs than Windows did. The only reason M$ came out on top is because they rode the IBM wave in the early 80's. If IBM had backed Apple's vision rather than seeing them as a competitor, we'd all be using Macs right now instead.
Still, I agree that break-up is not the best idea. I'm not saying it's bad, though. Creating an OS monopoly and a business app monopoly is no different than keeping the existing OS-and-business-app monopoly! If the DOJ really wants to encourage competition the best solution (IMO) would be forcing M$ to publish their file format standards and complete system documentation for the next 10 years. This would have two effects:
This is what hinders real competition. What do you think?
Constitutionally Correct
If you'll notice, the first answer for each question is positive towards Microsoft. Example:
Should Microsoft be split?
o) No
o) Yes
o) Not sure
Is Microsoft stock a "buy"?
o) Yes
o) No
o) Not sure
This is pretty much leading the respondant into the anwers, a nice way of screwing up the results (read: Getting the answers you really want).
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
From an article in the Washington post this morning, the Florida attorney general was cited as thinking that two companies is not enough. He thinks three is necessary.
The point is about about MSN, WebTV, MSNBC, etc... Are these going to be operating systems or software? It seems the company that gets these (and cable TV and AT&T shares...) will still have the ability and motivation to abuse its power.
Interestingly, all other states agreed that two would be enough. Florida was alone in dissent (well, Ohio didn't support any kind of breakup.)
In a move seen as a major concession to the legal forces arrayed against him, Bill Gates has agreed to release the industry's balls today. He has had a two-handed grip for a period many believe to be in excess of five years.
"The people out there who appreciate innovation have long understood Microsoft's commitment to a white-knuckled vise-like grip on the industry's testes," said Gates in a prepared statement. "And with your best interests in mind, we have held them so tightly as to have a permanent imprint on the palm of the company's iron fist. But now, due to legal considerations pending appeal, we will relinquish our hold on the industry's balls until such time as the powers-that-be realize how dedicated we are to the onward march of technology and the power of positive thought."
As a ceremonial gesture, Gates mocked a release of his own package as he walked away from the podium. - Assassinated Press, 2000, All Rights Undeserved
So, Microsoft to be split into two companies:
(A) Products that work; (B) Products that do not work.
That still leaves a monopoly by my tally.
-L
Let's talk about a REAL monopoly, that's really harming consumers and harming choice. It's my hate-du-jour: My local phone company. COVAD and SpeakEasy have been trying to convince Bell Atlantic to install a DSL loop for 2.5 months now. BA has simply not bothered to show up on three separate occasions, and has misdirected and shirked at every occasion. At the same time, they're telling the state commissions that they are fulfilling their obligations to competitive carriers. That's BS, pure and simple. BA offers its own DSL service with a two week install time! The difference in service is simply outrageous.
The phone company is actively engaging in monopolistic behavior that damages REAL customer choice, and is preventing a new industry (and the associated cost savings) from emerging.
The DOJ should get off its ass and stop kicking MS around, and start kicking around the phone companies again!
With the result that they are considered liars who are physically unable to ever utter a true word? They do have quite a credibility problem, and I'm not quite sure how the strategy of undermining their already worthless word helps them.
"just good enough"- not excellent.
My sentiments almost exactely - I really wouldn't mind a monopoly IF it was a really good product like a Mercedes or the local power company (which is 'up' really reliably) but this land mine filled, quality disclaimered garbage?
I'm particularly primed for Msft bashing this week after having mistakenly installed PPTP on our production server w/o doing a lab run first to weed out the tricky spots - now our main Internet dialout is F****d, I had to whip up a 'band aid' box for access untill I can spend a Saturday in here cleaning up Msft's puke (What's this adapter [5] and why is there a registry error when trying to delete it?? Arrrggg!!! This wasn't in the white paper!!! REboot-boot-boot-boot-boot-boot... repeat ad-nauseum). Yet business people who don't know any better love this crap. I swear, we've got to break this iron triangle where clueless business decision lords pick Msft products for little other reason than "but they're a multi billion dollar outfit! It must be great, quality products, and therefore any problems that arise are the admin's faulty work". Utter B.S.
Chuck the defrocked McSE
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
This is exactly what they did in 96(?) when they were being sued for attempting to kill Netscape via predatory practices. They acted like total asses during the original trial to the point where they had ired the judge so much so that he refused to consider Microsoft's request to disqualify an outside consultant who had been brought in by the judge and who supposedly had an anti-Microsoft bias Their arguement concerning his bias was very weak, but the appeals court decided that the original judge shouldn't have been so hasty in dismissing their request that he be removed, so they over-turned the original decision. Now Microsoft continually points to this earlier overturn on appeal and "spins" it to make it look like the government gave them a seal of approval to do what they did with IE.
I wondered the same thing back when this trial was going on - why on earth would Microsoft being acting like such enormous asses? I saw no way that they could possibly gain from being so hostile, but amazingly enough it turned out to be a brilliant plan. Not only did they get the original decision overturned because the appeals court saw them as being treated unfairly (even though they were really, really asking for it), they now go on and on about how this previous case gave them the green light for their bundling and aggressive "marketing".
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
This is a terrible idea and would definitely stifle innovation. I think it would be enough to require the following:
- Specifications for file formats should be openly available at no cost (and without unreasonable licensing restrictions; the
.SWF format might be a good example). - The application should support, without loss of functionality, at least one file format that is human-readable. (I wouldn't go so far as to mandate the use of XML.)
Neither of these presuppose any commitment to open source.I believe breaking the company into 3 pieces is a great idea for everyone except MS's competition:
I will get MSOffice on BSD and Linux. (And all of the competition in the sheltered unix marketplace sill go broke.)
MS will be forced to abandon their hyper-integration of all apps and OSs. If this is continued, it will kill MS via geometric increases in complexity -- Windows2000 was supposed to be released years ago.
My company will finally have great servers, cheap. The OS company will not have enough to do, and will get serious about clusters, then push Intel on VIA. SUN's sales will start hurting a couple of years later.
The apps company will finally get serious about databases, and move it to BSD and Linux. Oracle needs some competition. (Nobody talks about what a bunch of used-car salesmen/mafia they are.)
The MS Apps company will no doubt do a Linux release of their own, as a bundle
I love that future. Everyone who is so anti-MS will be hurt by the gov's decision, but MS and consumers of OSs and apps will do very well.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
The project manager for the Bob project was nobody other than Melinda Gates herself. It was the only project she ever headed at M$. Oh, and she was billg's SO at the time, too.
InThane
... if you think that the stock market (NASDAQ) roller-coaster has nothing to do with the Findings of Law.
What's the consequence of a break-up judgement?
Appeals. And a recession, but that's just a detail, isn't it?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
From Seatlle PI Article:
Competitors such as Sun Microsystems will flourish in the ensuing uncertainty, capitalizing on customers' fears about Microsoft's future, Enderle predicted.
What delicious irony it is that Microsoft's value as a company (it's stock price) is the victim of FUD... Can you get much better than this? I doubt it....
-Pato
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
It is pointless considering them as two separate entities if everything they do is a joint project. Essentially, that's exactly the same company with a slightly different structure to it, which is pointless. Bill could do a reorganisation tomorrow, and it wouldn't be much different.
I doubt very much that once the break up has happened, every single company communication is going to monitored to ensure that this situation doesn't occur.
Two companies with exactly the same motive, still working together isn't much different from a cartel, and in good few countries, that's illegal too.
I am not a fan of Microsoft whatsoever, but at the same time I don't see the point in the break-up. I would actually rather see more punitive measures taken, such as crippling fines in conjunction with regulation of their selling policies. Whilst open-source is a great thing, I don't actually think that forcing MS to make their core code open source is the correct thing to do. A company has the right to keep it's work secret and Microsoft is no exception to the rule.
I think /. should lay off the Microsoft stories until we have some *real* news to talk about. This is all purely speculative at the moment, and if Microsoft is successful in it's appeal strategy, then it'll be years before this actually comes to anything.
M.
piss-off-the-judge-and-get-a-harsh-ruling-that's-o verthrown-in-appeals-court trick - very clever!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Corpus callosotomy involves the severing of connections between the right and left sides of the brain
with the left brain being allowed to chair the OS division, and the right brain the App division.
While primarily used to control intractable epileptic seizures, this procedure may have impact on his obvious megalomania and delusions of producing world class quality software.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I wouldn't break up Microsoft along the lines you suggested, because I don't think that fragmentation of the OS among competing companies would be a good thing. Besides, Win9x/ME is near the end of its life cycle, and is well on its way to integration_with/ replacement_by the NT/2000 codebase in a future Windows release codenamed Whistler.
It would be nice to see the detachment of IE from the rest of the OS, but at this point it is so entangled that it might just be better to leave it with the OS company. After all, Netscape lost the browser war (at least on the Windows platform) a couple years ago, and adoption of Mozilla doesn't seem to depend much on IE's status anymore.
As for development tools, that's tough to say. Leaving them with the OS company could prove advantageous for developers, because the tools would have an easier time staying in sync with OS advancements. On the other hand, it might give further incentive to more fully open APIs and such if the devtools were in another company. I'm leaning toward the former.
If a breakup is to occur, then the Office suite should definitely be split away from the OS company. This app company could also take some server products like SQL Server. Other server products, like Systems Management Server, make better sense staying with the OS company. No more BackOffice, I guess.
Microsoft has brought about the demise of OS/2, WordPerfect, and Netscape, among others. This damage can't be undone, but perhaps measures can be taken to prevent future bogosities. I fear that whatever the government's final solution, it will not be both adequate and fair. Microsoft may escape serious punishment, or it may get really screwed. In the latter case, I guess what goes around comes around.
I'll just "me too" the other posters on how a breakup would work and be a good thing.
:-), the more we can get back to having some competition in desktop software again.
But wouldn't it be fun if MS Office were itself broken up? By building this monolith, and entangling it so tightly with the OS, MS has ensured that individual best-of-breed packages can't thrive. There used to be a time when you bought your word processing, spreadsheet, database, publishing, email, and presentation software separately, and could pick and choose the best in each category. And if it weren't for this trial, we'd see Visio piled into Office shortly, too.
Remember, folks, the MS monopoly has been created by, done its damage (to both consumers and competitors) with, and made its profits from, OS-specific APPLICATIONS, not the OS itself. And those applications have become more entrenched by merging together.
Now, take the same argument and apply it to IE, and MSN, and Visual Studio, and Windows extras, etc. and you can see that the more finely MS is chopped
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
The correct URL is http://cnnfn.com/poll/micropoll.html The results are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping microsoft whole. I'm not sure I disagree - there might be other non-split-up alternatives that I haven't seen yet. Just open-sourcing the code won't do it, imho.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
A breakup of Microsoft will not change a thing. We will still have at least two companies which will be interrested in supporting each other.
Picture this: A split in two companies will most probably create an OS company and an application company. What will then be the most favorable strategy for these companies (especially the application company)? Will the application company choose to support multiple operating systems and thereby increase its development costs?? I think not.
It is in the application company's best interest not to open the market for other OS's and to keep one dominant OS at the desktop. Logically, this is in the best interest of the OS company as well.
What *will* change the market is a forced price change of all Microsoft products. We will suddenly have a very significant market pressure towards alternative OS's if MS is forced to raise there price, say 3-fold.
The only way to change the present monopoly sistuation is to make it in the customers best interest to switch to alternate products, and the only way to do that, is to make it the cheapest solution.
Money talks...
CNNFN is running poll on the Microsoft breakup proposal. Seems that a few microserfs have been voting.
The Microsoft Mouse may be the only quality product the company makes!
How about putting MS Bob with Windows and make everything else separate?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
...they'd probably shatter it so it wouldn't do any harm.
Honestly, could they have picked a worse way to end this trial? Even giving them nothing more than another slap on the wrist and another "no more anticompetitive practices for you" order would have been better, as Microsoft would have then been more likely to continue futilely bashing it's head against Sun and IBM on the high end while getting eaten away by free software on the low end.
I'm sure there are anti-Microsoft fanatics out here who are happy to see Bill get his comeuppance, but think about it. The last thing people who hate Microsoft should want to see is more Microsofts. Sure, they'll only have a few billion dollars in cash a piece, and they'll only have part of the Microsoft software line... so what? Does anyone really expect the corporate culture to change instantly because they're under different names? Will we see Office for Linux now? No.
What we will see is Microsoft forceably saved from it's biggest danger - corporate bloat and sluggishness. I heard someone use the analogy of cutting up a starfish; it doesn't kill the starfish, it just makes more of them. Basically this just drastically reduces the chances that we'll get to see Win32 fade away and see POSIX/X standards develop as a permanent way of ensuring that consumers are never locked into one company's monopoly.
It also sets a hell of a precedent. The original reason for going after Microsoft was bundling IE with Windows, remember? WTF? Should Red Hat be prosecuted for bundling Netscape (and Apache, and a whole lot of other things that are even less "a part of the operating system" than a web browser) with their Linux distribution? Look for the
"Federal Software Guidelines and Regulations" series of 1000 page books to start appearing in university libraries everywhere, on the same floor that's filled with all the other selectively-enforced laws and executive orders of similar titles. Hope you included a nice hefty legal budget in your startup's business plan.
I use Linux, not because I think Microsoft is a horrible monopoly, because I don't want to pay for Windows, or even because Windows crashed on me every week and needed to be reinstalled every year when I did use it. Well, actually that last one was a biggie. I use Linux because it has greater capabilities, cleaner code and APIs, and because it gives me more choices of kernel (I could move to a BSD or even a recent commercial Unix without much upset), user interface (some of which I like better than Windows, although Explorer is good), and applications. I don't have to worry that the programs and documents I produce today will be obsolete tomorrow like thousands of Win16 programs and Win* file formats are today. I don't have to worry that Linux is going to get worse or stagnant (when do we get a non-DOS based, stable consumer OS from Microsoft, exactly? Even Win2K doesn't seem any more stable than NT), because there are so many Linux options to choose from, so when Slackware or SuSE falters moving to Mandrake or Debian isn't the end of the world.
But that's not why everyone uses Linux. A lot of people avoid Microsoft because of their outrageous pricing (have you looked at buying a non-OEM license on anything from Microsoft lately?) and instability. Some people switch from Windows because Linux is better on a relative scale; I think most switch because Windows isn't good enough in the absolute sense.
With a Microsoft breakup, that won't be the case. Windows may get cheaper and more stable... not enough to satisfy anyone who has used free software, but enough to slow the expansion of Linux on the desktop, enough to give it a new shot at taking over the embedded and server markets. It may still not be a quality product... but that never stopped McDonalds. People like familiarity too.
Hm. Well, that's my rant for today. I got one hour of sleep last night, and it looks like it shows. I hope there was some coherent logic up there; but basically I'm trying to get across the concept "Microsoft breakup == bad".
I don't understand why everyone hate M$ for "stealing" ideas or using thier monopoly in OS to sell their apps. I hate to burst your bubble, but every company does it, or would do it if they could. Do you think Larry Ellison is any better than Gates? Of course he hates Gates, because he views him as the only thing standing in HIS way of global domination. That's the way buisness works... crush your competitors and make more money. Very few companies innovate : M$ stole from Apple who stole from Xerox, Gnome stole from Windows, etc. What is wrong with taking ideas from others and improving them? All the office apps in Linux aren't new... all the one's I've seen are just carbon copies of M$ office. If it is so wrong to steal ideas and M$'s products are so horrible, then how come people are stealing from them? M$ is just the current enemy. If/When they get broken up someone else will just come and take their place. Do you think AOL/Netscape, Corel, Sun, RedHat would behave any better than Bill once they were in charge? I doubt it. That is why i believe open source, linux is so great... there are no profits so people can create excelent tools and no one is trying to take over the world.
Microsoft is the largest producer of Apple software in the world. It ported MS Office to MacOS and invested $150 million in the company about 18 months ago. I saw this as them trying to make themselves look less monopolistic.
I wouldn't be surprised to find MS software on Linux - if there proved to be a market for it. To spread their browser, they even made a version for Sun.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
If the story is right, I'll go out on a limb and say that Gates will choose to abandon the OS company (calling it Windows), and go with the apps company, which would retain the Microsoft name.
Why? All of MS's current profitability is currently in apps, Linux is making it so that OS's can't get too high-priced, and MS apps would still hold a virtual monopoly on both Windows AND Mac desktops. Think of all the software categories that will still have little or no competition on these platforms: office apps (several categories right there), development tools, internet tools, and more.
Given the familiarity barrier to entry for other tools, and the ability to leap into new platforms with money and customers in hand, Gates should be able to profitably milk that cow for some time.
Too bad, really, that they didn't go for breaking them into more parts.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Nobody has realy said much about dual deck tape recorder or cd burners. whats the difference wither its a pysical copy or digital? same deal with the DVD... who's going to download a 4 Gig movie? even with cable/dsl. not many people have the hdd space for that either! people have been getting mp3's off of ftp's for years. long before napster! What about Scour? How come they haven't gotten any flack on this topic?
In my opinion I really don't think programs like napster has any real effect on the music community. So what if Dr. Dre can't make the millions he's used too! $15-20 for a cd is outragous! all the more tape's ever cost was $10! if anyone is ripping someone off... its the record company's! you may email your thoughts to bofslime@hotmail.com -thankyou Brian
I am a lawyer; this isn't legal advice. See an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.
:) Remember, Stone is the one who claimed to be entitled to "artistic license" *in a documentary* when he was called on his fabrications . . . (specifically, _Born on the Fourth of July)_)
>Interesting theory, except how do you explain Microsoft Office for the
>Macintosh?
He wrote, "Oliver Stone voice." That means there's no need to be consistent, or pay any attention to the facts
>Everyone seems to forget about that one.
Noone has forgotten that, not even Judge Jackson. The Findings of Fact were quite clear about the use of the mac version to maintain windows dominance. Microsoft threatened not to ship the *completed* next version of Office as a means of leveraging Apple to make IE the "default" browser for Mac. This was to undercut Netscape, thereby lessening the general threat of Netscape applications.
hawk, esq.
I've had a logitech mouse for quite some time, and whenever it becomes jumpy, it just means that it's time to clean the little rollers inside, then presto, it works great. This was more of a problem when I lived at home, and my family had a cat, there'd always be gunk in there.
When I went to school though, the mice were all horrible (except the old Sun mice with LEDs and spiffy reflective mouse pads) because the techs melted the mice shut, and you couldn't clean it.
Anyway, a clean mouse is a happy mouse.
You can never put too much water in a nuclear reactor.
> So instead of having just one dirty handed, predatory, monopolizing
:).
> business, we're going to have two! What a great solution!
That's (at least) three companies too few. I'm in the minority here, but I also have a lot more backround on both the legal and economic end of it than most of those getting paid to talk about it (so someone hire me
Splitting into two companies is only a start. It is part of the solution, because the os and office monopolies are both taking losses to benefit each other--to the detriment of the consumer. Better information on API's than the competitors, for example. The windows monopoly would have *no* incentive to give this information to the office folks and not to competitors of office after a breakup.
Putting office by itself, separated from windows, solves part of the problem (particularly, the preferential treatment and the leveraging of the OS monopoly to create the office monopoly).
However, it *doesn't* solve the windows monopoly. It takes away some of the things ms has abused to create the monopoly, but not all of them. Windows should be split into at least three pieces, either formed from microsoft, or by auction of source code rights to other parties. This creates three different entities that can sell windows.
That's four companies, and I'd put the miscellaneous (hardware, msn, etc.)
into another company.
> The feds are going about this entirely the wrong way, they're thinking
>that software is somehow like oil, when infact it isn't anything like it.
>The product has different properties which make breaking up the company
>ineffective.
>1. It costs virtually nothing to copy data
This makes some changes in the economics, but doesn't change the
fundamental result. Monopolies overcharge whether they have a
marginal cost or not. Consumers are harmed by this monopoly either
way. No marginal cost is just the extreme form of the situation which
creates monopolies in the first place.
> 2. Source between these two companies can be shared in such a way that
>they can basically keep operating as one company
No, your economics is *completely* off base here. Aside from the fact
that that would be illegal, they would be sued by the *shareholders*
of each of the companies. As a single company, it makes sense for
the os division to give up $20 to make $50 in the office division.
As separate companies, it would not.
> 3. The two companies would have different products (OS / Everything
>Else) and therefore don't have to compete against eachother unlike the
>oil and phone company breakups!
Competing against each other has nothing to do with this. The problem
is that the monopolies are used to prevent *other* companies from
competing, which increases price and decreases quality. There is *no*
need for the units to compete against each other (unless we make multiple
versions of windows).
> It's just a bad decision, I've said it from the start, and I'll say it
You can say it as often as you want, but it would require a fundamental
change in antitrust law to reach another decision. Argue for the
change if you want, but arging that this decision is wrong is to
simply ignore the facts and law. ANd for the record, consumers
would be worse off under the change, while monopolists would be
better off.
hawk, esq.
Guess again. We had multiple phones which we owned long before that.
The fiber optics networks were well on their way, too. The breakup certainly leveled the playing field for the long distance competitors, but it was neither necessary to their existence, nor did it precede them.
And unless you get your internet history from Al Gore, the internet preceded the breakup by a very long time.
"Remember that Bill Gates didn't write DOS, he bought it. He didn't invent the interface, he copied it. He didn't invent any applications, he just copied and improved competing applications. If MS never existed, we'd be still have PC's, good apps, good OS's. We will never know what things would be like if MS hadn't been around."
...oh well, you DO know!
I know! I was there and I remember. Yes, MS needed to have a wake up call. No! MS is not the great evil!
My Apple 11E and 'Applewriter' with Apple's HORRIBLE manuals gathered dust while I used my IBM Selective to do WORK until MS made it possible for the non-tech among you, like myself, to use one set of like procedures to make many apps work on their OS.
By W-95, my technical skills had improved enough to realize I did not need an OS to make all my decisions for me and had discovered that there was more then one way to skin a cat.
Early Netscape, Opera, many exploratory applications written for Windows, taught me different ways to do things and I began to resent MS bloat and control.
I started looking at Unix and Linux three years ago while really annoyed at MS. (Nix's = pretty intimidating) The overbearing MSIE that was next to impossible to rip off of my computer and conflicted with NS which was hugely more useful and flexible. I agreed that MS was being devious.
My next computer was designed with my needs ONLY in mind and I insisted on being able to dual boot W-98 and Linux. I was going to learn Linux and then drop kick MS....Yeah Sure! I did not want MSIE, (It was however, included) I wanted Netscape. I wanted a great printer, scanner, Fax, & a web camera so my adult kids could communicate real time with each other and most of all ADSL. Of course I wanted to network a couple of machines in the house together.
Well, trust me. It is a whole lot harder, less rewarding and very frustrating to accomplish this for we of the 'unwashed masses'!
#1. Netscape Stinks! It is slow/it hangs up and frankly now it is now part of, IMHO, the real Great Evil (TW/AOL)
#2. MSIE for the first time in many years makes other browsers look like dogs.
#3. Hardware problems are such fun (Modems in particular were Excedrin headache #1
#4. Support...Heh!!!! Lots of MS support sites on the web. Lots of the unwashed masses to help, give tips, talk/walk through problems. Linux? Ah yes, the infamous RTFM! duh! Well I have every site imaginable bookmarked (message boards/help site/ man pages etc but help? Sorry guys it ain't happening! Fragmentation of distros, Nix elitism, youthful prejudice (don't put Linux on your grandmas machine) and Yep! You won't like this but it is a fact...Women are either treated like idiots or
Frankly, while I struggle to glean enough direction and tips to make my Linux machine useful for my Needs, I find MS is my most useful 'Tool'.
Do I want to see them broken up...I don't know now! Am I glad Bill was smart enough to be in the right place at the right time with the right tools (DOS/a plan/and tough legal advisers) YEP!
How did I get to Linux? BILL SENT ME.
ah! the internet!! we may still screw up the world but NEVER again will we be able to claim IGNORANCE
Yeah, just think about how many people have had to suffer from Microsoft's monopoly supported defective products. A real remedy would involve forced bugfixes, and maybe some time quality time on Alcatraz.
I worked at Microsoft. It was fairly common trivia over there.
Oh, and before you call me a traitor, I was a contractor and I didn't know any better at the time. I've gotten better since.
InThane
and thats why Gates moved Ballmer up. To have a greater chance that each one of them will be in charge of each Company. OTOH maybe I've started reading too much into these things.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, that was the first thing I thought of, and I opened it up to look at the rollers inside. However, they were all OK. It seems like the "third roller" (the one which isn't hooked up to a sensor, and is at an angle to the other two) was loose and was skipping across the mouse pad rather than rolling when I moved the mouse in a direction perpendicular to that roller.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Bob's gonna teach everyone's grandparents to use a computer. And OS/2 will replace dos on everyone's PC.
The DOJ is on the right track going for a structural remedy to the Microsoft problem.
However, the OS/Apps split doesn't address the monopoly position itself -- there will now be two companies holding monopolies instead of just one, and there will still be the risk of illegal maintenance of one monopoly or the other.
All the MS Apps company would have to do is simply not port their software to OSes other than Windows. They can't be forced to port; they can (and I think will) justify a Windows-only decision as targeting the biggest market and not 'wasting time' on smaller chunks. I wouldn't be too surprised to see Office for Mac disappear after the breakup, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Office for Linux. Of course, I wouldn't use it either -- it's been years since I've seen a virus that wasn't carried by an Office component. But that's another issue. :)
Nothing in this redresses the question of damage already done to the software and OS markets -- it's far more than just Netscape being slaughtered on the altar of Bill: it's WordPerfect, it's Lotus, it's DR-DOS, it's a hundred different companies you never heard of because they never had a fair chance to be heard in the first place.
A better solution would have been not to split Microsoft into OS and Apps divisions, but into two or three baby Microsofts in toto. Give each Baby Bill Windows and Office, and make Microsoft compete against the meanest, nastiest competitor there is: Microsoft.
The upside of that would be that most unthinkable thing: a stable release of Windows. Baby Bills under this formula would each be out to prove themselves the true Microsoft, and would finally be forced to look to product rather than marketing to make their sales for them.
As much as I think MS deserves to have Windows forcibly open-sourced, I'm afraid that would be unsupportable legally -- in that instance, there is a legitimate claim of copyright. The DoJ can't force them to reveal the secret formula -- but by splitting MS into MS1, MS2, and maybe an MS3, they can reap the following benefits:
So, yes, break them up, but break them up meaningfully.
ikaros, not one for half-measures
You're only as young as the last time you changed your mind -- Timothy Leary
There's been a lot of speculation about whether being broken up would make the sum of Microsoft's parts more or less valuable than the whole. Personally I think: Not.
Microsoft's market machine so far has acted like a nutcracker - squeezing customers and competitors alike between it's two jaws: control of application api's through the os on the one hand and control of competitive os's through the apps on the other. Breaking Microsoft into two parts will be much like removing the nutcracker's fulcrum. You may still be able to poke people with iether half, but can no longer break their nuts^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^crack nuts with it.
Without their made-in-heaven monopoly machine to fuel their unbelievable profitability there's only one direction for their earnings to go: down.
Microsoft's market cap is based on expectation of unending growth at a rate serveral times that of the computer industry as a whole. To date that fairytale has come true, year after year for more than 20 years. No longer. First, their earnings aren't going to grow any more, their going to shrink. Second, Ballmer is right - the rats^H^H^H^H^Hbrains are getting out. So are the execs. For the simple reason that Microsoft's options aren't worth a whole lot any more.
On that subject, absolutely the worst thing that could happen to Microsoft is a long slow decline in their stock price. This would be much more harmful that, for example, a sudden drop by a factor of 10. The reason? The long slow decline means that Microsoft options will never be worth a cent. Whereas if their stock would just fall into the basement and get it over with they could possibly once again use options as a useful tool.
There are other factors that will stress Microsoft's share price. Not the least of which is the availabilty of at least one superior alternative that costs nothing (or something, it's your choice). There is only one possible result. Microsoft will have to do major surgery on it's OEM prices and that means "goodbye 95% gross profit margin". In turn meaning more decline in the stock price.
And don't forget the upcoming class action suits, and the still-to-be-filed damage suits from competitors that suffered from their illegal practices.
All these troubles would be multiplied if any evidence of financial misrepresentation turns up.
OK, enough, enough. Time for my prediction. I predict that Microsoft's market cap will fall to less than that of General Motor's, which is somewhere in the $50 billion range. That means a further factor of 5 fall from where they are now. I predict that it will take a year to fall that low as shareholders really begin the understand the implications of losing at trial and being beaten by a free OS at the same time.
In the long run I don't see a lot of value in the Baby Bill's. I see the office monopoly eroding quickly, and I don't see the underlying problems of the software being fixed. I don't see Microsoft's good name ever being restored, nor Gate's. In short, I see Microsoft's total value falling to less than, for example, CA's, in other words, it's going to be decimated.
Well, Bill, it's going to be tough for you to swallow but sincerely believe you went out of your way to earn this.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Staying quiet only makes them look guilty. Remaining silent and evasive didn't help Gates' credibility in his deposition during the trial. Might as well come out swinging.
And if they are going down in this battle, maximum noise is useful as a smokescreen to keep attention off whatever else they have in the works. How much revenue increase are they looking at from legalized extortion via the UCITA provisions, for example?
1) Where did all the "libertarians" go?
2) Why did the Andover purchase price drop by 1/3?
3) In the battle of David vs Goliath - I root for David
Almost voted on this poll, but the last question
stopped me from actually submitting my voice. I
don't think that CS/IT has dramatically developed
during the last two years, and even if there were
any achievements, there's nothing about MS.
And no, I'm not a Linux freebie zealot. Linux
itself is a viable option, but then again, this is
not a breakthrough, of any kind. Its roots are
easily trackable back to K&R, and what we have is still good ol'
Turing and von Neumann (sp?) Yes, I would vote against breakup, if anyone cares.
Prosecuting MS is lame whimpering, if not worse. C'mon, people,
noone stood with a gun at your had forcing you to
buy Windows or Office. This is your money that
made this `monopoly' possible.
Anyways, if anyone thinks MS dominates IT market
is probably living on another planet. CS/IT is
not just your desktop. It's powerful UNIX systems
and supercomputing, it's reliable software and
PICs, it's microcode and metamodelling.
Just open your eyes and look around.
KuroiNeko
FREE BILL GATES!!
Liberty in our Lifetime
You can't exactly go from one company to another without being forced to cash in all your stock options and abandon the ones that haven't vested yet.
Mmmm.. Donuts
On the other end of the scale are those who say that the real OS is MSDOS, plus a bunch of device drivers and DLLs (i.e. the desktop - the thing the average user thinks of as Windows - is an app).
Everyone else is somewhere in the middle.
There's going to be a lot of confusion when they actually get down to saying "this goes to MSApps, that goes to MSOS".
Personally, I think the line should be drawn just above the desktop app - well, sort of. The OS should include a default desktop and a standard set of tools. Maybe it could include a rudimentary browser that has just enough functionality to allow the user to download a real browser and desktop app.
In fact, there are about a dozen PUBLISHED API's
on NT that allow you to authenticate users in various ways.
SQL Server is designed to work well with NT,
so it uses NT API's to authenticate users, and
it trusts that to be sufficient.
Your other database just wasn't written to work with NT, so it didn't trust or use NT's authentication.
tj
Just to add an air of surreality to the whole thing, the URL provided by the US DOJ on their website is wrong. The Proposed Final Judgment is actually here, and requires Adobe Acrobat.
For my money, the most interesting part is 5.A.i.(1) -- Microsoft will be required to provide on demand (during business hours):
(Emphasis added by me and is not in the original)
This I hadn't expected, although perhaps I should have in retrospect. We all know how MS feels about their Secret Sauce ... I wonder how they're going to react to this, even though 5.a.iii prohibits release of any information gathered from MS, "except in the course of legal proceedings to which the Plaintiff is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law."
Myself, I hope the DoJ periodically pulls the source and compiles it themselves to see if it behaves exactly like the publicly available version(s) of Windows.
ikaros, who wonders just how long the compile time is...
You're only as young as the last time you changed your mind -- Timothy Leary
Is't it obvious? How many times do they have to say that they haven't done anything illegal for you to understand that THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ILLEGAL.
The have been playing the schollyard bully for years now, but none of the things they have done are illegal. Even Jackson agreed with that.
What he found was a pattern of LEGAL actions that he says add up to an abuse of monopoly.
Jackson's ruling is weak in a variety of ways. And will almost certainly be reversed on appeal.
The more over the top he goes with a penalty, the more likely it is that the appeals court will slap him down HARD.
So, it makes sense for MS to bait him. If they can get him to act in anger, they win. At this point it can do no harm. It's not like the man is going to rule FAIRLY, so there's not point in being nice to him.
Besides, I'm sure that Bill and company actually believe that they have done nothing illegal. I know for sure that I think so.
tj
Actually, it was the Judge who acted like an ass.
He appointed a special master when one wasn't called for. Then picked one with a clear and demonstrated anti-microsoft bias. The appeals court was right to overrule him.
tj
What I find interesting about this filing that all this is going to have a limited impact on the status quo. I can take an educated guess on the following that will happen.
1. Microsoft will provide uniform pricing for their OEM products, and of course, we'll have both "loaded" and "plain vanilla" versions of Windows 98/ME/2000 for OEM's to load. Microsoft may deeply cut the price of Windows 98/ME/2000, so about a year from now, Windows ME will cost $29.95 for "plain vanilla" version and $39.95 for "loaded version"; Windows 2000 Professional (or its successor) will cost $79.95 for the "plain vanilla" version and $89.95 for the "loaded" version. And will be sold as a separate cost item for all system sales.
2. The applications company may be particularly bad news for Sun and Corel. Given that the vast majority of the world's business data files outside of very large databases are stored in Microsoft Office format, you can tell what kind of impact a Linux version of MS Office will do to the Linux market. Sun and Corel will be wondering why their office suite sales have gone down the proverbial toilet....
In short, we may have more "choice," but most computer users are so used to Microsoft products anyway that I expect its dominance--even when the company is split in two--to continue for quite a while. In fact, I won't be surprised that about three years from now the two split companies will have a combined market capitalization of US$1 trillion or more, mostly because BOTH companies will continue to be profitable, which is sadly not true of most Linux companies right now.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
This Jesse Berst article has one idea I think is great- split Microsoft into three companies by attitude! Microsoft Arrogance Inc., obviously headed by Bill, Microsoft Vaporware, and Microsoft Ludicrous User Interface "Enhancements" (like that annoying dancing paper clip).
For most software companies, it would be appropriate to have a new Bloatware company, but I don't see any way that would divide Microsoft at all.
Of course they are trying to get the worse possible punishment. The worse the punishment the easier it will be to get it overturned on apeal. If they just had a few restrictions imposed they might not get that overturned but if they can go to a judge and say "hey by breaking us up your going to significantly change the compatability and usability of 90% of desktop computers." Then the judge can overturn the decision as extreme and a possible detriment to consumers.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
Is "the Brain"'s real name "Bob"?
I just listened to Joel Klein from the government side on CNN, and one provision in the proposal requires the OS division to disclose the API to all software developers in as much detail as it would to the Office division. This is good, this finally makes it illegal to cripple competing developers by building in secret API's (and there are lots of them in Windows).
Second, the proposal explicitly makes it illegal to threaten hardware vendors with less favorable conditions if they wish to ship hardware with competing software.
As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft need not be split up if these (and a few other) stipulations can be enforced. Find a hidden API in Windows used by Office? Sue them. Internet Explorer using a better API to DNS than the documented one? Sue them.
Sigh. If the provisions of the proposal that are just sidelines to the case now were more easily enforced in the industry generally, the world would look a lot cleaner, and the entire trial circus that is going on now would be moot. I am as tired of the government case as I am of Microsofts, I do not think a breakup per se will do anyone any good, but I'm glad to see some rather common-sense ideas about fair competition in the software market gain a foothold in law.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
What the person said was not a troll, heck the point was (IMHO) flawed, but it was fare enough. don't put everyone who diagrees with the flow of oppion down as a trouble maker. Until recently the OSS movment types (I include my self) were put down as such, and in some circles still are.
If someone is going to troll they'll be more explisit{sp}, and some good points have come out of the debate and that's what matters.
I hate to ask, but I must...
What will happen to Clippit??
Quiet simply the reson for that lack of a report is that /. reliese on a finite pool of people to go though the stuff and some stories won't be reported (I'm over the pond and am used to this). /. makes no claims to cover everything and an article in one US paper (Regional) is not always going to be covered.
/. has and like all news sources bare this in mind when reading it.
As a side note, you must know the bias that
Here's the actual wording of the DOJ decision.
Any legal types out there want to give their opinions?
- Muzzle them, like was done to IBM - no product pre-announcements designed to freeze the market for competitors that have beaten MS to market with an innovative product.
- Complete disclosure of APIs, file formats, protocols, etc.
- Any new API, format or protocol must be fully documented and publicly released, with no licensing costs for creating compatible products, three months before any product using said API is brought to market.
- Any change to an existing protocol, format, etc. must be documented and released six months before any product utilizing said API is brought to market.
- Failure to adhere to the above rules would result in fines of an appropriate size that would make even a company with the cash reserves of MS shudder.
Simply forcing them to disclose the information about their APIs, protocols, etc. could prevent them from breaking competitors' products and forcing solutions to use the same platform for both client and server, which, to me, is one of the most insidious things that MS currently does.Microsoft just happened to be in the right place at the right time? What kind of bullshit is that? Microsoft came onto the market at a time in which everyone was still using command prompt operating systems. Windows 3.1 made it easy for even the stupidest computer users to operate a PC. Even Commodore or Apple didn't do as well. History shows that to be true. Microsoft wasn't an accident. It really was innovative. No one really thinks Xerox was particularly innovative for having developed the first GUI. No one really cares. Alexander Graham Bell wasn't the first person to invent the telephone, Thomas Edison didn't invent the lightbulb, and neither did Sir Thomas Crapper invent the toilet -- but just because they weren't the first doesn't mean that they don't have a great significance to the devices to which they contributed. The same goes with Microsoft. The problem here is that Slashdotters, which tend to be Linux users, hate Windows. For the same reason Windows users hate Mac users, and Mac users hate anyone with a PC. If it wasn't for Windows, people would probably still be using a crappy version of DOS. Or some mundane version of OS/2. Because of Microsoft, Windows was able to flourish, the internet became mainstream, and computers became common fixtures in most homes. Just because Microsoft doesn't pass out their code doesn't mean they write bad software. As a web designer, I can list several reasons why I prefer IE5 to Netscape. And I think Opera is for masochists that hate creativity. Though I did prefer the Win95 shell to the Win98 shell, it didn't take me long to realize that web intergration is a neat feature. Once faster processors came out, you couldn't really notice the speed difference. And buggy as Microsoft products are, you have to admit that there are a lot of OpenSource programs out there that wouldn't even close to compare to what Microsoft can toss out. Next time you think about bashing Microsoft, all real computers would be business machines and the internet would consist of a bunch of Commodore users hooked up together with 14.4 modems.
ii. when an OEM removes End-User Access to a Middleware Product from any Personal Computer on which Windows is preinstalled, the royalty paid by that OEM for that copy of Windows is reduced in an amount not less than the product of the otherwise applicable royalty and the ratio of the number of amount in bytes of binary code of (a) the Middleware Product as distributed separately from a Windows Operating System Product to (b) the applicable version of Windows.
Is this encouragement to produce a slimmer version of Internet Explorer? Or a more bloated Windows?
The implication is that the App division will immediately try and support other OS, to kill the OS division.
At the same time, the OS division will be forced to STOP the floating API game they've been using for so many years. Instead, stability, open APIs, etc. will become the watchword as they try to kill off the App division.
Who "wins"? Everyone. Lower cost, better quality for the consumer. More software companies, with better documentation.
All programmers (MS or not) benefit from a larger pool of employers. MS shareholders win, cuz no matter which one they end up owning (or split) the stock will start rising again before long.
*nix, apple, Sun, SGI win, since they will no longer be a "competitor" to the App division, but an ally in the war against the OS. Similarly, all the app companies will be wooed by the OS division!
Both divisions, by law, will have to provide docs, licensing, etc. at a solid pricing and quality structure to all comers.
Sweeeeet!
PS: Here are the proposed divisions:
The "Operating Systems Business" includes OS products for computing devices such as:
* personal computers based on the Intel x-86 architecture and other microprocessors
* servers
* handheld devices such as personal digital assistants and cellular telephones
* TV set-top boxes
The "Applications Business" includes products such as:
* Office
* Internet Explorer
* BackOffice
* Internet Information Server
* SQL Server
* Mobile Explorer and other Web browsers
* streaming audio and video software
* Mobile Explorer
* SNA server software
* XML servers and parsers
* Java virtual machines
* Frontpage Express
* Outlook Express
* Media player
* Net Meeting
* MSN
* MSNBC
* Slate
* Expedia
* "all investments owned by Microsoft in partnerships or joint ventures"
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
If I were to improve the poll without sacrificing CNN's trademark soundbite style, I'd word it:
Oh well, you get the point. I'm very frustrated with CNN, their reliance on company executives to tell the eternal truths is so big, they usually forget to ask the real questions.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
you are wrong. they are not a bully, they are an illegal monopolistic corporation that has broken the law repeatedly and settled out of court.
stealing stacker code was illegal.
the recruiting dept. next to borland was illegal.
the novell networking code they distributed with win3.x was illegal.
the code they stole from ibm was illegal.
breaking the agreement they had with the doj was illegal.
modifying sun's java api was illegal.
stealing the apple look and feel was illegal.
How can I say these things were "illegal"? MSHAFT was not found guilty, because they settled out of court when it became clear they would lose.
personally, i think the judge will ask the case to be fast-tracked to the supreme court, as is his right. MSHAFT will then have a single chance to show they are not deserving of the remedy. after that decision, it's over.
i think they are going to mintain a monopoly for a few years, but with sun, sgi, apple, ibm all helping the two divisions fight each other (developing apps to a well documented api, having MSHAFT apps run on their OS) it's pretty much over for Bill Gate's Wild West Show.
The Fat Lady is tunin' up...
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
I have mixed feelings on this issue. Sure, it's good that Microsoft will no longer be a huge empire that completely take over the PC market - but let's look at the facts. Microsoft have done a LOT for the PC market. Plug and Play is a good example - some people still think it's a bad idea, but I really don't think that's the case. It's nice to be able to plug a device into your USB or PCMCIA slot and have it automatically set up straight away. Try doing that before Microsoft invented PnP! There is no denying that the majority (like 98%) of home PC users use Windows. This is a Good Thing. What would happen to games if people used 5 different operating systems? There would be 5 different versions of the game to support everyone, and it would be 5 times the price. No thanks! I know - use a playstation 2. But the same can be applied to applications. Back on the other hand again, this split-up is at least done fairly sensibly. "Microsoft 1" makes the OS, whilst "Microsoft 2" makes the apps. That way, we won't be forced to use a certain browser, but we still get a single operating system. Good! Problem solved. As long as they don't change it, I think it's generally a good decision.
Can you believe that all this was origionally about a web browser? One that the US Court of Appeals already told Microsoft was okay to integrate into their Windows OS? The court never found MSFT guilty of abusing it's monopoly power to push office. Word processors and spread sheets only came into the picture during the remedy phase. Probably everyone has some sort of beef with Microsoft, but I have to agree with them when I say that the current proposal is completely beyond the scope of this trial. If anything, they should have to give up IE, or start charging for it. Then again, this case has been defying logic since the beginning. If someone has a monopoly, it means they are the only source, and we know Microsoft is not the only source of OSes or office suites. Futhermore, it is the governments job to ensure monopolies do not drive up their prices to gouge the customer, but Microsoft is in trouble because their prices are too low. The court decided the right price for Windows is $45... That is about half of what Red Hat, the "free" operating system is selling for in CompUSA. If the court has found Microsoft guilty, thats fine, but how about a punishment that fits the crime? And not one so brain dead as breaking them into two obvious monopolies with a huge affinity for one another. My favorite part of the whole ordeal is that the court has "found" that Linux and other free operating systems pose no thread to Windows. Apparently the DOJ thinks that the success of Linux somehow hangs in the balance with the fate of Microsoft, and I have read here many people who believe that Linux would see huge benifits with some sort of X port of Office, but I do not think that such states are particularily true either. We already have fully functional office suites, and if Microsoft began porting theirs, the initial versions would be ugly, bug ridden, and be cursed to lag behind the already fully developed Windows version. (This is why 2000 failed to merge the 9x and NT user domains: 9x has had too much a head start already). I think the correct remedy would be for an apology to be issued to both Microsoft, and to the open source community for the insult we've been delt.
I beg to differ. What exactly did you read? Can you cite a source? Jackson did say that they did something illegal. He said it in Findings of Fact (in the Microsoft Antitrust Trial) and in Conclusions of Law.
Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act on two counts. It obtained and protected a monopoly using "anti-competetive" and "predatory" tactics. (It singled out the distribution of other products rather than improving its own products.)
It also "tied" products - required that you purchase one product if you want another. Specifically, it required that Windows always be sold with Internet Explorer on the desktop. It enforced this by bartering heavily enough with PC distributers to demonstrate that the motivation was to preserve a monopoly rather than to obtain revenue (especially since MS isn't making money off of IE).
That is defined as breaking the law.
Uh, yah. Nobody picks on Apple because they are small. Would I care if the DOJ spent $20M pursuing an anti-trust case against a company the size of Apple? Damn straight. Against Microsoft, Ma Bell or Standard Oil? No problemo. A monopoly is defined legally by 7 outlining factors, among which is market share, nitwit . FYI, among the others are: * barriers to market entry-can we say "so how much can you buy my company for?"-Bill can) * detrimental to consumers in long term AND short term financial outlooks AND competition outlooks (Micro$oft seems to think choice is bad, for some reason. Not to mention their brilliant plan to charge people a yearly fee for Windows). I'd go on but I'm tired. The rest are in my notebook somewhere.
-- Ryan
--
Could someone set me straight on this. It seems to make no sense. Why don't microsoft just up sticks and move the company overseas, to a country with better tax laws and less government interference. The US site then just becomes an international office. After all, the company is global, the US government is local - why should they care what a US court says? Will some lawyer please explain how they could be stopped, and the US still abide by international treaty?
gates' televised threat is that this ruling will 'cripple the tech industry.'
sure it will - ms is the biggest single tech innovator. but what they've done is criminal and prevents innovation from open standards/interfaces. tech will take a hit in the short term, but innovation - which is what the doj is attempting to support with their ruling - will flourish.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
According to the latest details of the proposed breakup, Gates, Balmer, and HeadHonchos et al would be required to choose OS or APPs company. Then they would divest all stock owned in the other.
:-)
;-) back to M$. Much better idea than splitting them up.
Which company so you think they'll choose? My guess would be APPs! There will afterall be too much competition from alternative OSes, Linux included
I still think the DOJ and States should have insisted that M$ transfer to each $1Billion (or more) of M$ stock. Then when M$ misbehaves, just sell of stock to drive down the value to let M$ know you don't approve of what they're doing. After 5 years or so transfer any remaining stock (Fat Chance the way they behave
"Open code, in other words, can be a check on state power." -Lawrence Lessig
There's been much speculation on how to best penalize Microsoft for its illegal behavior, most of which seems to demand radical restructuring of the company or the enforcement of elaborate legal injunctions. I suggest a far simpler alternative that would require no government intervention at all.
Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly power in a predatory and anti-competitive manner. It is the US Federal government that has granted Microsoft this power and I see no reason why it should not simply take it away. Microsoft's monopoly is maintained by the legally enforceable copyrights it holds on Windows and Internet Explorer. Invalidating these copyrights would eliminate Microsoft's strangle-hold on the industry and force it to compete on a level playing field open to all industry players. Rather than dictating limits on Microsoft's future activities by judicial decree, this simple denial of copyright protection would allow the natural forces of the marketplace to determine Microsoft's ultimate fate.
Thus, this is important and relevant information.
This is NOT just a Linux site. This ruling would definitely affect all computer users.
P.S.: If I had any moderation points, I would be moderating this post down as "overrated" instead of posting. It seems that any post saying "Slashdot sucks now" gets moderated up these days. *sigh*
I realise that this is probably going to get me flamed all the way to hell, but I'm getting a real sense of frustration at some of the opinions here. Before I being, I want to say that I'm not an MS zealot. I have an MCSE, but also have Caldera on my home machine. I've installed and supported NT and BackOffice, but have also done the same with a few distros / Apache / Sendmail / Samba, etc. I don't feel that I am the be all end all expert in any of the above, but I feel that I have enough experience to comment. I also have a background in economics and government policy, so I can appreciate the MS competition arguments being thrown around. On the fun stuff now ...
/. audience feels that people should not own or operate computers unless they know how to use them. Having done support on and off for a few years (including home training and phone support), I can understand where this frustration comes from. But don't you think your mechanic feels the same way every time someone takes their car in to be fixed and he / she discovers that the car hasn't been serviced for 15 years? And don't you think your plumber feels the same way when he / she comes to your house to fix your pipes after you pour foodstuffs down your sink?
/. (myself included) love technology and enjoy being geeks, this concept seems foreign and possibly even distasteful. It's reality, though. Now is it fair to argue that these people should never use computers, because they don't know how to use them to a high standard? Do you know fully how your car works? I don't. Do you know how your house is wired? I don't. Do you know how your pipes work? I don't. But I still like to use all of them. I'm not sure that I'll ever learn how they work fully ... I can use them as much as I want to. When my pipes break, I call a plumber.
;)
It seems a lot of the
What I'm trying to say is that it's a fact of life that people prioritise what they want to learn. It's also true that most people do not want to know how their computer / OS works. Given that most of the people on
Bringing it back to MS now, how many companies in the world do you know that are completely altruistic? The basic truth is that 99% of companies out there are there to make a profit, not to further society. If you want to judge MS because they acted unfairly in the market, fair enough. If you want to judge them because they produce buggy software, that's not fair. They have no obligation to produce perfect software. In fact, they have no obligation to produce anything at all. They produce it because they can sell it and make a profit. Comments that say MS should be broken up because they produce bad software miss the point. It can be argued that MS should be broken up because of their unfair market advantage, but there's not enough space to go fully through all the possible arguments here. However, arguing that they do not innovate is not a fair argument. How MS is run is up the Ballmer, Gates, and the rest of the admin at MS. Making a judgement that MS should be broken up because it isn't altruistic of because it doesn't innovate is unfair. Where MS went wrong is when it started buying out its competitors. By doing so, in my opinion it crossed the line into unfair market practices. Directly hating MS for not producing perfect / innovative products is not fair. There's nothing that says they have to.
MS might not have been the first company to produce a GUI. They might not have been a perfect company. However, I would seriously argue that if it weren't for MS producing an easy to use GUI, computers would never have become as mainstream as they have. Apple did well. In many ways, Apple did better. But Apple blew off their market base when they kept changing their designs and eliminating backwards compatability in hardware. And before someone brings this up, yes I know MS doesn't make the hardware, and yes I know software was compatible between all of the Apple II series. But let's see you run a program from the Lisa on an iMac. I can still run programs from Dos 1.0 on my Win 98 machine. MS has always tried to keep backwards compatability and so keep their market.
Some of the posts I've read say that Linux is an alternative for Grandma to use. This is true, as long as her grandson is an IT guru. For the rest, who have no family support, Windows is going to win every time. Not only that, but seeing as how Windows and computers are so common now, many other technological offshoots such as email, web sites, and instant messaging to name a few, are also common. Yes, these may have grown up without MS. But if MS weren't there, we'd be dealing with a monopoly from Apple. And if IBM didn't get hit with an Anti-trust suit, we'd be dealing with an IBM monopoly now. What I'm trying to say is that MS did bring the industry forward. Maybe another company could have done the same. But, they didn't. Gates is a brilliant businessman (by saying that, I can already see the flames being generated). If you disagree, read a bit more about his history. He's not perfect, but he sure can turn a profit. Anyone who feels differently only has to look at the size of MS now. He may not be the worlds best coder, and he may not be the biggest altruist, but he managed to make his company the industry giant. You have to respect that. And in becoming the industry giant and making computers look easier to use, computers have become mainstream. If it weren't for that, IT wouldn't be as big as it is now. And no, I don't work for MS
I don't agree with how MS has taken over their competitors and by doing so, stifled competition and innovation. However, I do appreciate how they made computers mainstream, partly through massive advertising campaigns and partly through making an OS that's easy to use. Anyone who argues that a newbie can sit down at a blank computer and install linux and understand what is going on is kidding themselves. Windows isn't much better, but it is a little better.
I use linux, I like linux, but my productivity is higher using Windows. I get small problems, but they're easy to fix. Every time I've ever had a problem with linux, it's taken me minimum 30 min to fix, sometimes a few days. While I love learning, the time that I'm learning is unproductive. Computers / OSs / applications / languages are only tools, and it's important to keep that in mind. If another tool lets you do the job quicker, you should use that tool. If the investment in time is greater than the potential payout, don't use that tool. For the majority of computer users, linux fits in that category (at the moment, anyway). Anyone can sit down at a windows machine and use it. Not everyone can sit down at a linux machine and use it. And there's the difference.
I love linux because it challenges me and lets me control my computer. I use windows because I can be productive.
Hope that wasn't too confusing.
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
Isn't the reason that AT&T and other companies spin off smaller companies that they make more money that way?
I dont have a
The problem with the breakup being done by the courts is that it establishes legal precedence for prohibiting anyone who has a platform from leveraging it to do something else. I imagine every major technology company is going to be sued for billions of dollars by that dangerous and unusual creature that deserves to be shot, not made an officer of the court. At some point, someone will sue Sun, then someone will sue IBM. They will all use the magic word: "precedent", which is really just law made by the courts without a popular vote. Ultimately the entire United States technology will be sued out of existence or forced to relocate to a country where lawyers are not so malignant.
Today's ruling is no different than the slate of government actions that crippled US manufacturing in the 1970's. Just like Akron Ohio is filled with empty buildings that used to make things, so too will be the offices of Silicon Valley.
This is my sig.
I think it would be funny if Microsoft said "fine, we'll just close shop, drop all support, etc" ... the world would be in bad shape then!
Does anyone have a list of states?
I find it interesting that all the docs on the DOJ web site are in html and Word Perfect 5.1 format.
"This is NOT just a Linux site"
You must be joking. Count the number of pro-linux and anti-Microsoft stories posted on slashdot, create a ratio of those two against the sum of misc stories that appear here.
My point was that this has been horribly blown out of proportion, there have been no less then a dozen stories posted on the matter of this trial. Why not simply wait until the end of the trial instead of speculating and drooling every other day over some new tidbit? How long will this go on? Years? Until the appeal process is over?
Why not post some Pro-microsoft stories on Slashdot instead? How about mentioning the money Bill Gates donates to minority kids for scholarships? Or how about the financial results for Microsoft for the last year? Maybe some more information on the X-box? Or how well Windows 2000 is selling?
Of course those stories don't belong here, Slashdot _is_ a site for Linux, and Linux these days is associated with Microsoft bashing.
P.S. Good luck on those moderation points, nice to know that anyone who mildly likes Microsoft's products has no opinion in your eyes. For a group supposedly dedicated to free speech, you sure are fascist in your approach to such liberties. Free the code, shut up Microsoft supporters eh?
I never stated my position about the Microsoft case in my post. Please don't assume you know what it is.
As a matter of fact, I'm typing this post up on IE as we speak, because I find it a superior product (though not without its flaws) to Netscape. I'm also personally against any Microsoft breakup.
However, precisely because I use Microsoft product, and because of Microsoft's general importance in the world, I find these stories very relevant.
Have you ever watched a game of sports? Do you just always wait till the end and check the score? The process is often just as interesting as the result. Perhaps you're not interested, but it would be arrogant of you to claim that others shouldn't be interested either. It would be even more arrogant to claim that anyone who is interested must be a Microsoft hater.
I've never denied that Slashdot is a Linux-oriented site with a general anti-MS bias. However, I said it was not a Linux-ONLY site. Btw, note that in every story about MS, there are many anti-breakup posts, such as this, this, and this, all from this story.
In short, this is relevant news that a lot of people, both pro- and anti-MS, care about, and just because you don't care about it doesn't mean no one else does, or should, or that anyone who does is anti-MS.
[Snipped explanation of how the "secret APIs" aren't really secret and MS is innocent. Honest.]
...yet, it only took five years for MS to decide they'd document that API? Clue: In dealing with MS on a technical level, getting anthing out of MS is like screaming at the wind; It is entirely ineffective unless the wind happens to be blowing that direction.
As for your motivations, I can only think that you must be trolling, since nobody can be so misinformed if they've looked at this even for a little while...reading the Findings of Fact even in part will give you plenty to chew on, let alone having picked up any article printed over the past 15 years on the subject.
Even if we were to ignore the Department of Justice's own Findings of Fact, the books and magazine articles on undocumented APIs from DOS through the latest version of Windows, as well as my and other's knowledge of undocumented Microsoft APIs and the impossibility of wrenching usable details on how to use them from MS, your claims still don't pass the sniff test.
If I'm wrong -- as others have mentioned before in this thread -- you meerly have to point out how we are mistaken, with some reasonable proof behind it. If you're just guessing or trolling, get a grip. You don't have a very big audience at this point.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Yes, it is a big difference. It was a "very loosely based-on-true-story" movie, but Stone tried (at first) to pass it off as a documentary.
Same.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I think a lot of you people out there are missing the big picture about the breakup.
Some of you are saying that by breaking MS into an OS and APPS group that competition in the marketplace will be encouraged. This is true but no where near the scale that you think.
Do you know how many "new" companies or products there will be? I'll tell you. One.
The one new company will be the 'spun off' APPS group. What makes you think that because they are now separate from the Windows team that the applications themselves will change?
Do you really think that because Linux would then be another target for Office that the application would actually change code path?
Of course not.
And what makes you believe that the 'level' will drop that is required to make and market an easier to use OS than Windows? It won't.
If the company is split up then you as a consumer will still have very little increase in choice, and it won't magically get any easier to make applications or OSes that are better than Windows.
I think it's about time most people realised that this 'breakup' of Microsofoft is merely a hollow solution to a problem that is a lot harder to solve than simply breaking up the company.
A lot of the prior talk was about how hard it is to come up with the capital needed to beat Microsoft in the R&D and marketing departments. Why do you think that two smaller (and still very wealthy) companies will be harder to beat?
It won't. So stop fantasising about how to take the easy road and just break them up, and get your asses out there and code some better software.
Each and every one of these actions was legal,
/. then you can count on being misinformed about MS.
/. articles on what we think of patenting software).
or did not happen.
If you get you information from
Recruiting from Borland is legal. Where on earth did you get the idea that recrutiting from a competitor is illegal?
MS. Didn't steal any code from stacker. The infringed on a patent. (See past
MS Didn't steal apples look and feel, the licensed it. Then apple tried to renege when Windows became more popular than MAC.
MS Java license SPECIFICALLY allows them to extend Java for the Windows platform.
MS Never broke any agreeme with the DOJ. That agreement gave them the right to add features to Windows, which they did.
What code exactly did they steal from IBM? This is news to me.
I guess you can call me ignorant abou this one. But considering your track record on the rest, I'm giving it about 10% chance that you know what you are talking about on any of this.
tj
That's only one of the points MS made.
/. we agree with these Lessigs opinions on open source and open standards, but that doesn't make him unbiased. That just makes his bias the same as ours.
Lessig has written extensively about the dangers of allowing proprietary software to become popular enough to define standards. He frequently cites MS as an example in these writings.
Here at
A judge has the absolute responsibilty to be fair in his dealings with both parties of a case. This responsibility extends to the choices of people who represent him.
I have a great deal of respect for Lessig, he has a first rate mind and a unique grasp of how software influences the way the world works. BUT he clearly has an agenda that involves destroying MS (more as a side effect than a first goal I think) and that should have disqualified him from
consideration as special master.
Also, if you read his brief on the current MS trial, he basically advised the Judge to ignore the prior appeals court ruling.
Now, at the beginning of the trial, Jackson stated that the appeals court ruling would guide his own decision. And MS use that as the centerpiece of their case. But after Lessig told Jackson that he could ignore it, he did.
If Jackson had told MS that up front, I'm sure that they would have presented a very different case. He basically changed the rules AFTER he had heard the arguments.
There are other examples of this sort of bad-faith acting by the judge. I don't have time to point them all out, but if you bother to look you will find them.
If MS had been given a FAIR trial and THEN found guilty, I'd be more impressed. As it is, I'm sure that the appeals court will reverse the whole thing. In the end, there will probably be fewer
checks on MS power than if Jackson had done his job properly.
tj