Slashdot Mirror
Government Gives Microsoft Offer Thumbs Down
Robotech_Master writes: "This Wired News article has the details: the government thinks very little of Microsoft's own planned remedy, and in fact claims all its proposed meaures amount to 'nothing.' Hardly a surprise, but interesting all the same. " Today was the day that Judge Jackson, the DOJ, and MS were having a hearing to discuss "remedies." Not suprisingly, the government and Microsoft see things differently. Amazing. Hey, who's looking forward to several more years of incessant appeals and hearings? I thought so.
1. When you open e-mails, Outlook automatically executes scripts in them whether you want it to or not.
2. OS/2 doesn't.
"A Breakup Is Too Harsh And will keep us from doing what we do best--innovating." If Steve Balmer says this one more time I'm just going to start screaming.
Again, there is a difference...
:)
Mac *developed* MacOS and the hardware *together*. Its a *single* package. No doubt they could supply Macs with another OS, however I don't think there'd be much call for it.
MS *don't* supply the hardware. Again, they *strongarm* other companies to supply their OS. Yes, you can get a machine with no Windows (I've done it, however I'm sure someone still paid the MS tax). However, there are *plenty* of companies who will *not* supply a machine without windows, and they just happen to be the bigger companies. Intel compat hardware is a commodity, and the fact that at *most* places you cannot avoid paying Microsoft is awful.
There are no Mac clone makers. That is Apple's choice, and I think they suffer for it. However, comparing the Apple/MacOS situation to Variety of Intel Compat Suppliers/MS Windows situation is just plain stupidity!
So, come clean, do you work for or are you affiliated in any way with Microsoft?
BTW, the dickhead remark was not meant as an insult, I'm sorry, think of it as Australian for 'I disagree!'
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
Actually, the big difference between this case and the OJ saga is Judge vs Jury. I would hate to imagine what a M$FT vs DOJ jury case would look like. Imagine the jury selection process:
M$ Lawyer: Have you ever used a computer
Potential Juror: yes
M$ Lawyer: I move to reject this juror due to pre-bias...
And then you have a bunch of uneducated jurors easily swayer by layer charm and video footage of harmless paperclips being hunted by dinosaurs.
hmmmmmm, if anything is broken in the US justice system its jury selection...and mandatory sentencing...and politician selection as they write the laws.....oops got a little offtopic there.
no sig.
If it was open source then......
no
hmmm notepad?
uh win-vim would beat it out of the market...
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
Try accessing something with write enabled and read not sometime on a novell server with notepad... the results will suprise you. Well.. maybe.. this is MS afterall.
Well, I know it's going to be tough, but I'll give it a try:There. How did I do?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A specific mention in the breakup agreement that prevents coventures/cooperation of any kind. I would like to see it enforced with criminal punishments for the individual violators but more likely they'll put a hefty price tag on any cooperation.
I'd think that with recent bad press on outlook you'd change that Bio of your before defending MS, this is a perfect example of why we want to see MS destroyed.
In that case, someone should alert the media every time there is some form of an exploit in a Linux distro to get root access. With the recent updates that RedHat and Mandrake have been putting out, I guess they should be 'destroyed' as well. Giving a hacker the ability to erase the root file system would be, IMHO, far worse then renaming some jpeg files and forwarding itself to others.
Bryan R.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
This "great American company" has been found guilty of reducing American consumers' freedom of choice through bullying. If there's a void for foreigners to film, it's largely because MS has illegally squashed a lot of its American competitors like Novell and Netscape (and even IBM).
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
notepad doesn't support keyboard shortcuts like ctrl-s and ctrl-a. argh!
Sure it does!
Try Ctrl-Alt-Del sometime, it supports that wonderfully!
Long distance prices are cheaper now. That's easy to see even with only a little research.
While I do believe that Ma Bell was a more benevolent monopoly then Microsoft I think their breakup has benifitted society.
Part of the trouble with getting work done on phone systems today is the shear number of phone and data systems in use. Would Bell have done any better? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not a linux/unix/bsd zealot but I do think Microsoft has given pcs a bad name. Far from making it easier for new users they baby new users and then when that pretty new windows box crashes, as they all do. The user is left with no knowledge and support people that know less about computers then many highschool students. These new users are completely lost. Microsoft gives them a false sence of security by making some simple tasks very easy then not encouraging users to learn about that expensive and complex machine they are using.
Just my opinion I could be wrong.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
If Micro$oft is broken up, the resulting "Baby Bills" will be forcefully separated at birth...
Imagine a fence separating the Redmond Campus in two parts, with miradors, fierce dogs, and all the like...
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
Netscape didn't 'bundle' their client and server software together any more than Microsoft has, and by the time all of the Office groupware stuff ships, IE will be tied to Back Office far more than Communicator was ever tied to Netscape's Suite.
Let's be honest here -- Microsoft is really just playing by Netscape's business plan -- give away a quasi-open spec client and make the money back on server products.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I kept trying to do that, but Windows 2000 kept putting it back!
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Well let's take a look
"Taking a large group and assuming that everyone in that group has the same opinion"
Sure, why not? Does majority not in fact rule? Do my descriptions not fit the opinions of the common Linux user?
"Taking the most vocal members of a group to represent the entire group"
They're your apparent elected representatives. Look at the number of anti-MS stories on slashdot posted within a week's time. What kind of message is conveyed?
"Misspelling "hypocrisy"
Well after 14 hours of college and work my eyes get a little tired and I start making typos. Sorry that this offended you.
"Also, it works in the general troll element of insinuating that Linux users are communists. "
First off, when did I insinuate that Linux users are communist? How would this be a troll even if I had?
"Plus, the part where you praise Microsoft because they're being nicer than... well, themselves in other situations... that's a completely new one. Caught me completely by surprise"
Nicer then themselves? Explain. I simply stated the good deeds Microsoft has done, could you please refresh my mind on the latest donations Redhat or other Open Source companies/figureheads have made?
There was a high-quality release of outlook? wow, is it sold in stores? Outlook 98 and Outlook 2000 crash 80% of the time for me when trying to open an IMAP mail store. It just deadlocks.. and... sits..
It is almost like nobody bothered to test if IMAP worked, four machines with three different sets of Outlook 98 or 2000 and Internet Explorer 5 or 5.5 beta, and none can pull in ten new messages from IMAP
I don't mean to imply that Microsoft doesn't deserve some credit for being clever and hard-working, but here are plenty of clever and hard-working companies out there that haven't had nearly the luck that MS has.
I'd also like to address your point about government intervention in the software industry being anti-capitalistic. I think that to a certain extent, you're right. But I'd also say that it is largely the government's intervention that let Microsoft achieve its current position. I am referring here to the IBM anti-trust case (which was eventually dismissed), as well as our badly broken intellectual property regulations and a legal system that favors those with lots of money rather than those who are right. The first helped put Microsoft on top, and the last two have helped Microsoft keep their dominant position. It seems to me that the government generally should keep their hands off the market, but since they've already screwed things up here, they need to help set them right again. The MS anti-trust suit is part of that.
---------------------------
"The people. Could you patent the sun?"
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
About that OJ trial remark, I think people are a little too sure he did it. I mean, read Michael Moore's book "Downsize This" to see an alternate viewpoint. The police officers that handled OJ's investigation were completely corrupt. I'm not saying that he didn't do it, I'm just saying that people need to remember what the words "LAPD" used to bring to mind.
Yah, I know its a little offtopic, but still, I think the media went a little overboard on trying to show people that OJ was guilty. And yess, I think he is an asshole for beating his wife, but I don't know that he killed her.
ah yes, but if you build the most popular car, and release the specs of what your car requires for an engine, and some other companies come along and build fantastic, reliable, cheap engines that all fit perfectly in your car, then suddenly there's some competition, no?
You don't "axe" someone a question, you "ask" them. Duh. No amount of repeating this will make it right, either.
Argh, stupid language trolls!
I'm from Texas, and even we don't execute anyone in civil cases... yet. Since this is basically one big civil case, there should be no execution. Now, civil cases do often impose harsh financial penalties. I would like to see that happen here, but I'm pretty sure it won't since anti-trust law doesn't deal with punishments, only remedies to restore competition. If the company is broken up, the shareholders will make a bundle of cash and be quite happy and content. Maybe one of the companies will become big enough again and commit the same crimes as Microsoft. Then maybe they get split up again. The shareholders still walk away happy. That's the real problem with the remedies that have been proposed. Why aren't the owners of the company (i.e. the shareholders) being punished for the actions of the corporation that they own? Shouldn't they face some kind of financial sanctions? Something? Anything? No. They'll make a ton of money if the company is broken up. That's my main issue with the whole thing. I want to see the owners face some consequences for the actions of the company they are investing in. Maybe then this sort of thing won't be so readily tolerated by shareholders. Maybe they'll demand that their corporations obey the law rather than thumb their noses at it. If they actually faced consequences, I think they'd be far more likely to do so.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
From fairly early in the case, MS must have abandoned all hope (perhaps after Gates miserable videotape, or all the emails) at the trial level, and is pinning it's hopes on Appeal.
So naturally they are difficult about Settlement, because you generally cannot Appeal a settlement which is, after all, an agreement.
This is a high stakes game, and MS is calling the DoJ and the Judge. The question becomes how far the Judge is prepared to go. Is anyone bluffing?
Newsmaker: Thomas Penfield Jackson1 2-newsmaker.html
http://w ww.internetworld.com/print/1998/10/12/news/199810
Jurist in Microsoft case opinionated, tardy in decisions
http://www.mercurycent er.com/business/microsoft/trial/judge/
The second article has more about Judge Jackson's life before becoming a judge.
-- Chris Goldman
Trust not a man who's rich in flax / His morals may be sadly lax
What's stopping the government from saying,
"Damnit, Microsoft. You screwed up big time. Here's your punishment and it's *FINAL*. No debating this."
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
Eventually, like the little spoiled kid, Microsoft will run off and pout in the corner -- maybe bully a few of the other little kids while they're at it, just to get their rocks off and feel a like they have a little manhood left.
I'm really surprised by the way Judge Jackson and the rest of the government has handled this case. It is very impressive.
I'd be interested to see a book by this Judge a few years after all of this is over. I'm not sure what his history is before practicing law, but he seems to be rather wise in the way he approaches these issues, even if they may not be within the average judge's grasp. I mean, for god's sake, how many other judges would have spent a night personally removing MSIE from Windows95 on their own just to see if it could be done?
Now, granted, I wouldn't want a lawyer to try the same thing in a medical malpractice suit, but . . .
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
http://www.hoe.nu/text/hoe-0865.txt
Thanks.
-Mogel
I'm quite sure you are not, but deep inside I still dimly hope you are joking.
Unless I'm gravely mistaken notepad.exe is the only test editor shipped by default with Windows.
Wordpad and Word are word processors and using them as text editors is at best an unnecessary complication - if it is at all possible.
IE is a completely different beast. I thought that confusing text editors and word processors was bad enough... but web browsers?
fB
Bill Gates pissed off the two groups who matter most in this administration: liberal academics, and politicians.
He pissed off the liberal academics by being a successful dropout. I mean, Laurence Lessig as a friend of the court???!!! Come on, the guy wants to nationalize the software industry for crying out loud.
He pissed off the politicians by not giving them money.
Both groups were left with the nagging revelation that they just aren't as important as they thought they were. So, as long as these two groups hold the reins of power in Washington they are naturally going to do what they can to get Gates.
Will someone please explain why it's wrong for MS to bundle a free IE with Windows, but it's right for RedHat to bundle a free OS with some office software?
Plainly the government has no clue.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
No, Mitnick's case has not been overblown.
This is a technology board, where we discuss technical issues.
Kevin Mitnick fits into discussion here very nicely.
Apparently he stole information valued at over $291 Million. Not very petty.
His imprisonment and the handling of his case are perfect examples of the misuses and abuses of power political prisoners routinely experience.
Mitnick needs to be talked about. Social injustice does not fix itself and every case matters, no matter how lowly you think it.
Since the breakup, the only people who have suffered was the common citizen with inflated local rates, long distance and interlata charges, and more frustration because of the budgetary constraints of the RBOC's.
excuse me? are we talking about the same company? i seem to remember a time not too long ago when i was paying long distance in the order $0.65/minute where i now pay $0.10, (and $0.30 where i now get it for free) and renting a $30 phone for $10/month.
i don't know what you're thinking, but the AT&T antitrust ruling was nothing but good for consumers (except for a small peroid of time in the transitional phases). and i firmly believe that breaking Microsoft into an operating systems company and an applications company would be excellent for consumers as well.
- j
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
>G.W. Bush has publically said many times that he would throw the MS antitrust case out if he could. It is safe to say that MS will be spending millions to get him elected.
This touches something that is a BIG difference between the US vs. the Netherlands (and probably europe): companies funding political parties, candidates etc.
This simply isn't allowed. This means companies have slightly less influence on politicians in europe than in the US. slightly...
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
You have a claim that there was a benefit in forcing OEM's to install the `free' IE 3.0 into Win95. Just because it has benefits isn't enough. There are lots of benefits in bundling (say) a free version of Visual Studio, or a free version of Office into every install of Win98/Win2k. Why didn't they (then) pay netscape and bundle a free copy with every install of 95, instead of spending billions on their own web browser?
Why does Microsoft not do the first two bundlings? Because it would be anticompetetive and be the death-knell for every other office suite manufacturer, and applications development platform? Or do they not do it because they would make less money? Or do they not do it because they realize that this argument is a slippery slope. If they slide down too far within this 'bundling' idea, they'll be within range of the DoJ alligator and get bitten in half?
Software is software and so unlike the physical world because it is infinitely malleable. It is obvious that it's a stupid idea for your power company to 'bundle' a TV with their service. or for the grocery store to 'bundle' automobiles.
With malleable software and OS's, it's hard to divide between 'core system software' and applications. It doesn't sound nonsensical to 'tie' office into Win2k, or to 'tie' outlook or the web browser into it.
There are several GOOD reason's for tying office into Win2k. Finer integration, If it would benefit consumers,
Did I hear correctly that Judge Jackson could issue this case directly to the Supreme Court, thus skipping the years upon years of appeals?
Am I right, or was I hearing things the few times someone told me about it?
T.
This is news, but hardly a surprise. Microsoft could hardly jeopardize their chances at appeal by recommending anything that made them appear to accept guilt.
At least they weren't arrogant asses like Socrates, who recommended that his own punishment be free meals for life at state expense.
Yes, there were some surprises early on, such as how careful judge PJ was and how careless MS was, but since the time of the FoF everything has pretty much been predictable. The only question lurking in my mind is, does the DoJ really want a breakup, or were they just offering the judge something he could turn down as "too harsh", in order to make him look like he's not out to get MS when the case comes up on appeal?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Don't you think that his case is just a wee bit overblown? The man is a petty thief, not some abused and beaten political prisoner. There are *real* political prisoners out there, quit reading 2600 for 10 mins, get your head out of the sand and you might see how lowly he ranks on the list of social injustices.
Naww, don't bother, it just too *hip* to bitch about Mitnick.
-------------------------------------------------
VESHINGTON -- Zee gufernment Vednesdey rejected Meecrusufft's ooffffer tu chunge-a its booseeness precteeces, seyeeng it vuoold feeel tu stup zee furm's feeuleshuns ooff unteetroost lev, und deffended its oovn prupusel tu breek up zee cumpuny. Bork bork bork!
"Vhet remedy dues Meecrusufft prupuse-a tu undu zee demege-a tu cumpeteeshun coosed by its pest illegel cundooct?" zee gufernment seeed in a 70-pege-a breeeff feeled in U.S. Deestrict Cuoort. Um de hur de hur de hur. In zee next sentence-a it unsvered its oovn qooesshun: "Nutheeng."
Zee cuoort feeling ceme-a in respunse-a tu un ooffffer by Meecrusufft lest veek tu restreect its booseeness cundooct rezeer thun be-a brukee up by zee cuoort, vheech it seeed vuoold be-a un ixtreme-a meesoore-a.
Deestrict Joodge-a Thumes Penffeeeld Jecksun rooled Epreel 3 thet zee sufftvere-a geeunt hed brukee U.S. unteetroost lev by ebooseeng its munupuly in oopereteeng systems fur persunel cumpooters. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
Zee U.S. Joosteece-a Depertment und 17 stetes celled oon Epreel 28 fur Meecrusufft tu be-a spleet intu a persunel cumpooter oopereteeng systems booseeness und a seperete-a eppleeceshuns sufftvere-a furm thet vuoold reteeen sooch essets es zee Meecrusufft Ooffffeece-a sufftvere-a sooeete-a und zee Internet Ixplurer brooser. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!
Nu metter vhet remedy zee joodge-a deceedes oon, Meecrusufft seys it elveys ected veethin zee lev und pluns tu eppeel Jecksun's feendings. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
"Meecrusufft ettempts tu ileede-a zee need fur strooctoorel releeeff by pretendeeng, cuntrery tu zee ifeedence-a et treeel und thees cuoort's feendings, thet its cundooct hed nu iffffect oon cumpeteeshun," zee strungly vurded breeeff seeed. Bork bork bork!
"Meecrusufft's prupused remedy is neeezeer sereeuoos nur senseeble-a," zee gufernment seeed. Bork bork bork!
Zee feeling Vednesdey ves zee schedooled tu be-a zee lest beffure-a Joodge-a Jecksun cundoocts a heereeng oon Mey 24 tu cunseeder vhet remedeees he-a shuoold impuse-a oon Meecrusufft. Um de hur de hur de hur.
Lest veek Meecrusufft esked zee joodge-a tu issooe-a a "soommery joodgment" thet vuoold deespuse-a ooff zee gufernment's prupusel tu spleet zee furm.
Meecrusufft seeed zee prublems fuoond by Joodge-a Jecksun cuoold be-a eddressed by ellooeeng cumpooter mekers mure-a freedum tu elter zee eppeerunce-a ooff Veendoos, less restreectife-a merketeeng egreements und nut reqooureeng sufftvere-a furms tu leemit deestribooshun ooff sufftvere-a fur use-a oon nun-Meecrusufft pletffurms. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
Boot zee gufernment seeed: "Meecrusufft's prupused remedy vuoold leefe-a it free-a tu cunteenooe-a zee fery precteeces vheech zee ifeedence-a et treeel shooed, und thees cuoort fuoond, tu be-a unlevffool und vuoold du nutheeng tu resture-a cumpeteeshun."
Iff zee joodge-a inseested oon cunseedering zee breekoop plun, zeen Meecrusufft seeed foorzeer heereengs shuoold be-a deleyed unteel December. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!
Thet vuoold geefe-a zee tvu seedes sefee munths tu prepere-a fur zee remedeees ergooments, mure-a thun zeey hed tu prepere-a fur zee treeel itselff.
Zee gufernment deesmissed Meecrusufft's cell fur munths ooff prepereshun teeme-a, celleeng it "unverrunted und unreesuneble-a."
Zee gufernment seeed thet Meecrusufft's sooggesshun fur teeming "is a trunsperent iffffurt tu deley zee determeeneshun und implementeshun ooff a remedy fur its illegel ects es lung es pusseeble-a."
Zee gufernment feeled zee lundmerk cese-a in Mey 1998, chergeeng Meecrusufft veet illegelly useeng its munupuly pooer tu destruy Netscepe-a, a Veb brooser veet oopereteeng system espureshuns. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
Zee treeel begun fuoor munths leter, in Ooctuber, und mey steell hefe-a munths tu roon beffure-a zee eppeels prucess begeens. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
Poobleec oopeeniun pulls shoo zee poobleec ooppuses zee breek-up ooff zee cumpuny, boot Joosteece-a Depertment unteetroost deefisiun cheeeff Juel Kleeen seeed hees stretegy ves besed oon "fects und zee lev."
"Zee poobleec duesn't vunt lev inffurcement tu be-a dune-a oon zee besees ooff pulls," Kleeen tuld a furoom spunsured by zee Vuudroo Veelsun Interneshunel Center fur Schulers Tooesdey. Bork bork bork!
"I dun't theenk thees is ebuoot demuneezeshun, I du theenk it's ebuoot lev inffurcement," he-a seeed, eddeeng "Thees is nut creeminel behefeeur. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! I'fe-a seeed poobleecly Meecrusufft hes mede-a muny impurtunt cuntreebooshuns. Um gesh dee bork, bork!"
-------------------------------------------------
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
news.com quotes:
The evidence showed "Microsoft's illegal conduct eliminated the serious threat that the browser and Java posed" to Windows.
Which I think is really funny, because, all rhetoric aside, java never was (and probably never will be) a threat to windows. This is exactly like saying that perl is a threat to windows.. It's all just claptrap created by people who get paid to regurgitate marketing rhetoric. Netscape said 'the browser will make the OS less important.. ' so the pundits said 'the browser will kill windows!' Heh, it just aint so. Same thing, to a much greater degree, with java.
Aint it ironic that the findings of a case against Microsoft, of all companies, come down to spin on marketing?
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
I'm suprised Micros**t isn't doing well in the legal battle field. While I am happy they are losing, I always thought that it's possible to weasel your way though any court battle as long as you have a good enough (e.i. expensive) lawyer. Microsoft has a team of lawyers, they are more famous than OJ Simpson (Bill Gates is anyway; richer too!), yet, they are not winning, or even doing decent!
I guess that murder and a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act are two different scenarios, but still!
I'm willing to bet there's not a person here who has anything agnist MS's hardware department. The well mouse is the greatest thing MS came up with. Granted I perfer the shape and size of Logitech mice, but the best feeling wheel is on a MS mouse. Is your keyboard a MS Natural? And most of the Sidewinder line (exclude all game pads save the original) are outstanding products.
...) but if you want to choose MS over it's competitiors, you have to take Windows as well. There's the root of the OS antitrust...
Office is an outstanding product. (Most of the time) that continues to raise bar for other office suites. (Corel Office is impressive as well, and better priced.) They would have a ture winner if the file formats were not propritoary. (I once has someone ask for my resume in Word format instead of PDF. I wrote them back and told them why I wasn't going to put that into a format where my resume might not look the way I wanted it to, withdrew my application [mostly because I had found a better job by this point])
IE:
It is a good browser. So is Netscape. Stability wise, they're about even. There is a measuer of convience havin IE installed on automatically on a windows machine. Having a browser right away is about as important as having your networking drivers right away. You need both to get the latest software and drivers for your machine. Maybe MS should include a stripped down IE (with as much functionality as kfm or gmc)
Running IE on a Mac is quite the experience. The UI is just...interesting. Port the mac version to linux, that would be kinda cool.
OS: The downfall
It may have it's strong points, but it has an extremely long list of weaknesses. It's used as the tool to get you to buy/use all of the above products. MS could probally remain one company IF they released native versions of the above software for platforms other than Windows and Mac (on the same release schedule.)
That way, you don't have to run a MS OS to use your MS Software. They would be allowing for other operating systems to compete fairly.
The competition to MS software is there, and there are great alternitives (Quicken, Corel, Netscape,
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I mean, I'm as interested in the details of this trial as the next man and most of the arguments for/against Microsoft *are* interesting. But this story has been on the slashdot several times and quite frankly, there's nothing new to add to the discussion, it's all rehashing over old stuff by now. I'm sure most people could just cut and post their comments from ones they've made previously.
The thing is, people are going to feel the need to have their say on the matter everytime a Microsoft/DoJ article is posted and that's understandable. But just maybe think again and hold off until there is genuinely a new angle to comment upon.
Rich
I hate to be the pain in the ass that asks this question, but what exactly is an operating system sans monopoly? Worst case scenario, everyone that owns a PC has a different operating system: Some run Linux, some run the future of Windows, and some run various other open-code OS's that are incompatible with everyone else. Do you actually think that the companies that spawn these "new" OS's are going to take the time to code compatability with a dozen other systems they are competing against? Look at Corel with Wordperfect. They are automatically stating (however distant it sounds) that Microsoft has won the battle for the preferred office suite, because they are making Wordperfect compatible with Office, so users can transfer Word documents into Wordperfect, and Excel spreadsheets into Quattro. You don't see Microsoft bustin' nutz over trying to make Office compatible to Wordperfect do ya? Because they know they've won, and they don't see Wordperfect as a threat. The same could happen to OS's, if this Microsoft thing goes down. Ever think that Windows maybe isn't as bad as all that?
Perhaps you should read something other than your own corporate propaganda.
Concerning the benefits of integrating Windows and MSIE, read Boies interrogation of Allchin where Allchin had to admit point by point that the claimed benefits would be available by separate distribution also. The trial brought up facts that countered Microsoft's claims about the benefits of integration where two of the three judges of the Appeals Court wrote their conclusion without doing as much as bothering with relevant facts.
As for your silly analysis of the role of the Netscape browser, why not talk about the obvious: if a killer application is in principle available for multiple platforms it will lower the applications barrier to entry in the operating systems market. Note that contrary to Netscape, Microsoft does not port applications to operating systems cheaper than Windows.
Furthermore, making exclusive deals on the basis of monopoly power is not ever "pro-competitive", just as not shooting people is not a philantropic act. At best a marketing act would be "competitive", although in this case it is merely not declared illegal.
Now that we have arrived at your use of Newspeak, and given your "many slashdot readers" line, I think it is not out of line to attribute some claims of the Microsoft company line to you.
1. a.) An operating system can be written by a single person in a short period of time, without this person having previously marketed anything, which shows that there is intensive competition. b.) Windows could only have been written by Microsoft's spending of many billions of dollars and only because Microsoft also produced a text processor, a spreadsheet, a flat database application - and whatever else is in MS Office nowadays.
2. a.) Linux is a serious competitor on the desktop for Microsoft and there are advanced applications in all categories for the Linux desktop (testimony under oath of Paul Maritz). b.) Linux on the desktop is unrealistic.
3. a.) In no industry there is so much competition as in the software markets Microsoft operates in. b.) There is no viable replacement for Microsoft's products now and there won't be in any short term, so any harm to Microsoft will bring significant harm to the global economy at large.
I wish you and your fellows would at some time accept the logical rule of "not (A and not A)". Alas, you don't and won't. Not accepting rules of logic makes any form of discussion with you and your fellows a waste of time.
-cjr
Don't forget about Time Warner for cable! At least there are other options instead of cable, but that's the only cable option there is for much (if not all) of the US!
The only monopoly I don't have a problem with is the power company. They seem to charge a reasonable amount for their service, which (at least in my area) is rarely interrupted even during most storms.
--
The shareholder is always right.
Rich
It's even funnier to watch a 500 billion dollar corporation claim the same thing. That Linux is a worthy competitor, while poring money into studies saying that it just doesn't hold up. (just a little worried Bill?)
Isn't it funny that you bring up Bills charity work for minorities when you know it only happened after Bill started to sweat about the verdict. Why don't you bring up all of they money Bill is handing out in DC and all those commercials and all those predictions of doom in Microsoft gets split up!
Now that is funny. But, the best was when, in his deposition, Bill couldn't remember what a browser was and started to rock back and forth like a baby, that was great!
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Heehee, which would be rather fun. Here you go Mr. Bill, your 25 cents liquidated worth per $80 stock.
If they can just delay the sentancing for another two years they'll OWN EVERYTHING! MUHAHAHAHA!!
Please ignore the above garbage, there is nothing to see here, move along.
-Zane
This sig is worse than my last.
Actually, what I think would do a _lot_ more good would be to revoke the boards and CEO's status of being not responsible. The actions of Microsoft as a company are based upon the decisions of those who control the company. Those persons have, for a long time, been very aware that they have been violating the laws, but since they are unlikely to get personally punished for doing so, they do not refrain from doing it.
Actions have consequences. Engaging in criminal activity should have consequences, even when done as a CEO for a large company.
Actually, I managed to buy a laptop without paying for windows. It was delivered with windows preinstalled.. the manufacturer couldn't get a hard disk without it. However, they have discontinued their PC line now, and even when they did sell those laptops they never announced that you could buy it without windows; it was a choice of 95 or 98 in the forms.
You might be right that M$ has legal grounds for winning an appeal (and most commentators agree with this view) but the repercussions of a victory for M$ (since it would be landmark) should be considered from a moral point of view, not just a legalistic one. (I'm talking about the kerberos debacle here too). /. Vs M$) should be decided with a view towards the future and the common good. M$ might have sound legal arguments but they are still a monopoly (lawyers will find loopholes in any law). Maybe ppl shouldn't be allowed post comments on /. describing how to circumvent propriety software (kerberos not being an example) but free speech still has to be protected on the net.
Big cases such as this where the outcome would have such an effect on innovation/competition in the technology market place (and on the future of free speech on the web as per
My worst fear is that if big corporations get their way and stupid privacy(lack of)/DMCA/liability of ISPs legislation is passed, then the net we have come to love will end up as a contentless online shopping mall. And knowing M$, one that's about as secure as a house made of cards.
So, you honestly think MS is not maintaining it's monopoly through illegal means? Just curious.
Illegal means? I don't think so, but only because I don't believe the laws, as they currently stand, forbid the sort of behavior I've been reading about.
Now if you were to ask me about "unfair means" or "nasty means" or "less than admirable means" then my answers would differ. I'm too ignorant to try to understand the extent to which capitalism *should* be regulated. My post was only an attempt at revealing what I've learned about the way it *is* regulated.
And P.S. I'm a nice guy, really!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
They'll just do another one of their surveys.
Has Microsoft done anything bad?
(compared to mass marketing deficient and deadly medicine in third world countries)
Yes / No
Should Microsoft be broken up?
(or should the courts deal with more important things like taking on airlines who skimp on servicing their planes?)
Yes / No
Oooo, survey shows Microsoft hasnt done anything bad and they shouldnt be broken up!
(maybe i do have a chance on the AP test tomorrow)
--
The shareholder is always right.
Actually Bill's charity work extends as far back as 96. I guess he was sweating over Judge Jackson back then also?
Here, have a read http://www.gatesfoundation.org
This should be interesting. After you're done with the 37 some pages of donations he has made, think back to all the good deeds Linux companies have done. What a villain Bill Gates is indeed.
It's true that it is a civil case but what Microsoft is being tried for is corporate murder and corporate attempted murder and probably corporate kidnapping and corporate assault too. It seems to me that if corporations want the same rights as human beings (ability to hold copyright etc) then they should be subject to the same general laws, transalted and adapted as necessary and in this case, in some states of the USA, that would be the death penalty.
After all, it's one thing to compete with the guy on the other desk to make the most sales this month, it's another to cut the brake lines on his car to *make sure* it's you.
Rich
You cannot integrate without bundling.
Potential Juror: yes
M$ Lawyer: I move to reject this juror due to pre-bias...
No, they would have to only take computer users who had never used Microsoft products. This would be a good thing!
--
The shareholder is always right.
I'm happy I didn't see Windows Calculator in there... I remember doing homework last year for a course at Penn State and crashing Windows Calculator with simple calculations... Anywayssssssssssssss...
------- What exactly is real?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: people don't know that there is stuff out there better then MS. They may sort of know MS is a jerk in terms of being a company, and buying out other companies and such, but all they hear about Linux is from Linux fanatics who immediately castrate them when they hear that they use Win95 or something. And if they use AOL, my GOD they're in for it.
You see, the problem is that the large majority of computer users who could benefit from a *nix switch (which, IMHO, is almost everybody.... the large number of choices between distros makes it possible to find ones that run easy, or ones that are tech crazy, etc.... the only possible problem is getting somebody to install it for them, and that isn't always an issue) feel that they don't really need it. Windows does what they need, and they accept crashes as part of daily life. People are absolutely amazed when I tell them my Linux box has been going for two and a half years without a single system crash (SYSTEM crash, not Netscape crash... fortunately those are easy to fix though). Many people have heard about Linux, but don't really register that it's *FREE*, *OPEN-SOURCE*, and has a lot of free and open source programs with it too that do games, word processing, whatever. And people don't realize that the quality of MS products is truly unacceptably low. MS is great at marketing and business (i.e. beating the crap out of competitors), but not so strong in the software department.
Well, just my two cents.
A point that many seem to miss is blindingly simple and yet profound in its implications:
Microsoft can't be trusted.
Sounds silly like that, doesn't it? Yet, they've proven over and over again that they will break the law (none of these candyass phrases like 'anti-competitive practices'). If there might have been some mistake, they had a chance to correct their error years ago the last time they were dragged into court. Fat lot of good that did.
Microsoft is a giant CRIMINAL corporation. They break the law, so they are criminals. Period.
If you don't break it up, then you have to have hundreds of people whose sole job is to keep tabs on the company while MS will work every trick in the book to keep them from doing said job. Plus, they will scream bloody murder every single time that an auditor or investigator has to check for compliance. They've proven THAT habit, time and time again.
The only solution is to institute structural changes in the company that makes compliance unavoidable, rather than voluntary. As long as it remains a single entity, that will be impossible.
That said, the only question is how to break it up, not if we should.
/// Not a super-genius . . . yet. ///
Great post. I don't mean to flame, but...
I would like to buy a Sony Vaio. I would like it with Linux. 1) No retailer will offer me a refund for Windows. 2) Sony will not offer me a refund for Windows. 3) Microsoft will not offer me a refund for software which I do not use. They say I should chase Sony, as they sold the OS to Sony, not to me.
Good point about Netscape not being a direct competitor with MS. But whichever way you silce it, the computer OS market, including servers, Macs and the rest, is a MS market. 80% is well above the market share you need to start monopoly proceedings. The case for Netscape may be bad, but for the states, who represent consumers, there is still a case to answer. (IANAL, in case you hadn't guessed.)
>So then how does Microsoft not fit into that?
Insofar as it's preventing others from achieving the same goal no matter what.
fB
and the government wanted to punish me for having a very successful business I'd pick up the company and go to some other country. I'm sure countries would gladly pay for microsoft to move its headquaters to their country.
:)
You really don't want to do that, even Billy can't afford a war with the US and the EU
If the judge insisted on considering the breakup plan, then Microsoft said further hearings should be delayed until December.
The govenment can't do this.
The source code, and all the other IP of Microsoft is just that - property of Microsoft (and shareholders).
To distribute the source code around, the govenment would have to compensate Microsoft for the loss of (legitimate) earnings that would ensue.
In other words, the Govenment would have to buy the code off Microsoft. This is one of the laws desgined to stop overly heavy handed govenment intervention.
Oh, and forking the code would result in multiple, incompatable version of Windows. Just think of all those bugs (sorry features), would be changed.
"And P.S. I'm a nice guy, really!"
Translation: "Smile in the face, knife in the back!"
BTW, does anyone remember the Gates quote about Novell, smiling, and knives?
A more accurate representation of a corporate death penalty would to revoke a company's corporate charter and auction off its assets. As has been discussed here before, some decisions I believe occured in the late 1800's, that gave corporations legal status as persons. I've always felt this strange abstraction was pretty silly, but it is possible for a state to revoke the corporate charter of a company if it finds its actions detrimental to the public good. A couple articles that discuss this are at: http://adbusters.org/campaigns/charter/ and http://adbusters.org/campaigns/charter/death.html
This is kinda OT, but the Emperor actually used to give a thumb up for 'kill him', pointing towards the heart.
-- "When society requires to be rebuilt, there is no use in attempting to rebuild it on the old plan."
Does Outlook support APOP? How does one enable it, and what is "always send secure password" about?
How do you...
- blame gun manufacturers when people use them for murder?
- blame McDonalds when you spill coffee on yourself?
- blame RJ Reynolds when you get lung cancer after smoking for 50 years?
- blame Microsoft when some punk writes and spreads a virus?
Microsoft wasn't responsible for the virus - just for writing stupid software that allowed for the easy spread of it. I suppose you could liken it to trigger locks for guns: the default might make it more difficult for "accidental murders" and "accidental viruses." Either way people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions.Too bad you couldn't :) He recomended "for MicroSoft to GPL" . I made the arguement that they would never agree to do that, for they would become another company... a commodity if you will. That is much different from saying the courts make them GPL their code. Can you see the point now? :)
:)
Further, the courts could never get away with forcing a company to completely abandon their industry. Kinda scary if they could though. It would be like saying Coke has to give away their formula so everyone can make Coke, but Coke can still provide support for fountain service:) (and dont think Coke doesn't pay off supermarkets for those isle caps
Peace.
I firmly believe that the best thing that Judge Jackson could do is to rule that the O/S price must be broken out as a line item in the cost of a system.
Currently, most large PC vendors are required to include the "microsoft tax" on all of their systems, even those that ship without a Microsoft O/S.
If people were to see that $70 of the price of their $800 system was for Windows, they might look at alternatives that cost less.
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
Check out colotto.com
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
Interested in the Colorado Lottery or Powerball games?
check out http://colotto.com
on the one hand, you have a point by point analysis of the legal situation. On the other hand, you have an essentially deconstructionist point of view. This view does not need the details. The law is complex, and busting up Microsoft seems like a good idea. Further, the government deserves respect, and Microsoft should cooperate.
This is a remarkable attitude from the generally anarcho-libertarian population in Slashdot. Were it the DoJ trying to regulate open source software because it is a threat to enforcement of the DMCA, for example, everyone here would rightly respond with: a) The DMCA is bad law; and b) How can it be enforced on the diffuse open source community? On the grounds that the DMCA tramples fair use and other well-established doctrines. I would expect to find well-researched articles here that go into considerable detail. I would expect to find the generalized "But it hurts Britney's royalties" argument on the other side.
So here we have an article that points out why, if we honor our laws and Constitution, we should probably call off the DoJ dogs. And a response that fully embraces the "meaning of is" approach to interpreting laws that the deconstructionist philosophy infecting our government has brought on. Interesting.
I wrote parts of this stuff
It's a documented limit. not a bug.
and under NT/Win2k the limit is 4 gigs. i would say that is enough.
-Jon
this is my sig.
A sentence is valid if native speakers would happily use it. Since many native speakers do actually use Hemos's construction without batting an eyelid, that means his sentence is linguistically valid.
What is not linguistically valid is to take rules which are appropriate for formal writing, and then assume they apply to stuff written in an informal style. No modern linguist would support your objection to Hemos's sentence. Grammar rules are descriptive, not prescriptive, at least when applied to adult native speakers.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
They're are different standards of ASCII for Unix and MS products. Unix uses a CR for a new line. MS uses CRLF.
Notepad is the simplest possible text editor for windows, so what it doesn't handle this. Wordpad, Word, and IE all handle it fine.
-Jon
this is my sig.
Hemos is just trying to Think Different.
but now I can install my own phone from the box in less than an hour! they just turn it on! much better. -craig
-pyrrho
Exactly.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
While I sympathize with your situation, I don't think you are right. Instead of trying to go point by point, enough to say that these arguments simply didn't convince Judge Jackson compared to the mountain of evidence provided by DoJ.
While some of that may be MS related (MS's transparent tactics didn't endear them to anyone there, and their previous lack of good faith when it comes to the Consent Decree), most of the ruling was pretty clear-cut.
But with that said, I am personally hoping the remedy is changed. First, I don't think it will accomplish anything lasting in terms of returning competition to the desktop. Second, I don't like the idea of the Government becoming involved on a lasting basis in the software industry-- once in, you'll get 'policy experts' whose only job is to tell us how to do our jobs, and we'll never be able to get rid of them.
Instead, I think we ought to be discussing good remedies. For one thing, each company affected (netscape, corel, etc) can use the finding of fact in a civil suit. The government could follow Cringley's suggestion and fine MS; it has tens of billions in cash reserves sitting around. Third, it could open the source to windows in a non-restrictive license. Fourth, it could implement full disclosure of MS file formats and APIs, forcing MS to fully document all of these, and imposing a waiting period of not less than one year on changes to these formats. Finally, it could impose non-discriminatory, fully disclosed prices on products to OEMs.
All IMHO, of course, and you can take or leave some or all of them. But I think it is pretty clear that MS has the monopoly. What we need to look at are remedies which will actually remedy something. Breaking up MS is both too extreme and won't solve anything.
MS's big problem right now, of course, is that they've played so much dirty poker trying to get cheap, one time benefits that now that the stakes are high, noone wants to take any chances. If they had been ruthless but honorable during the trial and before, the proposals would probably be less radical.
#include IANALAnd what's the security hole? COM?
Well, I know of several manufacturers who will sell you a laptop without a hard disk and without charging you for the hard disk. Such laptops will also come without a copy of Windows, but all the manufacturers I've seen still charge you for the Windows license. I know it's absurd, but there it is.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Oh come on now! /.-er for years, a good contributor, a member of the family, if you will.
konstant has been a
Your pressuring him to quit Microsoft on moral grounds sounds suspiciously like tactics and logic used by McCarthyism. To ask a guy to quit his job, his livelyhood, like that, is pretty, well, harsh. He's an engineer, not a manager, not a marketer, not a lawyer, not a veep. Lay off the poor guy. We're lucky any MS employees bother to respond here at all.
konstant-
Thanks for your thoughtful input to this conversation, and especially THANK YOU (whether you were involved in the decision or coding or not) for Microsoft's FINALLY fixing the Outlook ILOVEYOU bug, by securing the execution of mail content.
However, I think you're wrong. MS will lose this one and lose the appeal as well. Sorry. Your bosses were bad, and need to be spanked. Sorry to be cynical here, but I don't think absolute law has anything to do with it. The only way MS will get out of this mess is by dragging it out until Bush is president, and obtaining his aid and comfort.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Actually, from a legal standpoint, the "findings of fact" present an impressive factual foundation for the Government's proposed Remedies. The evidentiary standard for overturning a court's "findings of fact" is very high-- They must be shown to be clearly erroneous. I very much doubt that Microsoft will be able to breach that standard../
So M$ is supplimenting "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" with "Deny, Delay, Dubya"...
Information wants to be free -- but informants want to be paid.
I keep hearing about M$ "inovations". I have yet to see any. So what I suggest is that ALL prior versions of software be released into the public domain. (I would prefer open source, but lets be realistic)
This would force M$ to stop talking about inovation and start inovating.
No one will buy a copy of Win98SE if the can get a copy of Win98 First edition for under $5 from cheep bytes. The only way ANYONE will pay is if the new version has something in it that they need. Now we are talking inovation.
Before you start the flames. I really doubt that M$ has any inovation in them.
Not everyone deserves a 320i
I don't think that the simple "big fine" solution will work.
This will not prevent Microsoft from engaging in illegal behavior, and they'll simply pass the costs on to consumers, and being a Monopoly, they are free to do that. I'm sure the next move would be something along the lines of:
Well, Apple bundles Works with their OS (on the iMac), so why can't we bundle Office? um - to keep things consistent, we're going to have to NOT produce Office for Mac anymore, by the way. um, Linux bundles a compiler with their OS, so why don't we bundle Visual Studio?
Watch the remaining futile competition vanish. Watch the marketshare climb, watch the prices skyrocket.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Why the hell are Microsoft allowed to suggest penalties or restrictions? While I'm not denying their right to appeal, regardless of my personal opinion, why in the world should they be allowed to suggest what should be done? They were in court for breaking the law. I can see it now. "You've been found guilty of the crime of grand theft. What would you like your sentence to be?"
Microsoft should have as many rights as any individual in court. The right of appeal, nothing more.
Hurey for the US!
1st case - 1932 - IBM and Remington-Rand have a lock on the market for punch card machines and are forcing customers to buy their punch cards. The case goes to the Supreme Court and the DoJ wins in 1936 (4 years).
2nd case - 1952 - IBM is the only name in the tabulator business and is only making them available by lease. They sign a consent decree in 1956 stating they would create a used market by selling as well as leasing (4 years).
3rd case - 1969 - IBM is accused of predatory pricing of mainframe peripherals. The case goes on forever and is finally thrown out in 1982 for being irrelevant (13 years).
Let's just focus on improving free OSes like Linux, so that we can sooner dethrone Microsoft and save the US taxpayers some money.
+++
+++
NO CARRIER
So instead of berk, you can call me sarx or "gnash the teeth". Remember "Nash the Slash"?
It's nice to see that they picked up something from "Computers for Dummies". Seriously who thought that they would actually accept M$'s offer? They could break M$ into a million peices, but all that would to is make a couple of jobs for mindless "yes men" who would just be minions of Gates anyway.
A funny tidbit... I was watching NBC while reading the article and a M$ commercial came on. The one with Bill giving a speech on how Microsoft brought us into the new millinium (lmao!). Anyone else think that Gates sounds like he was just castrated?
--
#nohup cat
Split them up into multiple companies. Say 3 OS companies and 5 applications, and then let them compete against one another. Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE/etc/ manage to do it...
Well, if they disagree with me about my hair color, they are.
Open API's, published specs and open sourcing the current versions of software won't prevent things like the Kerberos maneuver in the future. Making a competitive situation will. I happen to agree with the 4-company plan, but even the 2-way split will make a competetive application company and a regulated monopoly OS company. That's a much more acceptable situation than an unregulated company with a monopoly...
Let's face it, even with an open source version of Windows 2000, all it takes is an Office bugfix that only works on the proprietary Windows 2002 to get us back to court.
I've said from the very beginning of this, that the best (and only viable) solution would be for MicroSoft to GPL their OS and sell development and support services instead.
You're absolutely right about the Supreme Court's ability to decline a case if they wish. I should have been more specific. I just meant that the judge has that option where he usually wouldn't. (would he?) I guess the only other reason for the Supreme Court to hear it is that it's antitrust law and it's weird. Nah. It requires quick action. This first trial has already taken so long that the original points are almost non-issues.
Bug Free Software
Solitare
Freecell
Minesweeper
Notepad
Broken Sofware to be open sourced
everything else
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
There doesn't have to be a corporate murder law. Corporations are wholly artificial. They cannot exist at all without the government letting them. As long as it's split up equitably among the owners, there's no reason why the government must continue to allow it to exist.
Being a corporation is a privilege, and as such can be revoked at any time. Murder is not necessary. Human beings, have a right to exist, thus the circumstances where that right can be revoked must not be commonplace.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Try and buy one PC notebook without paying for Windows. It's stunningly hard really - harder than buying a PC notebook without a hard drive. I reckon that's a pretty good indicator that Microsoft is capable of diminishing economic freedom of choice.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
The DOJ will monitor the two companies and prevent them from improper behavior (hopefully anything more than saying 'Hi Bill' 'Hi Steve') for a certain amount of time. IIRC 10 years.
This isn't new - the baby Bells had similar restrictions. Unfortunately the bastards are all merging again. One wonders when people will be happy with a successful business and not need MORE.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Very interesting post, I'm happy to see it moderated up.
(Usual disclaimer: IANAL, I'm no American, I'm biased towards breaking MS up, but not too well informed about the details of the case)
However, I have two main objections to your argument.
The first one is not exactly relevant to the subject, but here you go anyway: Your signature doesn't jive well with the body of your post. If you don't want to speak for Microsoft, the company you work for, don't use we when you talk about them. Ugh, caught myself nitpicking again.
Second, you state that: When determining monopoly power, the law first defines an applicable market. For the purposes of antitrust, "the market" is the arena in which meaningful competition exists between interchangeable goods. The DoJ insists we have a monopoly in PC Operating Systems, and they further claim that we used that monopoly to defeat Netscape, which we felt might be a threat to that monopoly in the future. And you then propose to define the market in question as application platforms for which you admit Microsoft doen't have a monopoly.
This however justifies the DOJs argument rather than invalidating it. What the DOJ is claiming is that MS leveraged their monopoly on one market (the OS market) to obtain a dominant position in another market (the browser market). In other words, Netscape has to be in a different market for the DOJ to be able to claim unfaire use of monopoly power. Remember, a monopoly in itself is not illegal, it is the attempted use of monopoly power to crush competitor in other markets which poses a problem.
Or did I miss something obvious here?
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
While I am all for the harshest of penalties against Microsoft (why isn't their a corporate death penalty? or corporate imprisonment?) I doubt anything the US government can do will have any significant impact on MS or the way they do business.
Microsoft will still bully, break or buy their competitors, because companies large and small fear them.
Microsoft will still embrace and extend "standards" because developers will tolerate anything to be on MS's good side.
Microsoft will still have tons of customers because customers prefer name-brand over quality.
The government's moves are nothing more than making a loud noise, and saying "We thing this company is doing wrong." If they had any guts and/or really cared about customers getting shafted they would utterly destroy the company to allow fresh competition come to the scene.
Antitrust cases can be taken directly to the Supreme Court; bypassing the circuit courts and shedding years from a trial. I believe it's up to the judge. Downside is that the Supreme Court can sometimes be more politically influenced.
If we lived in a purely capitalist society there would not be any laws. MS could force people to buy at gunpoint and call it 'effective marketing'.
Repeat after me: Human beings are not intrinsically capitalists.
Generally capitalism coincides with what we want to be doing anyway. But not always. Thus rather than being slaves to the system, is it not better to make the system serve PEOPLE? Hell, come up with something better than capitalism - something which doesn't permit, by it's very nature, abuses of power, and which doesn't require constant (fallible) human intervention - and I'm sure it'll take off like hotcakes. Obviously no one's thought it up yet....
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ As for the Microsoft break up ... I don't understand how this country of our rampantly embraces capitalism and then scowls at the outcome of it's behavior. Microsoft is the american dream, my friends, it's the bullshit we're filled with from Day 1 and "taught" to "respect". ]
BZZZZZ!!! Nope. Okay, you need to study up on history. It's truly fascinating how much one can understand the present by learning about the past.
Okay, let's go back to the Industrial Revolution, between Lincoln and TR. The North won the civil war, and the Union was preserved. Then, America took off in the industrial mode, moving west, doing tons of things, yada yada. However, it wasn't all happy for everybody. In fact, it was only happy for very very few people. You see, the gap between the rich and the poor was huge. Almost all the cash was in the hands of a few, with the rest of the workers and such being royally shafted.
Thus were born the trusts. The steel trusts, the railroad trusts, etc. And of course, the "money trust", aka J.P. Morgan. In case you don't know what a trust is, think monopoly. Think Microsoft :).
Now then, during this period of about 1875-1900, the US had what is known as a "Laissez-faire" capitalistic system of economy, as opposed to the increasingly regulated capitalism of the modern US. "Laissez-faire" is French, and it basically means "hands off" (laissez=leave, faire=to do... study a frickin language if you haven't already, it will enrich your life). This is the true unenforced capitalism that you think is the American dream.
You are wrong there as well. The American Dream consists of the belief that it is easy to move through the social ladder of the US. As in, you can move in from wherever as a poor immigrant, and if you work hard and such, you will be able to work up and become successful. In fact, the trusts formed by the laissez faire capitalism destroyed this dream. You moved in and got a job as a worker for a company where you lived in a company apartment, bought food from a company store, etc. Your life was owned by the company, and you were basically gouged by all the trusts.
Okay, still reading? Good. Well, I'm not gonna go full out on a history lesson here, but trust me man, of all the classes to sleep through history is not one of them. Neither is a language (I advise spanish, or possibly french). But remember that this country DOESN'T embrace capitalism (it's been regulated ever since the trust-busting days of Teddy Roosevelt), and MS pretty much represents the opposite of the American Dream (as in, success for all, not big time success for one stupid dork).
Sorry to reply to my reply but the original comment just got marked down as a troll. I happen to think it was wrong, but I don't think it was a troll. Shurely some mistake?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Just the fact that you took the time to post this well-thought discussion gives me hope for /. People will probably flame you for saying the "M-word", but they should subscribe to the idea of "knowing their enemy" instead.
Was it not Al Capone who avoided years of real legal trouble and was proverbial teflon despite his known involvement in the mob? Until he was reeled in for tax evasion. Microsoft is a similar situation.
Whether they know the details or not, people are "aware" of Microsoft's business dealings and the way in which they ascended to the throne. Bill Gates who now champions himself a bastion of "innovation", is the same guy who privately beams with pride over destroying competition, wrangling shares of companies to influence their products, and creating distribution deals that are prohibitive to channel "sass".
What you see in general nowadays I believe to be the backlash of all the arrogance we have seen from Microsoft over the last decade or so. There are companies that behave a whole lot more monopolistically (Intel anyone?), but do so more quietly, leaving only boring market evidence of the fact. Since there is no "evil overlord" to put a face on, they do not draw the negative attention.
This is not to say that Microsoft is a scapegoat, but only the Al Capone of today. Certainly a legal argument can be assembled that makes the company seem utterly angelic, but the popular course is to penalize them for their hubris. If they do not get the screws put to them this time, it will eventually happen until they learn to duck the everyman's radar.
Just my two cents.
-L
Actually it's pretty easy, simply head over to pricewatch.com and take a look around. While searching for a laptop I easily found several vendors who offered laptops without any OS (or hard drives for that matter) Now try buying a new Apple machine without MacOS. That's a monopoly.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: people don't know that there is stuff out there better then MS.
Yeah, and that's been one of the things that I personally work to change. I came into work that thursday, and a co-worker was all worred that she sent this virus, I initially laughed. It sounded kinda stupid to be a virus, but volia it was. She thought this cause she sent her fiance a "I love you" card over e-mail. Within a half hour of walking in the door, I found that someone on the HP/UX admin mailing list had sent it...I dumped it onto my linux box (I'm forced to use Look Out! (TM) at work, *sigh*) and then ripped it apart. I then printed it out and took it to her to show her. I then said "Unless you wrote this, then you didn't send your fiance the virus." She look at it and laughed, nope wasn't her, but a few people that work around her noticed that I had the virus source code in my hands and seemed amazed that I was holding that. They asked how I got it, Linux, it doesn't care about Visual Basic, only Winblows and Look Out! care. And besides I mention that our DNS, NIS, DHCP servers are all Linux, and over time they get a respect for it. Some of the users want linux on their desktop rather than NT, but know they can't 'cause of the applicaitons they run. I've had a few of them ask to borrow my linux install cd's so they can install at home.
Basically it's just a matter of education and demonstration what linux can do. I honestly think that with M$'s breakup (if they break it up right), it can only benefit the industry. For example, break the OS into a company, the Apps into yet another company and then the development tools into another, or give it to borland. And most important don't allow non-disclosure agreements between the parts. Full disclosure should be done with each of the parts. This will kill the hidden API's, hidden compiler flags, and all of the stuff we know M$ does. Basically this will force them to be competitive with any other vendor out there. Like Be, they have an OS, and they publish their API's so developers can code for it, same with Sun and so on... That way M$ products would be at the same standing as any other product on the market, and wouldn't have the unfair advantage of "being integrated into the OS", or M$'s "innovation." This is what I see as the best way to break them up. Maybe just maybe they'll be forced to make good products....most likely minus the OS portion...
"If you insist on using Windoze you're on your own."
I haven't been following the trial, and so I'm not at all swayed by this argument because your point is moot (IANAL but I like any word that makes you sound like a cow).
You need to re-read Jackson's conclusions. Microsoft is a monopoly, but he states that in order to be found liable you need to show anticompetative practices that were used to maintain the monopoly.
Netscape fit that bill. As middleware, the browser could offer an API to developers that could be used instead of Windows API. Unlike a competing OS, the chicken-and-egg problem is solved since it's already deployed on nearly every user's computer.
Jackson states that Microsoft realized that developer's "realiance on Netscape's platform would depend largely on the size and trajectory of Netscape's share of browser usage". Thus Microsoft used exclusionary deals with OEMs and eventually integration with the OS as a means to tie up the easy means of distributions for Netscape and crush their market share.
And realize that if this is to overturned, it will be on appeal, not a new trial. I don't know law, but I know that overturning a decision is a lot harder.
Besides, I'd think you'd welcome the break-up. I think that it will eventually make Microsoft better. And I'll still run Linux ;-)
Besides, it's easy to remove Windows Scripting Host from a system by using the add/remove programs. So for corporate environments, where this and others like it have really hit hard and be spread fastest (who uses outlook at home?), whose fault is it really then? The network admins... You would have figured after the MELISSA thing, they'd have disabled WSH.
The network admins at my employer did and while we received the ILOVEYOU letter from outside sources, it did absolutely nothing in our shop, which is a network of 3000 NT/2000 stations.
So whose fault is it?
You can thank all those interviews with pro athletes who played "real good" instead of "really well." Or maybe its a chicken-and-egg thing and we are all to blame.
I doubt that many products of the U.S. primary/secondary educational system (or my own Canadian one) know or care about the difference between adverb and adjective.
It just occured to me what the prefect punishment for Microsoft should be: take away their legal department. It short and to the point, no one really gives a rats ass about bundliing a browser with an OS when the company behind it can spend over $2 billion a year on lawyers. Just my 0x02 cents.
Yes that's why I said that there needed to be other restrictions put in place. Obviously opening the Windows API isn't going to do much good if Microsoft is just allowed to say "well we've decided to start using our new SecretWin API instead of the old Windows API" since we'd be essentially back where we started (as you said). The reason I'm not so gung-ho about the break-up idea is because I don't really use Windows, so any added competition in the Windows software market isn't going to affect me a lot. What I want is for Microsoft software in general to play nice with everyone else, so that I can open a .doc file, so that I can connect to someone's website without having ActiveConnect or what have you.
Do you, yourself, feel there is a point at which you would quit a job because your employers were too corrupt for you to tolerate? Or is your reaction so strong because you yourself would tolerate any activity no matter how criminal from those who sign your paycheck? At any rate, quit jumping to those conclusions on behalf of konstant: I never said he wasn't nice, I said "IF x, y and z then you are not a nice person at all". It's not for me, or you, to decide what he would or wouldn't tolerate. Would he tolerate MS killing other businesses? Obstructing justice? Owning the President outright through bribery? Surely there is some point at which a person will say 'no, that's gone far enough'. If not... well, you know my opinion on the matter.
Only if MS's OS and apps are split will it be in the best interests of the OS company to publish API's. If there's competition on the OS front, as the amicus breif from the economists suggested, then the OS company will be kept honest by its peers (nothing like your competition watching you to keep your pants up). Competition in the OS market would keep the Apps company from wanting to use non-standard API's -- heck, the shifting sands drive me crazy and I only have my employer for a customer.
That's actually a wonderful idea. Are there any countries left where innovation and performance arn't punishable under law?
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
So then how does Microsoft not fit into that? Bill Gates and Paul Allen were broke college kids when they started Microsoft, and they grew Microsoft to where it is today, beit by being sneaky and malicious, or by understanding the system and using it to whatever ends.
Microsoft wasn't always in the position it is in now in being able to bully the market to their will. They got there somehow ...
It's still the American dream.
Of course, "Think Different" is perfectly fine. People keep misinterpreting it as "Think Differently," which is also okay, but not what Apple means.
;)
Think Different == You must think about the concept 'different.'
as opposed to
Think Differently == You must think differently in general than you do now.
Just my little pet peeve
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I've been involved with computing and Unix both before and after divestiture, and have seen both the proliferation of phone lines and the reduction in service quality mentioned by a poster on this thread. I believe that phone lines have proliferated because the stifling effect of the AT&T monopoly is no longer restricting how phones are used. In the early 1980's you could get a very expensive, very limited functionality radio telephone for your car. The opportunity to innovate, combined with a growing market demand for portable personal communications such as cell phones and pagers fed back on itself to create a huge demand for more phone lines. Also at that time, modems were limited to 300 or 1200 baud, and Hayes, with their integrated circuit-based modems, was an upstart competing against AT&T with their discrete-component modems. Until divestiture, you couldn't even use a modem at home unless you cleared it with AT&T! Since divestiture, competition has driven data rates upwards by orders of magnitude, and AT&T is out of the modem business. I hope that these two examples have illustrated that there has been a competitive and technological revolution over the last 15 years driven by the divestiture of AT&T. Sure, there have been casualties along the way, but the nimble competitors are still with us, or have evolved into the familiar companies we see around us. The dinosaurs (Western Electric, Teletype, etc.) are extinct. p.s. If you continue having service problems with your regional phone companies, call Customer Service and ask for the "Executive Recourse Line" - and don't take "no" for an answer.
Live in the Future; It's Just Starting Now!
But really, we all know what a joke that is!
Got Rhinos?
Here's the thing though: I want my news to be written well, and written in a more formal style. I know /. isn't the NYT, but sometimes I wish the authors would take care with what they post a little more than they do.
--
Ah, I know you can get laptops without an OS *installed*. I was saying it's hard to get a laptop without *paying* for the OS. There is a difference. (Although there really *shouldn't* be a difference - the fact that there is a difference is evidence of Microsoft abusing market power).
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
OK, I've lurked long enough. Personally, I think that a lot of people are missing the point.
....simply a platform).
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a monopoly. (Bill Gates isn't out to get you, any more than Steve Jobs is!).. As long as it is generating a product that people like and are willing to buy. If you don't like the product and aren't willing to buy it, well then vote with your pocket-book!
The problem with MS is that the product with which they hold a monopoly is an unstable peice of junk and it probably costs North America $ billions in lost productivity every year.
Lets be honest, if Windows XX was stable and secure, there would be no reason to try to convict them for anything!
So , the punchline: the DoJ should really focuss on methods of getting windows to produce a stable OS, not on trying to crush them by any means possible (no matter how interesting the ensueing stock market crash would be).
Here's a method that I read elsewhere -with some editorial changes by me- (I can't remember where, otherwise I'd provide credit so, sorry if it was your idea)
1. force MS to release a scaled-down open-source OS ( Although, this OS would not have to be usable
2. allow other companies to compete in the "Windows OS" market buy allowing them to develop, sell, and distribute their own Windows distro. (Some may choose desktop os's, others choose a network, you get the idea)
3. finally, allow MS to produce their own Windows distro. ( Sure they may still have the monopoly, but at least they'd have to make a stable OS to do it.)
And this is no one's fault but dells if they choose to do so. They have an option to bundle windows. No one has forced them. It is their choice. To do otherwise might be an unprofitable choice that might even lead to certain destruction of dell, but it is their choice.
2)Miscrosoft has an interest in selling its non-OS software- Office, Internet Explorer, Encarta, etc. Interested not so much in selling to individuals, but in raking in big liscensing fees from OEM's like Gateway, Compaq, and Dell.
And a company shouldn't want/be allowed to sell a diverse line of products in the most profitable way available?
3)Microsoft is the only source for Windows. So what happens is this: Microsoft says to OEM's "Sell PC's with Office pre-installed, rather than Lotus or WordPerfect. If you don't, we give you a crappy deal on licensing Windows, or don't let you license it at all." So the OEM's have to capitulate, and Microsoft gaurantees itself income from its non-OS software, in addition to the money it makes by owning the dominant OS. Netscape is the canonical example; MS makes IE, which is getting the tar knocked out of it by Navigator. Result: MS forces OEM's to pre-load IE by making it difficult to remove from the system, thereby getting it in front of a huge audience, and cutting of Netscape at the source. They also keep companies from pre-loading Navigator, using the licensing terms for the OS as a nice, big stick to keep the OEM's in line.
I hate to break it to you. You have no intrinsic right to buy windows in any state. Nor do OEMs. All you can do is buy according to the terms of sale microsoft dictates. If you dislike them, take your money elsewhere. If dell dislikes them they can find another OS to use. There arn't any other OSs? All this is indicitive of is the incompetance of other corporations, be it in the avenue of coding an OS or marketing it is irrelevant. Why MS bundled IE is irrelevant too. But let's say it was to take away netscape's user base. What's wrong with this? It benefits consumers, (free is generally a better price than !free) and it benefits microsoft. Who else should microsoft be concerned with? Allowing netscape to compete 'fairly' might mean decrease in profits for Microsoft. So they did something about it. I just can't see that as evil.
--rmst.
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
Origin: mid 16th century from French sarcasme, or via Latin from late Greek sarkasmos, from Greek sarkazein 'tear flesh', in late Greek 'gnash the teeth, speak bitterly' (from sarx, sark- 'flesh').
It seems that for every media circus trial *cough*OJ*cough* there is a trial like this where the case is handled methodically and intelligently by the court. Do you have a feeling that the judge is starting to lose patience with Microsoft's attempts at stalling? I know I am. I am just wondering how they are going to split Microsoft's overseas branches.
Not just once. But if lots of native speakers habitually use that sentence and don't consider it to be invalid, then it does become valid. For example, the following phrases were incorrect at one time but are now valid:
But that's different. If you said that sentence, then said "did I say something wrong", any native English speaker would say that you meant ask and not axe. Wheras if you say "shall we do it different? Hmm did I say something wrong?" many English speakers would find the sentence quite acceptable.
What I'm saying is that there's a difference between verbal slip-ups and a genuine shift in the rules of English grammar. People adhere too closely to rules printed in books about English grammar, and criticise genuine colloquial usage. Linguists consider usage (minus slip-ups) to be the definitive guide.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Poor Microsoft is going to get a surprise when they realize they're not the only kid on the block!
Got Rhinos?
" 'The public doesn't want law enforcement to be done on the basis of polls,' Klein told a forum sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Tuesday. "
huh?
"a poll shows people don't want us to go by polls to make decisions" So the public wants law enforcement to not do what the public wants. Well, they should make sure and give the public what they want and not do what they want.
But it doesn't indicate either that those two product shouldn't be integrated.
Either I don't understand your sentence (possible, I'm not a native English speaker) or we could follow what you say in it to its extreme and integrate Windows and Office, Outlook, Visual Studio,... up to the point of having MS selling only one box with all their product in it sold under the name Windows.
They remarked upon the DoJ's proposed remedy of "hiding" IE rather than removing it, and suggested that this indicated the DoJ was tacitly admitting IE is an integrated part of Windows
Of course this is an integrated part of Windows. MS did everything in their power to tie Windows and IE together in a way that is next to impossible to undo. The question is whether doing so is an excuse not to punish them? Clearly no, this is not because you break the law in a way that it is impossible even for you to undo it that you should go as if nothing happened.
Of course, if such a thing were true, then the DoJ would have no case. If the word justice really mean something in the USA then it should make their case stronger, not weaker. The Appeals Court further commented that it is not the place of the courts to judge the motives for technological tying in those cases where a reasonable person might determine consumer benefit from the tie, and they additionally suggested that they *did* see a benefit in requiring IE 3.0 to ship with Win95.
I don't really have a problem with having IE coming with Windows 95/98, I have a problem with not being able to get rid of it.
Last time I installed RedHat I had Netscape preinstalled. Did I scream bloody murder, Netscape is a monopolist? No. Am I an hypocrit because I thought and said this kind of things about MS? No. Why? Because Netscape didn't use their monopoly (well, they don't have any but you get the point) to forbid Redhat to ship with other browsers (like the one with KDE or Lynx) nor to forbid them to remove Netscape icon or to place another browser icon.
I think Microsoft should have the right to propose IE with Windows but they should not have the right to force IE with Windows and threaten OEM's and Apple, using their monopoly, if they remove IE's icon to put Netscape one. Integrating IE inside Windows was only one more mean, technical this one, to force them to ship IE.
You say:
When determining monopoly power, the law first defines an applicable market.
Then you say:
This implies that Netscape was a potential competitor for Windows, because it could serve interchangeably as a platform for running applications, which would remove the "applications barrier to entry" upon which Jackson bases so much of his decision. But Netscape is not a PC Operating System. Therefore, the market cannot have been well defined, within the legal bounds above.
The antitrust practice need NOT be in the same market and the market is well defined. Don't forget that it is illegal to use anti-competitive practices either to maintain a monopoly or to leverage a monopoly to gain market chares in another market.
In this case MS tied IE to Windows, thus leveraging the Windows monopoly to gain market chare in the browser market in order to maintain its monopoly on the PC OS area.
MS has a monopoly in the IBM compatible PC OS area. Netscape is a threat to Windows not directly because it indeed is not an OS but indirectly because by changing the playing field from the desktop to the Internet and by not being Windows-centric it made Windows irrelevant.
The monopoly power confered to MS via Windows would be totally irrelevant if people did not use Windows-centric desktop applications but instead used Netscape-centric Internet/Web/Network applications and this is to prevent that before it was too late that MS did tie IE to Windows.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
As far as I know, anybody can make cola. What's the big deal about Coke? It's brand-recognition, that's all. If you can't make money in the face of direct competition (like neighborhood bars and restaurants do) then you need to do something to differentiate yourself from the rest. Coke would still be Coke even if they posted the secret formula on /.
The Cow of Death? is this thing any relation to the goatsucker?
feel free to moderate this into oblivion
This depends on whether you consider a language something people use to communicate internal thoughts or as an independent list of rules and structures.
Sure, Plato may be kicking back right now with Strict English for Dummies, but we'll never know what it says. Or maybe the King Of England gets to dictate what constitutes proper English. If nobody uses either of these standards, then there is only one person to call it English: the standards-keeper. Everyone else uses what they call English, and can happily understand one another, if not agree on strict useages.
Thus, what the lone standards-keeper calls English and what the language utilizing community calls English are disparate, and all you have then is an authority game. I tend to side with the people actually using the language, though the standards keeper serves the useful funtcion of maintaining a modicum of stability as the language evolves.
Email me, I have some poorly-written Philosophy of Language papers I'd be happy to share.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
It's been a while since I read the Findings Of Fact, but...
If I remember correctly netscape was a risk to the application barrier to entry in that it made the operating system LESS important. ie: If people develop applications that run in Java under Netscape then they could be run in any operating system that supports Netscape and Java. At the time Sun and Netscape were both dedicated to cross platform development. Allowing this development to continue would have caused windows to become less important and the stranglehold on the market would be loosened.
Netscape doesn't have to be an Operating System to put windows at risk. It just has to redifine computing so that we are no longer tied to a single operating system.
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
I'm actually quite concerned over how the breakup of Micro$oft will affect the general computer user.
My concern stems from the Bell System break up in the 1980's. My father worked for the Bell System for 34 years, and I worked for one of the RBOC's for 5. I remember how "great" the Bell System was, and I saw how much things had changed for the worse while working for one of the regional bells.
The Bell System was a monopoly, and IMHO a necessity. Since the breakup, the only people who have suffered was the common citizen with inflated local rates, long distance and interlata charges, and more frustration because of the budgetary constraints of the RBOC's. Back in the days of the Bell System, if you ordered a telephone line, it was installed within a day or two. It takes up to three weeks or more nowadays to get a tech to come to the door because of budgetary cutbacks.
Anyway - what I'm trying to say is that I am curious on how the MS breakup will affect the rest of us. As a Linux user, I'm even more concerned.
I ponder on whether MS is a necessary evil, as was the Bell System. *hmm*
I guess either way, the common folk will lose...
[Connection closed by foreign host]
Hopefully this'll go straight to the top, so it isn't stuck in another five years of appeals.
What appalls me is Microsoft and others saying a break-up will hurt innovation and create more security vulnerabilities. Microsoft OS should concentrate on drivers, things like DirectX, improved networking support, making a better OS that crashes less. How would they do that? Seperate the applications from the kernel - just like all the unices.
First off, there is a call for apple machines without MacOS. I for one would love a Powerbook running Windows 2000. The G3/4 processor while having horrible yields is quite good. Just because you don't see a purpose in having Macs without MacOS doesn't mean others don't. Obviously someone found the need for Linux, therefore LinuxPPC was created.
Apple "develops" the hardware in the same way Compaq, Packard Bell, or Dell do, the procesors are made by mottorolla, the video cards by ATI, the hard drives are standard issue, etc. They add miniscule changes that serve only to add a "Personalized touch"
And no, companies do not pay the "Microsoft Tax" if they don't carry Windows xxxx products. It's that simple. Once again, look at pricewatch.com Plenty of companies can be found who sell 1) just hardware 2) complete systems with no OS attached
Of course the bigger PC makers pay a tax if they carry other OS/software competing with Microsoft. Find a large grocery store that carries both Coke and Pepsi, I sure can't. If you want a discount then you have to bend over backwards, otherwise you pay the same price as everyone else. You scratch my back, I scratch your's, it's that simple.
"So, come clean, do you work for or are you affiliated in any way with Microsoft? "
I work for SGI, that's about as far away from Microsoft as it gets.
The fact is, and Allchin admitted to this, that integrating IE with Windows does not provide any benefit to consumers that could not already be provided without integrating IE. Combine that tidbit with the other evidence that shows why they decided to integrate IE with Windows and you end up with an anti-competitive act committed by a monopolist. That's why they will lose. (unless the appeals court judges are as incompetent as the last group and don't even bother to look at any evidence)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Well if you're having that much trouble, ask yourself "Why don't Linux computer companies (such as VA) carry Linux laptops?"
I'm honestly of the opinion that splitting Microsoft up into an OS company and an applications company is not going to make a jot of difference in terms of the difficulty in competing with the behemoth that MS has become. So rather than having one dominant software company that crush all competition and force closed APIs and dodgy standards complience on the rest of the world, we'll have two dominant software companies doing exactly the same.
And realistically, they're not going to be competing with each other, since even as a split company, the two companies will rely on each other so much they will be as one company, insofar as philosophy goes.
Best case, one of the two companies will become excessively dominant (my bets are on the applications division, because it has IE and I think Linux and MacOS are beginning to chomp at the edges of Windows, which doesn't really seem to be going anywhere), and we'll just go through this all again. Maybe the applications company will be further split into a web applications and desktop applications company.
In any event, Microsoft's enterprise offerings are still very weak and closed, compared to more flexible and (admittedly only partially) open technologies like servlets, jsp and so on. So the Internet has really changed everything, I think, given time, Microsoft's backwardness in this area will eventually topple them, split or not.
I think, though, that despite the government's innate silliness, they're actually thinking this through enough that they'll come to a beneficial conclusion.
Got Rhinos?
*Appends*
m ?SystemID=84
I took a moment to go to pricewatch.com and typed lin "linux laptops" into the search box, checked out the first one
http://www.imperialdirect.com/BuildorderMenu.cf
A nice laptop with no OS installed, Windows 98 costs in the neighborhood of an additional eighty dollars, Redhat 6.1 is free. Good luck with your laptop purchase.
Imagine there's no Microsoft
It's easy if you try
No DOS below us
Above us only Linus
Imagine all the people
Using Linux today
Imagine no OS companies
It isn't hard to do
No crashes to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Playing Quake in peace
You may say I'm a dreamer
But Slashdot is full of them
I hope someday you'll surf by
And Unix will finally be as one
Imagine no software possessions
I wonder if RMS can
No need for greed or hoarding
A brotherhood of Webs
Imagine all the people
Sharing MP3s
You may say I'm a dreamer
But Slashdot is full of them
I'm hope someday BSD will join us
And the Unix world shall live as one.
Note: A humble effort, dedicated to the living memory of Trollmastah.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I'm not sure about that. How do you make sure that the two or three not-so-baby-MS really compete with each other? Wouldn't be their common interest to co-operate instead, still damaging out-of-family companies?
Maybe a better solution would have been to force MS to open the Windows API, not only publishing the specifications (aren't they alredy known ?) but also giving up the *control* of them, maybe defining a standard control body like W3c or something like that.
Ciao
----
FB
No surprise there...
Microsoft is so bloody arrogant, both to the DoJ and to its customers, because they think they're smarter than everyone else. And, in many ways, they are. It's amusing, in a painful way, to watch Microsoft make fools of the DoJ's experts at trial. Their contempt for the trial, the judge, the prosecuting attorneys -- these are not acts of reckless stupidity, though it may seem that way.
Gates, Ballmer, and the other members of the elite circle at Microsoft who make the big decisions .. reality check... ARE NOT STUPID. They know the market inside and out. They are master manipulators of people and of technology. Through any means necessary, they gained their present position of power. They're good at getting their way.
They fear nothing from anyone. They have enough money to conquer anyone and they're strong enough to drag a breakup plan through the mud for years.
It sucks to have to say this, especially here, but they got to where they are by being better (clever, ruthless, whatever was necessary) and by being survivors. The only way consumers can benefit is by the breaking of Microsoft's ego and spirit. Then they'll behave responsibly. As long as they have nothing to fear, they'll keep acting like *bleeep*. Did I miss anything? :)
"Honey, it's not working out; I think we should make our relationship open-source."
Friends of his testified against him, one said they saw a bag with blood on it in his house, and OJ wouldn't let him look in it. This was his friend, not a corrupt cop. His family thinks he's guilty too. The corrupt cops are what helped fuck the case up and get him off, dumb numb nut racist bastards that they were.
To keep the 2 MS companies from doing business the DOJ is betting on good "old fashion" greed. Since no officer of either company can own shares of the other they would not benefit (or so the DOJ argues) by helping the other company. Also with an applications only company that is answering to its share holders they might have to or want to start porting apps to other platforms to "pad" the bottom line. dr//\//\
Shortly after the bulldog Reno was sicked on M$ and a modified special investigator statute was passed to look into the anti-trust issues Netscape brought up.
I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Let's keep this in perspective here. Microsoft is guilty of a lot of things, but taking a human life is not one of them. While corporations are given, as an entity, many rights that are usually reserved for people, they are not human beings. Killing a corporation is still just a non-violent act, much like extortion or some other financial crime. That doesn't mean it's not a serious crime, just that it shouldn't be equated with murder. Asking a court to view it as murder is just irrational and silly. We have laws against what they did and remedies for this kind of situation. As a corporation, they broke anti-trust laws. That is what they will have to face the consequences for. There's no "corporate murder" law for them to violate, therefore they could not be guilty of it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
But it is not illegal to be a monopoly. Microsoft is not being tried because they are a monopoly. They are being tried because they LEVERAGED that strength through PRODUCT TYING to stifle competition. Apple has done nothing to discourage, say, Office on MacOS to promote AppleWorks or to discourage Eudora to promote Claris E-Mailer.
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
With respect to the second charge, I feel Microsoft stands a good chance of being granted relief by the Appeals Court. In the Consent Decree ruling, the appellate judges essentially concluded that separate demand for two products, and even separate marketing, do not necessarily indicate that those two products cannot be integrated.
Judge Jackson explicitly dealt with the issue of the previous Appeals Court ruling. He concluded that the issue the appeals court previously ruled upon was, by necessity, a narrow ruling about the consent decree. Otherwise, antitrust law could not apply to software (that is, anyone could bundle anything, anytime and claim some plausible "benefit"), which he considered an absurdity. Judge Jackson, rightly in my opinion, rejected this. To guard against the Appeals Court, he quoted from numerous Supreme Court rulings that supported his rejection of a broad interpretation of the their ruling (after all, as a lower court judge, he was walking a fine line in telling the Appeals Court what they thought).
Think it might be somewhat difficult for Janet "I accept full responsibility" Reno to prosecute Gates/Ballmer for suspected perjury when she let Bill Clinton publicly perjure himself before a Grand Jury *and* on nationwide TV and never raised a peep. If the Chief Executive of the US can get away with it, why shouldn't the CEO of a corporation?
According to the article, the public opposes the break up of Microsoft.
Why? What's gone so wrong with the publicity - or gone so right for M$. For instance, the ILOVEYOU nonsense was never presented on the news as an MS-Outlook bug, but as a general computer bug. I had quite a few people ask if I'd been affected - we are a Solaris shop at work and I run Linux on my PC, and these people sort of knew that (at least, they ask me for linux advice now & then).
Microsoft seems to be able to come out of the shit smelling like a rose to the public. I'm just amazed.
No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.
Burn, baby, burn!
Got Rhinos?
Why can't MS's corporate heads be jailed? Bill ``I forgot'' Gates, Ballmer and several others are obviously guilty of perjury and contempt of court. The trick is proving it. However, there's a lot of closed evidence and testamony. Somewhere in all that material there should be something they can be personally nailed on.
#include ``IANAL''
That's a pretty good idea, but only if the DoJ fails to deal with Microsoft itself - which means the FoF was probably overturned in appeals, so the whole thing becomes moot.
The government could follow Cringley's suggestion and fine MS; it has tens of billions in cash reserves sitting around.
Fining Microsoft several billion would be pretty neat, but solves nothing (even if they were pay restitution to Netscape, that would be going to AOL Time Warner, which hardly needs it).
Third, it could open the source to windows in a non-restrictive license.
Making Windows open-source would be a very Bad Thing(tm), because countless new security holes would be found, the script kiddies would get ahold of the exploits, and half the businesses in the country would grind suddenly to a halt - and rather than blame Microsoft for creating the problem, everyone would blame the government for exposing it.
Fourth, it could implement full disclosure of MS file formats and APIs, forcing MS to fully document all of these, and imposing a waiting period of not less than one year on changes to these formats.
See paragraph 4 of Microsoft' s proposed Final Judgements and 3-b of the DoJ's proposed Final Judgements.
Finally, it could impose non-discriminatory, fully disclosed prices on products to OEMs.
3-f of the DoJ's proposed Final Judgements; Microsoft doesn't sound very interested in this (gee, wonder why).
Breaking up MS is both too extreme and won't solve anything.
It's not extreme at all; we'd be left with Windows (a pretty evil company with a huge fanatical following dumping buggy software on unsuspecting masses) and Microsoft (almost exactly as we know it now, but without Windows).
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The best thing we could do for the economy and the software industry would be to revoke Microsoft's Corporate Charter. Distribute the assets to university computer science departments around the world. Make the source code public and license it under the GPL. Then there would be some competition in the software industry.
Judge Jackson and DOJ aren't going to be satisfied with much less than a breakup of MS. Competitors (Apple, etc.) would like to see total liquidation and confiscation of MS assets. MS wishes it could get off with a slap on the wrist.
Gonzo
Cool, well that's an improvement on a short while ago. But I stand by my claim that they're fewer and further between than they would be if Microsoft had not abused their market power to force "per machine" contracts onto resellers.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Which "government" are we referring to? The prosecution or the courts?
Of course the prosecution is going to give MS a thumbs down. Let's not get carried away with sensationalist headlines.
Not really as a computer "bug" but as an evil plot by crypto-commie cyber-terrorist. Microsoft had nothing to do with it, if you read the mainstream media.
I just can't see that as evil.
Evil has absolutely nothing to do with this. It is about the law, which states not that it is morally wrong to leverage monopoly power, but that it is an unfair restraint on competition to leverage monopoly power. You're right there are other OS's, and an OEM could pre-load any of them that they want if they so feel; however, there is also the realities of the market to contend with. Whatever the benefits of an alternate OS, a company that cannot sell Windows on their machines does not survive. Saying that Dell or anyone else still has a choice is a technically true, but realistic simply does not play out. And there is nothing inherantly wrong with that. But it is incorrect to say that they still have a choice. You yourself say that it could lead to their certain demise, but it is still their choice. What sort of choice is that? "Hm, don't really like this licensing agreement. Guess I'll just go bankrupt." This is not how business operates. As such, Microsoft's actions amount to taking away Dell's right to chose what software they bundle on a sysytem.
As for your point on two, I never say there that there is anything wrong with Microsoft seeking licensing fees from OEM's. That also is perfectly legit. But the crux of my argument, and the basis of the DOJ's beef with MS, is that collusion between these two legal elements creates an illegal restraint on competition. That is what the anti-monopoly laws are designed to fight. No one has a right to buy Windows at whatever price they want, but by the same token, according to the laws of the US that Microsoft has to abide by, MS has to act fairly and in good faith with companies that it deals with. It has been ampley demonstrated that MS used underhanded techniques that hinged on their dominance of the OS market to get their software onto the desktops of users across the world. This is not beneficial for consumers, because it artificially restrains consumer choice. The idea in this case is that dominance in one area of the market should not gaurantee dominance in other areas. Yeah, in a strictly hands-off capitalist society, MS would have the right to push every advantage they have for all that it is worth. But the US has made a conscious decision to value ensuring consumer choice and a more level playing field over pure free market. We place restraints on large companies to prevent any single group from controlling en toto all of any area of the economy. That's what the US system with respect to monopoly is built on. There is no moral judgement in there, that what MS has done is 'good' or 'evil'; rather, what the suit says, correctly is that there are regulations in this country concerning trade, and Microsoft has violated them. As such, the government is entitled to take what steps it sees fit to restore balance in this area of the market. This lawsuit is not about the rights of man; it is about the behaviour of a corporation in the context of US law.
Quoth the poster:
...it's interesting how quickly people want the Government to step in and stop this overwelming Capitalistic success.
Ever see Soylent Green? Financially, and literally, those folks were making a killing. Their only problem was hiding the fact that "Solyent Green is people!" And they evidently did that pretty well.
In abscence of laws regulating the market (and what isn't part of "the market?") there is nothing to stop a business from producing Soylent Green. And if they were managed half-way decently they'd be, in your words, an "overwelming Capitalistic success."
The US brand of Capitalism is very government controlled, and it needs to stay that way. Large companies are responsible to no one but their shareholders, who by and large don't give a fsck how they get their money. A totally unregulated economy would turn into a cross between The Matrix and Soylent Green in about 5 years. The rich would literally eat the poor and all the shareholders would be happy. The US Government is the only thing stopping you and me from becoming food.
Don't think it would happen? Then riddle me this, Batman: when was the last time you remember a Fortune 500 compny doing something only because it was the morally correct thing to do? When was the last time you remember a Fortune 500 company doing something in spite of the fact that it was morally repugnant?
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
I completely agree. The law shouldn't just be blindly followed, especially if there is something morally wrong with it. The law needs to be constantly reviewed and tweaked, much like open-source, to better meet the needs of the citizens. If the law goes against what is moral, change it, or put up a stand.
Case in point - the Boston Tea Party. Taxation without Representation was perfectly legal within the confines of British law, yet the Colonists refused to have any part of it. Thus, the beginning of their acts of defiance.
Maybe it's time for a mass-launching of MSFT products to be thrown into the Pacific, off some Seattle dock? ;-)
make world, not war
The G3 gets decent yields, and they're working on revising the G4. Sounds like IBM's taking over production; that will help.
Apple "develops" the hardware in the same way Compaq, Packard Bell, or Dell do, the procesors are made by mottorolla, the video cards by ATI, the hard drives are standard issue, etc.
Apple also develops their own motherboards and their own chipsets. The larger PC OEMs make their own boards, but they license the chipsets, and smaller OEMs use off-the-shelf boards. But yes, most of the other components are made by other companies.
Find a large grocery store that carries both Coke and Pepsi, I sure can't.
I've never heard of a large grocery store that doesn't carry both Coke and Pepsi. Most restaurants, however, only carry one or the other.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
>Look, we try to maintain a free market system in this country. Part of that entails fixing the problems that crop up sometimes when a corporation goes too far and jeopardizes the goals of the free market. Anti-trust laws themselves are "well-established doctrines." The system is based on rules and regulations, laws. Microsoft didn't abide by those laws. The DOJ tried to fix the problem last time. Microsoft was guilty and everyone knew it. So we ended up with a consent decree. Now, Microsoft could have taken that as a sign that they had gone too far and needed to step back inside the lines. Instead, they chose to thumb their noses (almost literally) at the DOJ and continue business as usual. Since they did not act in good faith last time, the DOJ has no reason to believe they will do so this time. Hence the severe and permanent remedy that is proposed.
You may feel that anti-trust laws are not constitutional. Fine. A lot of people believe that many of the rights granted to corporations aren't constitutional either. Capitalism only works as long as it is controlled. Otherwise you end up with no choice and no competition. The markets will be divided and one corp will come out as the sole owner of each market. The rest of us will become serfs to the corporate lords. I realize that that sounds rather overly dramatic, but in the absence of anti-trust laws, I don't see anything that would prevent such a situation from occurring.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Exactly. Nobody was murdered. Read farther down the thread of my post.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Likewise, one could make the claim that it's difficult to find laptops without windows simply because there is no demand for those. In other words, Windows is good for laptops, everything else is bad. I'm not sure what the state of power management/suspend is on Linux, but I can quite safely say that on my two laptops Windows 2000 kicks major ass.
...might be the best description of the Clinton-haters who imagine their fantasies about a top-level plot against Microsoft have some basis in fact.
Before I go further, a little flame-proofing: Do not assume I want to break up MS just because I'm doing a little debunking of pro-Microsoft propaganda. I think MS is guilty as the judge found them. I think they know they are going to lose. And I think they are stalling. But I do not support radical remedies because I think such will delay the decision and its implementation. Open the APIs (with solid methods of monitoring) and I think the rest will follow. (This remedy has the advantage of being immune to any opposition from Redmond because they have claimed under oath that the APIs are open.)
I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains.
Politicians do not have clean hands on this one, but this statement is so demonstrably false I cannot believe the "insightful" rating it's getting (unless the insight is the need for anti-psychotic drugs for the extreme ends of our political spectrum).
The DoJ investigation of MS dates back to the Bush administration. That administration was very careful not to stick its nose into the Anti-Trust Division. This was primarily driven not by an interest in justice, but because it made it easier to raise money. If you're not involved in those decisions, it's easier to ask for money from corporations. On the one hand, they can say, "Hey, I'm not involved in the investigation against them, so I can ask for the money without a conflict of interest." On the other hand, you can say, "Hey, I'm not the guy who's persecuting you, so you can give me lots of soft money."
This is not to imply that the Clinton administration is any better. They wholeheartedly adopted the same strategy: No pressure on the DoJ (pro or con) and ask corps on both sides of the issue to donate as much as possible.
The two Bills have long traveled in the same circles (Hillary, too) and recently joined in a big party in DC, promoting both of their political agendas. Gore has long enjoyed support from Redmond and is (no doubt, given his leadership style) mighty nervous about the DoJ case. Hillary has MS money in her treasure chest as well.
Shortly after the bulldog Reno was sicked on M$ and a modified special investigator statute was passed to look into the anti-trust issues Netscape brought up.
Reno's interest has always been in criminal justice, not anti-trust law. She has had little or no involvement in the Anti-Trust Division beyond showing up at press conferences and expressing confidence in Joel Klein. And that's the way Clinton wants it. He knows as well as anyone what happened when the tobacco industry and the gun lobby switched from supporting both parties to concentrating on the GOP.
This kind of conspiracy theory ranks up there with those who feel that two Republican special prosecutors who cleared Hillary in the Vince Foster affair were somehow bought off by the Clintons. (Yeah, right. That Ken Starr, he was just a closet Clinton-lover!)
And the comment about "modified special prosecutor statute" just goes a long way to demonstrating just how far out of touch with reality these Clinton-haters really are. Sure, using methods of making the Anti-Trust Division independent of political pressure should always be interpreted as evidence that all Anti-Trust decisions are politically based.
Gates and M$ formally have NEVER backed either party.
This is either demonstrably false or meaningless.
If by "formally backed" you mean that they only support one party and have formally announced such support, of course it is true. Of course, it is equally true of any number of competitors. One does not have to register for a political party to vote in Washington state elections, and very few people do.
If by "formally backed" you mean they don't make political contributions, this is easy to disprove. They have always made political contributions at some level. For a long time, they were famous for not making the kind of big contributions usually associated with American business. That changed about four years ago, and they have made many contributions to candidates of both parties since that time. This is hardly what most of us mean by "NEVER" backing political parties.
Bill Gates has made a lot of money taking advantage of people who made their business decisions based on a view of reality distorted by political ideology rather than sound assessments of what is best for their companies. As much as he may appreciate the propaganda value of 348's comments, I suspect he can appreciate the irony of support from a fan whose view of reality is distorted by their political views in just the same way.
It is likely that many politicians on both sides of the fence would like to meddle in Anti-Trust to guarantee campaign contributions. But most are probably afraid the staff there would react very strongly against any such attempt. Just imagine Joel Klein resigning at a press conference where he denounces Gore for interfering. Al and W don't have the guts to face that firestorm.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
* Why do you assume that the people who are posting in one particular article represent the "majority"? The majority of Linux users don't read Slashdot. The majority of those who do read Slashdot don't post in any given article. What you're reading is the opinion of the subset who feels strongly enough about the issue to post about it. They're more likely to post if they disagree.
So in response to something that says "Linux is not currently viable..." or something of the sort, people who think it is post. And in response to something that says Linux is already good enough to rival MS, those who think it isn't post.
You read these and assume it's the same group of people posting both times, as if every single Slashdotter posts on every article, and decide to call them "hypocrates".
* When were these elections? I don't remember them. BTW, the people who decide what articles go on the site are CmdrTaco, CowboyNeal, and hemos, and I'm fairly certain they weren't elected.
* Regarding the misspelling: I honestly thought you were a troll deliberately misspelling it to sound like all the other "hypocrisy" posts.
* Insinuating that Linux users are communists: the whole thing about "waving flags" and "chanting" and opposing the great American company, Microsoft, who stands for all that is capitalism. That may not be what you meant, but it's what you sounded like.
* Being nicer than themselves in other situations: They charge up the wazzu for software, then when they lower their prices to something reasonable for educational use, you praise them. Microsoft is restricting the availability of software. RedHat doesn't need to donate software because the software is free in the first place.
(You'll mention support. I know it. Do you honestly believe that Microsoft gives free support to the places it so "nicely" donates its software?)
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Any reading the news since the ruling can't have failed to notice that Microsoft *still* continues to be anti-competitive. That's deeply arrogant for a behaviour for a company which should be standing like a penant child in front of the judge. And the excuses they give to justify their behaviour! Gates and Balmer must be severely deluded to think that a Microsoft monopoly is the reason we don't have more ILOVEYOU virii! Let's face it, this company is rotten and couldn't change for all the pirate software in China. It should be forced to split as much for its own sake as for others.
a Monopoly doesn't have to mean complete control, only a substantial segment of a market. Being a monopoly is not what got them in trouble. There tactics to maintain and extend there monopoly is what got the in trouble.
It has been a crime in the US for about 100 years to take a loss on a product for the sole goal of driving a competitor under. I know it's a lengthy document, but if you read the finding of fact, you'll see Micrsofts abuses.
If it wasn't for this case, ypu probably still wouldn't be able to order a pc with anything but IE on it, because MS would raise the liscensing fees for windows for those manufactures.
because of the way Linux is liscensed, it would be impossible for this to occur.Because if RH started becoming to pushy, we could get it from somewhere else.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Solitaire doesn't crash? hmm, I must have been dreaming all my life (if I had one, I tested Win2K)
You fsck long and you fsck slow But you fsck like a walrus smoking blow
The US brand of Capitalism is very government controlled, and it needs to stay that way.
I disagree. Commerce is regulated, not controlled. There is a subtle, but very important difference.
As a more academic and interesting example. Let's look at pre-1997 Hong Kong. The government there was described as "benevolent neglect." I kept it's hands out of people's affairs unless there was violation of property rights. (This includes crimes like burglary, murder, assault et al.) This policy was part of Governor Cowperthwaite (sp?) in the 1960's and early 1970's. It is only now that people recognize the "benevolence" of this act. It forced businesses and individuals to know that there wasn't going to be anybody there to catch you if you fall. Businesses and individuals alike. The saying goes "If you know there's no net, you hold on more tightly to the trapeeze."
Anyhow. The point is that the comsumers there know the government isn't looking out for them, so they are more familiar with "caveat emptor." Not only that, the people there are all too aware of a government that wants *lots* of control.
I build the world's most popular car and engine (read "OS and Office/Internet" Suite).
I split into two corporations.
I still build the world's most popular car and the engine company's reliance on me as a customer gives them the most compelling and justified reason to supply me and my demands (including entering into non-disclosure and exclusivity agreements).
Things aren't sufficiently affected by this judgement and while it does provide action in the press, how does it really affect microsoft as a whole?
So, when you're talking about how they SEE things ('see' is a verb), you use the adverb form differently. They "see things differently", not different.
Yes, Hemos' sentence still conveys the right meaning, but authors should pay attention to grammar -- especially simple things like adjective/adverb use.
--
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
Bravo!!! I wish I had moderator points, this is a bloody insightful comment if I've ever seen one.
No person should be held liable for another's KNOWING stupidity.
To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
1)PC's need to ship with Windows in order to be competitive. Period. If the average consumer is shopping at dell.com and can't find a PC that comes pre-loaded with the worlds most widely used OS, they shop elsewhere. Dell sinks.
And this is no one's fault but dells if they choose to do so. They have an option to bundle windows. No one has forced them. It is their choice. To do otherwise might be an unprofitable choice that might even lead to certain destruction of dell, but it is their choice.
actually, this is not true. corporations are not like individuals.
dell is a for-profit corporation. thus, its management are obligated (to whom? to the board of directors who appointed them. and to whom are the board obligated? to the shareholders. this is how corporations work.) to act in a profit-maximizing fashion, whether or not they might like to act otherwise.
if dell's management were to reject a Microsoft licensing deal and fail to negotiate another one, they would be accountable to the shareholders at the end of the financial year, if not at the end of the quarter. the stockholders have invested their money in dell; the management and the board of directors are obligated not to take unprofitable choices that might even lead to certain destruction of dell.
so no, in this case, they don't have a choice.
-steve
--- "We also were guided by the unlikelihood that anyone would face supernatural evil armed only with technology."
Just because people disagree with you, it doesn't mean they're wrong or ignorant. I oppose the Microsoft break-up too. Big deal. That doesn't mean I work for Microsoft or want to join their army to enslave all the socialists (I think their army is pretty disorganised right now anyway). AFAICS, a break-up would be a punishment, i.e. completely useless, not to mention infantile (the US government has an image to maintain, you know).
Some of the other solutions suggested (opening up the APIs, opening the source to their DLLs) seem like better solutions to me, as long as there were other restrictions put in to keep them from weaseling out.
I agree about the MS Lookout thing, though: people aren't getting fair warning about the poor defaults (and arguably poor engineering choices).
If there is no such point- then I'm afraid I can't consider you a nice guy, regardless of how nice your personal actions are. Your inactions can speak louder than your actions.
Corporations aren't individuals. They're creations of the State.
The State grants the people who form corproations an immunity from claims against their own finances beyond what they invested in the corporation. To qualify for this privilege (and it IS a privilege) the corporation must operate under certain rules.
One of the rules is that if the corporation manages to obtain monopoly power in a market (and this does NOT mean a total monopoly - just enough to do certain things that would otherwise not be possible), there are extra limits on what they are allowed to do.
Much of the puropse of these limits is to keep them from using their monopoly power in one market segment to compete "unfairly" in another.
Microsoft's executives broke this rule, which is part of their corporation's license to evade personal liability for their actions. They did it willfully and repeatedly. Their victims complained. They got caught and convicted.
Now the corporation and its investors (who have the power to chose and depose the management and who invested or stayed invested knowing what they were joining and risking) must take the punishment.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
And yet, despite all the efforts of the US government, surely there would still be many government departments approving the purchase of further Microsoft software, and the standardising of further government networks on Microsoft software, right?
If you don't like the practises of a certain business, the first thing you do is take your business elsewhere... Is the US government doing this 100%?
Or are they handing Microsoft more money with which to legally defend themselves?
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Tracking MSFT on the stock market is fun (unless you own the stock directly, or indirectly through a fund). Depending on when you (or your fund manager) bought MSFT, things are not as bad as they appear.
Apparently, MSFT has taken a huge beating -- down significantly from the high of, what?, 119 a few months ago. It looks bad over the past year: see Yahoo's 1 Year chart. But, if you examine the long term growth of MSFT stock (see Yahoo's 5 Year chart) the current price drop is a relatively small blip in a surging market capitalization.
Your perspective depends on when you bought in. And, unfortunately, I bought in at 90. So, would everyone please lay off the bad news until I can get out at least even? ;-)
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Think of the millions of man-hours that have been wasted on fixing, trying to get to run, or waiting for their OS. Think of the families that have broken up because hubby couldn't get home from work on time, because he was trying to arrange drivers in some insane config.sys so the damn machine would boot, run windows, connect to the network, and still leave 530k RAM free in DOS so they could run some needed application.
Time folks could have spent doing productive things. Or even reflective things.
To me, that is tantamount to murder.
Hang em high!
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The same thing could be done in OS/2 with a REXX script, and if OS/2 had 80% of the market share for desktop OS's, would a harmful REXX script sent through email, executed through the ACTIONS of a USER be IBM's fault? No.
So stop being stupid.
As for the Microsoft break up ... I don't understand how this country of our rampantly embraces capitalism and then scowls at the outcome of it's behavior. Microsoft is the american dream, my friends, it's the bullshit we're filled with from Day 1 and "taught" to "respect".
I, personally, am against the breakup. I don't care for Microsoft, but I don't believe the breakup will do any good, and, in fact, cause more harm. Opening up the code and API's seems like a superior alternative, because, like it or not, some of Microsoft's products are best of class. And, obviously, some aren't.
It's odd that you post this scathing anti-corporate crap from an ISP owned by AOL, btw. And I know you probably get it for free, but everytime an add banner hits your browser when you're checking your HTML email puts more money in a company far worse then Microsoft.
Consistency, clear heads ...
the sinister mister earache
I'm not a lawyer or anything, and I certainly can't know the minds of Microsoft management or the DoJ, but I have been reading the trial docs on my little Handspring - thousands of pages in all - and I sort of am getting the feeling that Microsoft is going to win this on appeal, and handily too.
:-)
Naturally I'm biased. I work for MS and I want very much for this to "go away". I wasn't here when the "alleged anticompetitive acts" (they always call them that) took place and so it all seems too bizarre. But I would like to hear what all of you think of my quickie analysis.
There were essentially four dangerous allegations leveled by the government against Microsoft. There were many legal issues involved, but these four seem like central pillars of the case to me.
Firstly, they contended we were a legal monopoly, secondly that we forced purchases of an unrelated product (IE) by tying it to the monopoly product, thirdly that we engaged in illegal exclusive dealing, and finally they said we tried to engage in market division with Netscape.
After deliberating, Judge Jackson threw out the third allegation, not because he didn't find we engaged in exclusive deals that hurt our competitors, but because he acknowledged that "competition for means of distribution" is a recognized pro-competitive act, and one that gets lots of leniency from higher courts. Both Microsoft's proposed CoL and the actual Conclusions explain this in greater legal detail. Basically, we didn't foreclose Netscape from shipping their product, and the law does not have sympathy for the argument that certain forms of distribution are "the best". To anti-trust law, this is a form of legal competition. Go figure.
So, in effect, this leaves us with the monopoly charge, the claim that we illegally tied IE to the monopoly product, and the market collusion. Jackson ruled against us on all of these critical points.
With respect to the second charge, I feel Microsoft stands a good chance of being granted relief by the Appeals Court. In the Consent Decree ruling, the appellate judges essentially concluded that separate demand for two products, and even separate marketing, do not necessarily indicate that those two products cannot be integrated. They remarked upon the DoJ's proposed remedy of "hiding" IE rather than removing it, and suggested that this indicated the DoJ was tacitly admitting IE is an integrated part of Windows - this is an approach the DoJ is taking once more. Of course, if such a thing were true, then the DoJ would have no case. The Appeals Court further commented that it is not the place of the courts to judge the motives for technological tying in those cases where a reasonable person might determine consumer benefit from the tie, and they additionally suggested that they *did* see a benefit in requiring IE 3.0 to ship with Win95. Now, if that is the case, I fail to see how they will rule differently on the issue of Win98, which is clearly more fully integrated with the IE binaries than 95 ever was. My guess is that this will be overturned.
Many Slashdotters seem to feel that the monopoly charge is self-evident and cannot abide controversy, but having read the DoJ complaint and MS's response, I think there is a reasonable chance the Appellate court might decide that the monopoly argument contains internal inconsistencies and overturn it as well.
When determining monopoly power, the law first defines an applicable market. For the purposes of antitrust, "the market" is the arena in which meaningful competition exists between interchangeable goods. The DoJ insists we have a monopoly in PC Operating Systems, and they further claim that we used that monopoly to defeat Netscape, which we felt might be a threat to that monopoly in the future.
This implies that Netscape was a potential competitor for Windows, because it could serve interchangeably as a platform for running applications, which would remove the "applications barrier to entry" upon which Jackson bases so much of his decision. But Netscape is not a PC Operating System. Therefore, the market cannot have been well defined, within the legal bounds above. A better definition of the market would be "application platforms", and I don't think even Slashdot can argue we have a monopoly there. Unless I'm missing something (quite possible) I think the Appeals Court will overthrow this also.
As to the Netscape market-division thing, I can't say I know how it will go. It sounds to be largely based upon the personal interpretation of the judges based upon how the two parties related the meeting. I'll be interested to see the results of this topic.
So, I'm sure you're all bubbling over with objections. Flame away!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I disagree. If the M$ legal team was so smart, why did they submit a doctored video tape of a rigged demo? To refresh your memory, here are some URLs dug from The Register's archives:
DoJ skewers MS exec over falsified video
'Slow' machine in test video was running MS Office
MS exec recants over video 'inconsistency'
MS screws-up video remake, and admits it wasn't real anyway
Allchin takes a beating over video
How MS tried to dig itself out of video hell
MS video II - full transcript, again...
Conclusion: DoJ spin bowls MS video clean
I'm willing to believe that Gates and Ballmer are Evil Geniuses(TM) in their bewailing of the corporate split-up: "Don't throw me in dat dere briar patch, Brer Fox!" Given the guilty ruling, they may be angling for a structural remedy that will enhance their stock value.
But, why would any sane legal strategy be based on those two rigged videos? They could only annoy the judge and help M$ lose the case. Rather than ditching the case, Ballmer and Gates, Evil Geniuses At Large(TM), could have settled at any point during the trial and had a bit more control over their fate than I suspect Judge Jackson will give them.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Stock options. Most of us know that stock options are a normal ploy used to compensate employees instead of increasing their wages. Employee "pay" compensation for when stock options are exercised does not count against a company's net profit. Ballmer then tells the Microserfs that their stock options are now based on the value of MS stock value of a few weeks ago (around $67). If these stock options are exercise later (if the stock price goes up), then this payout is not factored into MS's revenue calculations.
Cookie Jar Accounting. In this method, profits and losses in a particular yearly quarter are manipulated. Make lots of money this quarter? Great. Don't make a lot of money the next quarter as you anticipate? Great. Just bugger the numbers so that you always show an slight increase every quarter by counting profits in one quarter to another quarter. This is good as it reduces dips in the stock market whenever one does not meet the quarterly expectations. The SEC is looking into this.
Kerberos, Netscape, DR-DOS, Real Network (work in progress), QuickTime, Java, Frontpage extensions, etc... But MS is now serious about computer security after ILoveYou. But as the Allman Brothers would say, Dear Mellissa.
Nice story in the Washington Post today that showed how much money MS is pumping into various groups. These include soft-money interests, and dubious "independent" organizations that represent the interest of the tech field. This is also a common practice in the environmental field.
OT: The FBI is now looking for the /. DDOS suspect. The prime suspect is a A. Coward that is either dressed as a Norwegian troll or a Californian Karma whore. Both are considered dangerous. Mr Coward was last seen in the statue section of the Metropolitan Art Museum. While not confirmed, it reported that steam was reported to be leaking from the front of his pants. An FBI spokesperson said that the source of the steam is not known, thank you.
IMHO winver.exe is very well written and I challenge anyone here to do a better job.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
that's very nice, but whether Amerikkka is truly free is another matter entirely. As Bob Dylan put it in one of his worst songs: "You're gonna have to serve somebody".
simply do not agree that Microsoft is a monopoly.
What WOULD be a monopoly, in your estimation? 100% of the market and competitors with their limbs cut off and their eyes glued shut? I suppose you'd get a real thrill watching the Miami Dolphins play against P.S.77 middle school intramural.
Install Linux on your PC.
That is one of the main reasons why Microsoft has cemented its position as a monopoly -- they have ensured that I have to INSTALL Linux rather than buying a computer with Linux pre-installed.
Microsoft won't prevent you from doing any of this.
Now I understand your view of what constitutes a monopoly. A company that has "scrutineers" stationed in every Circuit City outlet to ensure that there is no "outside influence" on the customer's preference. Those who choose an "inferior" product are quietly escorted by the scrutineers to the "showers". Now THAT'S a monopoly for REAL MEN.
When you live in a society which the outocomes of legal actions are determined by how expensive your lawyers are (cf. the OJ trial), I think that it's safe to say that the basis of all your freedom lies on economic factors.
Is that what you mean by "the US prides itself on being a free country" ? Maybe you should have said "the US prides itself on being a FEE country".
Money buys guns. Guns make power. Power makes government. No matter how you slice it, there's going to be assholes on this planet that want to rule other people's lives. What makes you think representation by remuneration would be better than what we have?
What this means is that economic freedom is the basis for all other freedoms.
No. What it means is economic "freedom" is a meaningless phrase. Here's the history of the US economy in one runon sentence: Discover a new continent with a whole bunch of unclaimed land; kill all the native inhabitants; manipulate the poor white folks to take up arms against the poor black folks to keep the poor from rising up against the rich landowners; then kill some confederate yahoos so that all the black slaves can come up and work in northern factories and so on and so forth. Where do you think the land that your house stands on came from? Who said it was yours? God? Get real, man. Government is just as much a necessity for an economy as an economy is for a government. The two are symbiotic. Co-dependent. Fraternally linked. Siamese Twins. Yin and Yang. Get the idea?
Will the government come after me if I become too successful?
Not if you become too successful, but if you ABUSE your market power. It is not an easy thing to determine if someone is abusing market power, and consequently there is probably a great deal of lattitude in what type of behaviour will be subject to regulation. Hence a great deal of freedom still exists even for the largest of businesses.
There's nothing frightening about being fair, is there?
Overseas branches of Micro$oft don't make real development. They are fully dependent on Redmond. Splitting Micro$oft will directly impact them.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
Although part of me wants to see Microsoft broken up just out of spite, I really don't see how it would benefit competition. It seems to me that tearing Microsoft down is even more unreasonable.
What I'd like to see is restrictions against Microsoft's dirty tactics: imagine, f'rexample, if they weren't allowed to announce products until they're in the distribution channel. No more MS vapourware.
I'd also like to see them prevented from implementing non-open protocols and file formats - it should be feasible for any competitor to provide an alternative to a Microsoft product without resorting to reverse engineering.
Unfortunately, I suspect this wouldn't be enforceable.
I miss Meept.
Just dropped again to less than 68...
Anyway, what will be the value of M$ stocks shortly, since there will be no more M$ to pay dividnds ?
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
does it strike anyone else as odd that microsoft is continually spouting its "they're crushing innovation" argument in the same breath with its "breakup proposal is unprecedented" argument? please... "their new (deteriorated) legal approach is hampering our new (progressive) products!"
basically, microsoft is trying to pull the same type of illogical arguments that have worked on software users to sway public opinion on the court case.
the worst part is it will probably work, because non-geeks will form opinions on word-of-mouth info instead of reading the facts - all microsoft has to do is make its arguments easy to remember and repeat!
(why isn't their a corporate death penalty? or corporate imprisonment?)
There is a corporate death penalty, and a breakup is it.
One of the ways a corporation reproduces is by spinning off a chunk of itself as a separate corporation. Initially the parent corporation owns the spinoff child. But it can sell all or part of its interest in the child. Once it has abandoned controlling interest the child is on its own.
A breakup is the splitting of the corporation into two or more children and destroying the parent. The original stockholders trade in their shares of the parent for shares of the children. (One of the children may keep the parent's name. Think "Microsoft, Jr!").
Microsoft already suffered probation (rules agreed to in settlement of previous actions) and violated it. Corporations can also suffer imprisonment (rules imposed and administered by a court).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Of course Microsoft puts together a package of 'remedies' that does nothing! The list of actions it was willing to take were infinitesimally (sp?) simple and minor.
"We're willing to allow hardware manufacturers to change the background/login images. We're willing to hide the E (for Explorer) icon."
Any kid with half a brain and TweakUI can do that.
The thing here is....M$ ain't stupid...they wouldn't put out a package like that for no reason whatsoever. They would HAVE to know that it would be turned down.
Any guesses as to why they offered this instead of a real solution?
TheGeek
TheGeek
http://www.geekrights.org
Kill the monkey
The problem is that there isn't a good conduct remedy to keep them from weasling out. Microsoft proved that they can't be trusted to follow through with agreed upon conduct changes, let alone ones thrust upon them. Conduct remedies are part of it but the structural remedies are needed so that the OS has to provide the APIs to everyone (including the Apps division) equally.
The gov't is looking for a break up as the last option Microsoft already showed it couldn't be trusted with a conduct remedy. The gov't isn't going to make the same mistake twice.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
I am truly shocked at how short sighted people are being. Why not let people decide which OS they have on their system? There is a format command available to Microsoft users. Linux distros are easily bootable and install programs are easier then ever. In its place, we have the US government trying to decide what and where a software company can put its software. Bah, I don't buy it. If the home user does not have the proper info to make this decision, then educate them. Don't have the government get involved in this manner. Need I remind those old enough to remember the terrible confusion and high prices after the government divided up Ma Bell into the baby bells? Go back and do the research. Nothing good can come from what the justice department has recommended. Since Microsoft has the monopoly on home x86 systems, I guess the US Justice Department should go after Apple next, as they have the monopoly on home PowerPC systems. I say split them up between the OS group and the hardware group. Also, since we can't have the two working together to make another monopoly, AppleOS can't have their OS run on AppleHardware's systems. If it is good for the goose....
Bryan R.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
The Microsoft antitrust case will likely be in court for many years to come.
As an example, the DR-DOS vs Microsoft case took almost three years, and was settled out of court. It was an almost petty case compared to the govt antitrust trial.
G.W. Bush has publically said many times that he would throw the MS antitrust case out if he could. It is safe to say that MS will be spending millions to get him elected.
Since Bush Junior isn't getting federal matching funds, does he have to make public the contributors to his presidential campaign? Also, does he have to list amounts $$$ ?
What I don't understand about this is: What's to stop a broken in two microsoft colluding in a duopolistic fashion? In other words, what's there to stop Microsoft-OS from sharing API's with Microsoft-Apps and no-one else?
:)
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
and the government wanted to punish me for having a very successful business I'd pick up the company and go to some other country. I'm sure countries would gladly pay for microsoft to move its headquaters to their country. The same thing is happening with crypto. Microsoft is going to have "export laws" so like the cyptro companies they can move to sweeden or russia and import to the united states. Sure there are a few thousand employees they want to keep. But if they aren't a US business they can't be broken up/be restricted. Maybe they can ban the sale of windows in stores, but nothing stops you from purchasing a cd image on the net and burning a cd. I love linux as much as the next guy but if the government wants to play with other peoples money they can wait in line buy 5% and get a seat on the board.
Ahh, ye old pre-announce ploy.
You do realize that IBM was found guilty of the same thing and the anti-monopoly lawyers smacked them around and prevented them from pre-announcing products?
And this is why IBM was unable to compete against Microsoft.
Oh, and being prevented from implementing non-open protocols is anti-competitive.
I'm in favor of the breakup proposal as I think it'll boost innovation and competition.
Now, has anyone seen a copy of the government brief online yet?
Background materials, documents, and transcripts collected on the Openlaw Microsoft Case page.
-- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain
I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains.
So the mountain of evidence has nothing to do with it then? While selective enforcement does happen, and should not be tolerated, it doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute those who break the law. It means we should make sure that everyone who breaks the law is prosecuted fairly.
Think about it. Remember last time this happened? They had Microsoft nailed and then let them off with a consent decree which Judge Sporkin knew wouldn't work. So, MS and the DOJ end up on the same team defending the consent decree. They win. Then Bill goes out and starts bragging to the press about how the decree won't change Microsoft's business practices one bit. He was right. He won that round.
Then MS pushed things too far again and they're back in the ring with the DOJ. The DOJ isn't going to let them off without an iron-clad solution this time. They learned what it's like to deal with Microsoft the last time around. They don't plan to make the same mistake this time. Hell, damn near every one of Microsoft's witnesses helped the DOJ's case more than any of the DOJ's witnesses. The evidence was there. Their own testimony confirmed their guilt. There's nothing left to do but decide how best to fix the situation. Microsoft wants a flimsy, unenforceable consent decree like last time. The DOJ damn sure won't give them that this time. So Microsoft will complain that they're being overly harsh and that the proposed remedy is too extreme. Well, I say they brought this on themselves. They had the chance to shape up and stop doing the things that the courts had decided were illegal. They chose not to. If you or I do that, we end up in jail for a long time. I don't see why Microsoft's punishment should be any less severe. We can't put the corporate heads in jail, but we can sure take away their power to commit the same crime yet again.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You're a dickhead!
The Mac situation is an entirely different kettle of fish. The point being, that Apple produces the hardware as well as the OS. The machines are built from the ground up to run MacOS. They are bundled together because that's what ur buying, the entire package. Microsoft does not produce the boxes that Windows runs on. They have to strongarm vendors into supplying the OS without question. Apple does no such thing. It doesnt have to. It makes the boxes.
Its like saying Commodore had a monopoly on the C=64 basic, because it came with the machine. The MacOS is a integral part of the machine, not some afterthought like Windows or Linux. Same for Commodore/Atari/Apple in the old days. You bought the entire package.
Get real.....
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
I'm a dickhead? Great, you've definately proved your maturity in my eyes.
The original poster claimed it's hard to purchase a notebook computer without windows. I clearly stated where that can be easily done. End of story.
Any Joe can start his own computer manufacturing company, look at VA linux. Look at Penguin computing, look at the thousands of online stores which sell systems without Windows. You have plenty of OS choices on the x86 platform. The MacOS is an integral part of an Apple computer because they _make it so_ It would be quite easy for Apple to ship systems with Linux or BeOS, they however choose not to. That's a monopoly, your choice is only MacOS, nothing else.
I believe that the point of anti-trust action should be for the government to do the bare minimum necessary to put the market back in a state where free market forces can take effect again and eventually fully correct the situation. This does not mean a level playing field, no one really wants that and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar, a hypocrit or both. After the remedy is enforced MS should still have a big advantage, they've earned it, but not so big that an underdog can't rise up and knock king bill off of the OS hill.
I've thought about what kind of remedy I'd like to see in this case, one that will leave a healthy and competitive MS but takes away their near omnipitence in the software world. The plan that I have come up with is three-fold. First the types of contract provisions they are allowed to put into OEM contracts should be very limited (ie forced bundeling, things like the so called MS tax, bizzare discount plans based on bundles etc...) Second, during the install of windows users have the option of installing IE or not, for those with it already installed MS should release a free utility (I know one already exists, but not by MS) for stripping (not just hiding, really stripping) IE off of your system. Third (here's the biggie) GPL all OS code, everything in use today and all future OS products for say 5 years. Plus they must release full specs on all file formats and "extended" standards (can you say kerberos?) I kinda doubt that anything like full GPL release of all windows code will ever happen but we may see it in some limited fashion, anything that would make it easier for non-windows (or office) users to work with windows/office users would IMO go along way toward giving consumsers a real choice in OS's. And that's what this is all about isn't it?
Anyway those are just my thoughts on the subject, flame away if you feel so inclined. ;->
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut