Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Decides To Break Up Microsoft
Well, it's official. The United States Department of Justice has called for the breakup of Microsoft into two separate companies: an applications company which will manage software like Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer, and an operating systems company that will manage products such as Windows NT. CNN coverage here.
That would be simple, and arguably OK. But that won't happen. To avoid the slightest hint of collusion, there will have to be
Helpful Usenet postings might even be banned, unless they can guarantee full propagation. (Good luck there!) Employees will be fired, fined, or imprisoned for accidentally talking to the wrong person. It is absurd to make professionals work in that environment.
The DoJ and the court are simply ignorant of the practical ramifications their decisions will have. In fact, they think they know so much about engineering organizations that they don't even need to listen to Microsoft's outside witnesses. Imagine trying to break Linux development up into the Kernel-Mode Division and the Userland Division, with an insulation layer of attorneys and judges in between, and without allowing Linus Torvalds or Bill Joy to speak. Thirty-seven hackers would be found dead the next day from laughter. But that's what the DoJ/court proposed for Microsoft, with a straight face. And they truly, sincerely think it is OK. They're so far off in their own imaginary world that Jesus Christ himself couldn't find them with a telescope.
Office/OS "collusion" didn't even break the law. What broke the law was the discriminatory, anti-competitive contracts. Simply making Microsoft offer the same terms to all customers (e.g., $300/MS-Office for quantity 1, $270/MS-Office for quantity 100, etc.) would have eliminated the bulk of their anticompetitive behavior. Making them publish APIs for advertised features would have eliminated most of the rest.
I think it's a bad precedent, and people are happy just because Microsoft is being shit on. But free speech includes the right *not* to speak, to keep trade secrets and confidences. When the attorney for the United States decides that you've been "anti-competitive" by not publishing something, you'll change your tune.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
I believe they will hear it - they heard AT&T's appeal directly - but that dosen't mean it'd be much quicker.
Linux is only free if your time is of no value
Be in Your Senses
While M$ is taking its time squirming in the courts trying to weasel their way out of the breakup (and they probably will, from what I know of the psychology of M$ higher-ups - the way they've acted in the past, you know), we need to seize the opportunity to prepare a plan of action so that the ruling can be effective and fair competition can indeed be restored to the computer/OS/software marketplace. This is what I see as being necessary, or at least highly recommended, though it will require cooperation from some other big companies that I suspect will be reluctant:
.*[iu]x is appropriate. This may not seem like a logical choice of action to take suddenly - but - by having a flood of SPARC and Motorola-based hardware setups on the market, plus the influence of AMD (it's probably too late for Cyrix to help out; Amiga is still dying from what I understand, though anything they can contribute would be good as well), we can completely shake Intel's position in the market and thereby the paradigm of "Wintel uber alles". IMO we cannot have adequate competition in software without adequate competition in hardware.
.BMP, .JPG, .RTF, etc. (.GIF is evil, we should do something about CompuServe while we're at all of this) - various internet protocols - every standard for anything related to computing which is not proprietary to M$, must be known. It is not enough to make available; this has been accomplished (witness several mirrors of RFC archives etc.) with little effect. People won't go out of their way to read about a standard, non-M$ solution for something as long as M$ can provide them with a ready-made development tool. Standards need to be publicized, and people need to be made aware of why Windows is not necessarily the best app development platform, even if you're writing Windows apps. (This opening of information may well serve to improve overall Usenet etiquette, if we're lucky.)
HARDWARE:
Apple needs to bring back the clones, in a sense - except this time around, instead of allowing the clone makers licenses to MacOS, the competing companies would use the hardware from Motorola (or even IBM's versions of the chips) and come with PPCLinux only, plus bundled apps. I expect this will hurt Apple in the short run...
Motorola needs to get a lot more people working for them; they're lagging behind in chip development at the moment and the plan I'm putting out here will increase their demand dramatically.
Sun also needs to get off their ass and produce a consumer line of SPARC-driven or similar PCs, running whatever
SOFTWARE:
To compensate Apple for their contribution, the Linux hackers out there need to make really good Enlightenment/whatever other schemes to emulate the MacOS appearance. I've heard and seen some nice looking stuff, but there are subtleties of MacOS that I rarely see any other OS developers pick up on. Once this is done, more interest will be taken in MacOS, and eventually in other less known OSes - I hope.
Similarly, work on WINE needs to be scaled down - those who are working on it should make their protest now, to ensure that any required open-sourcing of Windows-related stuff actually happens. Once the non-intel/AMD chips gain in popularity, M$ will be struggling to produce good ports for the other hardware platforms; have the WINE people offer to do a proper job of it (likely, even better than M$ would have done) on our terms.
To demonstrate that we're not like the Bad Guys(TM), software packages coming with different distributions of Linux need to be customizable. It is not enough to allow people to pick a distribution, since the charges levied by the various distros vary and consumers may feel shut out from the apps they want by unwillingness to pay "that much" for what is supposed to be a free OS. Of course, such an attitude would be entirely an illusion, since you can get the software anyway - but - consumer confidence is a Big Issue here, and you improve on that by giving people what they want up front. Each distro should provide at least two options for each main type of app they choose to bundle with the Linux kernel (or just toss 'em all in, as seems to be current practice; but I find this is initially a waste of the user's HD space, and tends to piss them off - at least, it sure pissed *me* off trying to remove IE and OE from my Mac when I got it).
The general public (here I mean "everyone in the general public who is conceivably capable of coding something useful") needs to be made aware of the open standards on which everything is based. Not just things like Linux TCP/IP stack workings; I mean file formats like
But none of this will happen, of course. I'm just dreaming.
Zahlman Q. Namlhaz, esq. {:> "Zahl Incorporated - the Last Word in Everything(TM)"
Besides, wasn't the buy-out-and-rebrand strategy what got MS DOS in the first place?
it's green.
Say what?!?! The way MS has been insuring that MS Office and other MS-AP products work better than anyone else is through the use of non-documented APIs. If you really think MS has published documents for all it's OS APIs, talk to the WINE people who are attempting to duplicate it.
--Benabik Alvar
This will be a big boost for the WINE effort, as I mentioned previously. More than that, we'll probably see every x86 OS that has a POSIX-compliant API module offer a Win32-compliant API module. In time, they'll all run Office just fine. Some of them will probably work better than Microsoft's OS offerings, too.
Microsoft can't arbitrarily change the APIs to break compatible software, either; the decision prohibits that. And of course none of this waits on appeal; only the breakup is delayed.
In the end, this might be good even for Microsoft. They've dumped much junk in their OS to maintain their monopoly. That strategy now stops working. So they may let the engineers determine what goes in the OS again, as they did when Dave Cutler designed NT, instead of the marketing people, as they did with Win98/98/NT4/NT2000. We'll see.
Microsoft will probably drag their feet on API disclosure. But it won't work. The only question is whether they give in before, or after, the judge sends some Microsoft executives to jail for contempt. That's a very real possibility. Federal judges have more than enough power to enforce their orders.
Microsoft probably won't win on appeal, either. Unlike Judge Sporkin, who made some mistakes in the first Microsoft antitrust case back in 1994 (yes, this is try #2), Judge Jackson has done a good job. Nobody has pointed out any serious errors on his part. The trial has been watched by so many people that any major reversable errors would have been widely publicized.
Read the actual final judgement; it's better than most of the commentary on it.
Adobe ??
Wow, they have to archive 4 years of managements' e-mail correspondence. Now, will this amount to many terabytes of jokes and raw comics, or just a few Kbytes since they're so bad at english and can hardly spell? teeheehee -Pete
I suspect that MS-AP will wind up keeping the Microsoft name, and MS-OS will wind up being called "The Windows Operating System Company" or some similar name. This would make sense because MS-OS is going to remain a much more tightly focused company with a single, well known trademark. Thus it makes sense to leverage that trademark as a new company name and let the more diverse MS-AP keep the (also very well known) Microsoft moniker.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Microsoft childishly dug it own grave throughout the trial. Billy and Stevie need to learn to grown up one day.
Lovely to see someone sane. You don't have to like Microsoft, or their products, you are fully within your rights to dislike microsoft and not use their products at the same time.
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
My point is not that IE is an innovation (it's not - someone else invented Web browsers). My point is that the Document Object Model contained in IE4 and 5 is an innovation. Look at the hashup of a DOM that's in Netscape 4. LAYER's --- ugh. The IE DOM is drastically different from any other DOM. Thus it is innovative.
nal 11
But seriously, folks, I'm betting M$ drags it through the appeals process until the feds run out of money and give up.
The feds run out of money????? Are you serious? You know, they print the stuff, so there is no chance they will every run out. If it drags on like the IBM litigation it could become unpopular enough that they will give up, but they will never run out of money. Now that it is in the appeals system there are only two steps up the chain it can go so I don't think it will take very long to get resolved. Remember, the IBM case never even came to trial but went on for like 15 years. Now that the trial is over there is much less to be decided.
The main point is that RedHat is a real OS (Unix). Real OSes include everything from applications to compilers. Unix has always come with a full set of programs, so in this case OS means a full distribution, not just a useless GUI and some buggy applets.
it's green.
how can any independent minded techie think that some judge or some antitrust egghead is qualified to decide what does or does not belong in an O.S.? I guarantee you the SCoUSA is a lot smarter than that.
Do not underestimate the intelligence of Supreme Court judges. There was an article on the NYTimes site just this past week about how the SC has taken on technically challanging cases before. They have the back room support and they are smart enough to understand the technical issues involved. They will not shirk their responsibility.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
>Microsoft breaks up... Ok fine, oh wait, shit, they had the best PC
>Gaming Platform in existance... Hmm, well since they break up all
>their products will go to shit, and Linux has it's chance, where's the
>games? Oh wait... The OS still sucks for games...
You're assuming people actually care about gaming all that much which is something I and a hell lot of other people *DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT*
Can these attempts to submit fake evidence be carried through to the appeals court(s)? And can the MSFT execs be tried for perjury?
make world, not war
I'm not sure what Judge Jackson did differently from previous judges, but it prevented the case from turning into a decade long battle of legal armies.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Wall Street has expected this for a long time. I'm no stock guru, but I'd say that the ~35 point drop we saw in the last few months has a lot to do with people basically reacting to what happened today (if that makes sense). If MS wins an appeal, I would expect to see the stock price bounce right back to where it was.
Microsoft won't win an appeal. This isn't going to be another rigged game like the last three trips to the circuit court - it's going straight to the supreme court and Judge Jackson's work is as airtight as it gets. Even during the period before the Supreme Court rules on it, Microsoft will be hobbled by restrictions we'd never have imagined just a year or so ago. This isn't speculation, it's for sure. When the thickheaded market finally realizes this, guess which way Microsoft's stock is headed.
Don't forget also that there are a hundred or so private suits in progress (more to come no doubt) and all those guys have their greedy eyes on Microsoft's $50 billion cash horde.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Isn't the point of democracy to first elect responsible leaders and then have them lead? Possibly, though, the democratic process doesn't quite work wherever you live?
The idea that government should not be allowed to interfere with business in any way is absolutely absurd. Business has only its own interests at heart. The government theoretically has the interests of the population at heart. If this is not true, there is somthing wrong with the process by which people come to power and this needs to be fixed, rather than bowing down before the almighty corporations.
Logi - I can do anything, but not everything.
Sorry, the html I just posted above won't actually take you to the cartoon. I guess the best you can do is go to http://www.cartoonbank.com/search_results.asp?mscs sid=&s_keywords=microsoft , then click on the top match. Sorry for the misdirection.
What a bullshit?
You seem to be implying that most game companies can't wait to return to good old days of DOS, or even better to times where one had to make 3 versions of game (C-64, Atari, ZX Spectrum.)
DirectX was the best thing that happen to game industry in a long time. No more having to ship tons of sound, joystick drivers with every game.
Think before you post.
see the subject
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
That isn't what I see the text saying:
(apologies for HTML illiteracy)
> 2. Provisions Implementing Divestiture
> a. After Implementation of the Plan, and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, neither the Operating Systems Business
> nor the Applications Business, nor any member of their respective Boards of Directors, shall acquire any securities or assets[...]
This, and other parts, say the remedies last only for the term of the Final Judgment (obviously, I suppose.) But look here:
> 6. Effective Date, Term, Retention of Jurisdiction, Modification.
> a. This Final Judgment shall take effect 90 days after the date on which it is entered; provided, however that sections 1.b and
> 2 (except 2.d) shall be stayed pending completion of any appeals from this Final Judgment.
and a couple lines further:
>c. This Final Judgment shall expire at the end of ten years from the date on which it takes effect.
So, if we understand "the date on which [the Final Judgment] is entered" to mean today, then ten years from today (plus 90 days) the ballgame is over. That portions of it may be stayed pending appeal will not (as I read it) extend the time the companies must be separate. If I've missed the part that says otherwise, please enlighten me.
Before you get your hopes up, I have to tell you: there are no plans for support of LAYER elements in Mozilla. If anybody wants to step up to the plate and add it themselves, nobody will complain, but the official Mozilla plans revolve around W3C standards for the DOM.
Most layer effects are possible through CSS, and the rest through DOM manipulations, so new pages are no problem. Recoding existing pages, however, will be a pain in the butt. (However the recoded pages should work on both IE and Mozilla-derived browsers. Yay!)
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
As far as so called "home computing" games are 90% of that ...
In any event, capital gains on positions held for more than one year are tax favored -- I think the rate is 20%. I don't think his bracket would matter.
I loathe MS but I disagree with you.
They can still keep their patents. But they can't take action (etc) if a 3rd party develops something that competes with their software.
So if you develop a player for FOO multimedia files and are thus competing with MS they can't attack you. But you can't just use their patents - that's not the same as competition, b/c it's illegal on it's own.
You answered this yourself: But they can't take action. Please tell me how a patent that they can't legally enforce is going to stop anyone from doing anything. We will have three years to figure out how to get the stupid patent itself overturned.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
There's another possible sequence of events that would prevent the breakup: the DOJ backing off. Before you claim this impossible, recall that there's an election coming and that MS has paid some hefty dollars towards "good will" there.
Admittedly, this isn't *too* likely, esp. with the news coverage of MS's attempts at gathering support from Bush. But it isn't impossible, either.
It's a scary thought.
... doesn't mean that your OEM won't purchase them seperately and install them on your system, or that you yourself can't do that.
Remember, this is just to keep MS from screwing off in the future. So what if your OEM has to go to N+1 companies instead of N. Most big OEM's install a half-doxen commercial packages and a dozen or more demo's. One more or one fewer won't make much of a difference.
By you?
-Reid
Even SUN says the network is the computer.
I'm at Microsoft Tech Ed right now and I can say with certainty that it will not be clear what is an application and what is an OS. MS will be releasing a series of products over the next few months that can be considered both an add-on to the OS AND products in their own right.
The government can't figure these things out. Its best left up to us as techies to decide. Leave MS as is. If the PC is on the way out, and MS is not making any inroads anywhere else (Palm is kicking its ass, Transmeta, web pads, Linux, Java etc...), and other businesses don't trust them, then the pc model will become obsolete and Microsoft will obsolete with it.
My 2 cents
I'm still working on a clever footer.
Where is compiler on Solaris ?
Where the fuck is it ??
How come it costs $1000 ?
One fucking "real OS" woudn't you say ?
Judge Pinhead Jackson strikes again.
It would have been more fun to beat them ourselves, yes. Do I fear a government that does this? Yes. But this isn't the worst outcome, and it isn't the worst thing the government has done.
If this were a movie, this would be the so-so-but-not-happy-or-bad ending.
it's green.
Fines don't go to victims; they go to the gov't.
If a company wants a remedy, they need to sue Microsoft.
-Billy
Guys, I posted some extracts from ./ to my site,
http://samovarawards.com/
You are welcome to read
Andrew
Well, all of the information that I've seen indicates that the Supreme Court *does* have to hear the case.
But then again, I'm not a lawyer, or even a pre-law student, so perhaps I've left some important documents out of my reading.
If I'm wrong, then I will, of course, stand corrected.
How about Slow & Bloated? Oh wait, that describes both companies, nevermind....
Linux is only free if your time is of no value
Be in Your Senses
As Jackson says in his ruling, Microsoft still doesn't admit a damn thing. It's is just so maddening that they are still practicing business as usual with PDAs and what not. I imagine the judge finds it contemptuous.
But MS has made it very clear that anything short of a breakup will be useless, because they'll never change their behavior. They're the repeat offender who finally keeps getting in trouble, because no matter what the punishment, he just won't change. This time the key gets thrown away. Bye, bye MS, I hardly knew ye.
...when will the breakup finally happen? Can Microsoft buy enough lawyers, appeals, and Congressmen to turn this around?
For more information, click here.
This is much more sensible than the 3-company option (having IE be its own company). I can't help but wonder where Jackson had pulled that one out of....
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
-Jon
this is my sig.
You like Microsoft and you love freedom? Did you actually follow this case AT ALL?
PS M$ HAS performed criminal acts; that's the whole point.....or are you just part of the Microsoft "grassroots" letter-writing strategy
Red Hat also ships with lynx, arena, emacs...
I haven't used RedHat since 5.0 but you get the idea. They also are not polluting the operating environment with a browser, and they do not own the browser.
And Linux is not RedHat.
And you can download a Linux based operating system AND the browsers for free on the internet, as opposed to pirating Windows 98/2000 and/or downloading free(beer) IE5.
Lars -
They can do this all they want, they cannot touch open source software :)
Finkployd
This leads one to wonder about things like DirectX - is it part of the operating system, or is it actually an application all on it's own?
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Where do you get this? The way I see it, that passage says the exact opposite of what you say it does.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
The MS APIs are probably the best-documented in the industry.
:)
You had me until that line. Now I know you must have been joking
Finkployd
"Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System... "
This is the one that really gets me. This whole trial started over the "illegal" tying of IE into Windows, and according to this, they don't have to take it out. Since it's already in, it gets to stay in.
You got it exactly backwards. This says that IE can't be tied to Windows in any future distribution.
I can't see where anyone can claim they weren't out to get get MS from the begining
Who's claiming that? Everbody knows we're out to "get" Microsoft, because they cheat and break the law, while consistently carrying on business without any detectable shred of ethics or morality.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
For crying out loud, if Pablo Picasso had gone around stealing old ladies's purses or if James Jopyce had run around the streets of Dublin throwing rocks through shop windows, they'd have gone to jail like any of the rest of us.
Nobody's "persecuting" "innovation." (Let's leave to one side the word-grinding debate as to whether Microsoft was or wasn't really innovative, whatever that means, for right now.) Microsoft is being whacked because they broke the law - to be precise, after already having been warned once about their dubious tactics in 1994, they proceeded to stamp up and down on the law and feed the shreds through a tree chipper.
Keep in mind, though, that the DOJ isn't beating up Microsoft because Microsoft took unfair advantage of the general public. We mere citizens don't count shit to the government. Microsoft is being punished for screwing over a number of other multi-billion dollar corporations.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
NOT! They have over 500 billion $$$$ to fix whatever problems they need to fix. Did breking up AT&T stop thier monopoly ? NO.
I agree completely.
Be careful what you wish for, people, you just might get it.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
i dunno ... just more crack-smoking i guess ...
bemis
I loathe MS but I disagree with you.
They can still keep their patents. But they can't take action (etc) if a 3rd party develops something that competes with their software.
So if you develop a player for FOO multimedia files and are thus competing with MS they can't attack you. But you can't just use their patents - that's not the same as competition, b/c it's illegal on it's own.
-- 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.
Following up my own post...
Can we find the terms of their file format patent license to be a contractual tie? (bet you we can)
Well, actually, no, not the way this restriction is written. But another provision of the remedy does offer a lot of promise:
Developer Relations. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action affecting any ISV or IHV (including but not limited to giving or withholding any consideration such as licensing terms; discounts; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information; technical information; information about future plans; developer tools or developer support; hardware certification; and permission to display trademarks or logos) based directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual or contemplated action by that ISV or IHV to -
i. use, distribute, promote or support any Microsoft product or service, or
ii. develop, use, distribute, promote or support software that runs on non-Microsoft Middleware or a non-Microsoft Operating System or that competes with any Microsoft product or service...
Bingo! We just have to have an ISV (Red hat? Suse? Mandrake?) bring out a media player that incorporates ASF, Microsoft sues, and gets slammed by this provision. Any of you lawyers out there care to comment?
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
I agree with you almost completely, except to say that I do like microsoft... at least I like their products, at the 3rd or 4th version they are consistently top of the line. I didn't want to post this myself for fear of mindless flaming and ridiculous moderation (as I've already seen).
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
according to cern the goverment is in fact going and using the expiditing act. This case is one more step closer to going into the supreme court.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
:)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
- Bill
Regards,
-BK
Chemical Blog
Actually I believe they are going to call the companies Micros and Oft.
This is entirely different. AT&T had it's power rooted in fixed geographic areas, and so local service wasn't affected much. Long distance was much improved, though. As for MS, it's all intellectual property, and whether or not you like the philosophy behind intellectual property, it's much easier to divide than AT&T's property was.
That myth is still very much a myth. The original hoax was to the effect of "Open any email with subject and your computer is toast!" The most recent e-mail virii have all been attachments that require a user to open them, just like any other trojan (or attachment with a virus). The only difference with this virus was that it used a non-standard executable type.
-Zane
This sig is worse than my last.
Well, now instead of one monster there are two. I hope this plan works. I think that Microsoft is like a starfish, you cut it in half and guess what happens!
Telling someone "here, this is what we do, oh, and BTW, you can't do that without paying us licensing fees" doesn't seem much use to me. I don't think the jugement affects this. Nothing that I could see (IANAL) seemed to stop them from owning and using patents - in fact, the final judgement states that IP rights used by both companies (presumably including patents) "shall be assigned to the Applications Business, and the Operating Systems Business shall be granted a perpetual, royalty-free license to license and distribute such Intellectual Property in its products".
There's a very big difference, IMOHO, between having you arrested and arresting you; likewise between having your property taken away and simply taking your property away. Sure, either one sucks. :-) But if it's wrongly done, the blame must ultimately lie with the government.
The government meddled from day one by awarding software patents and making it difficult to reverse engineer legally. While I disagree with the ruling, I do not have a problem in theory, at least, with the government, which enabled Microsoft's profits through intellectual property laws (which are monopolies according to the Constitution), testing to see if Microsoft is abusing the privilege
It seems a very bad thing to me. If government-awarded privileges show themselves destructive of the common good, the privileges themselves need to be curtailed. The goverment has certainly created and then punished monopolies in the past. Ma Bell, for instance. Legislation to fix legislation to fix legislation is all too common, and too dangerous.
(IP is only a right if you assume that government grants rights rather than protects them, IMHO.)
There's a distinction traditionally made between natural rights (life, liberty, property, for instance), and created rights (though I'm not sure "created" is the right term). I certainly view IP as the latter sort.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I dislike the Microsoft Corperate structure but hating the employees is a bit to much. The OS might bite but I have a problem with someone who makes such a broad comment.
Information wants to be free like speech wants to be free, not like we want beer to be free.
I found this restriction quite interesting:
ii. when an OEM removes End-User Access to a Middleware Product from any Personal Computer on which Windows is preinstalled, the royalty paid by that OEM for that copy of Windows is reduced in an amount not less than the product of the otherwise applicable royalty and the ratio of the number of amount in bytes of binary code of (a) the middleware Product as distributed separately from a Windows Operating System Product to (b) the applicable version of Windows.
I think this means that it will be very damaging to MS for an application to grow too much. Some "bound" applications like IE, are really big partly because of the great amount of garbage they contain, including advertising.
Many companies like Disney paid M$ to include their content as channels for IE in the standard Windows distribution, thus making IE bigger.
So when an OEM decides to take away IE the OS license will be reduced in terms of the percentage IE takes from a full Windows installation, not the "real" size of the application itself.
Anyone's comments on this?
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
The whole point of this ruling is to create more creativity in the industry and give other companies the opportunity to develop more creative software without some giant dictating how it can run and where it can run EVEN IF it can run.
Let's all please let MS fall gracefully. They have had their turn. I am glad to be one of the first to introduce the new era in computing:
The Perfect Competition.
If you don't know what it means, please go to your university and pick up an econmics book. In short, it means more competitors, better innovations, more options, and lower prices!!!
Some of these companies have been around already, and they aren't afraid of competition: hell, they have had to grow up with a big bad brother (MS) for the last 10 - 20 years.
These companies are:
SUN
COREL
COGNOS
IBM
APPLE
NETSCAPE (I know they are AOL...)
and many many more that have had a very difficult time gaining popularity because MS would never let anyone else in the spot light.
Congratulations MS. I hope you fall gracefully. You have now allowed the entire industry to grow in leaps and bounds. This will be benificial to everyone, including you... if you play your cards right
I can now see a light at the end of the tunnel... and I know it is NOT a train...
This is correct. The remedy is not supposed to be punitive, meaning punishment oriented, in any way.
This is sad. I think most of the readers here care MORE about seeing some opposing orgainization "go down" rather than seeing advancement of their own cause. It's like watching Jerry Springer.
Sadly, I think that any successful politician today will be easily bought.
The reason is that money is a major factor in any campaign today, and "being bought" means having money. So being easier to buy means getting more money, and therefore greater chance of being successful as a politician.
The only exception, I suppose, is a politician that is already *very* wealthy and can therefore buy a seat w/o help.
No. I detest Microsoft, and I love freedom. My feelings for Microsoft, however, are irrelevant.
Did you actually follow this case AT ALL?
Anti-trust laws protect the common interest, not freedom. This is an inherent compromise. I cannot make better reply to such a vague question.
PS M$ HAS performed criminal acts; that's the whole point.....
No. That is an important point; there are other points. The punishment must fit the crime, and the laws themselves must be just. Such points are important in any legal action.
or are you just part of the Microsoft "grassroots" letter-writing strategy
Let me state my feelings more strongly. Microsoft sucks. Bill Gates sucks. If they go under and he spontaneously combusts tomorrow, Free Beer on me.
There. Happy? I still disagree with you.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
How about "Microsoft" for the application software and "MicrOS" for the OS company? Hey BG, I invented that my own self, but I'll let you use it without even suing you.
Yours WD "Generous" K - WKiernan@concentric.net
The gut of the matter is, you are correct. The main problem with the case is this: Currently the OS industry is dominated by Microsoft, but this will change fairly soon, meaning, by the time all the appeals are done, breaking Microsoft into a billion pieces wouldn't make a bit of difference, and all it WILL do is make a bunch of lawyers a little bit richer...
HobophobE
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Sun gushes out Windows builds faster than it does for Solaris. I'm not losing sleep over Java for Windows.
http://cnnfn.com/poll/microsoftpoll.html
In that regard, I think the judges line was drawn in the right place. It keeps the OS group from extending into areas where components have always been easily removed or changed. If MS has to seperate their bastardized kerberos from the OS, I'm sure other vendors would stand up to make a compatible version which companies with heterogonous platforms would pay for in a heartbeat.
I suppose if you want to be really pedantic it's "Get sent evil content in such a way that it happens to be the first thing in your inbox, while you have the preview pane fully enabled, and if the evil content happens to be making use of the ActiveX controls that keep being improperly marked as safe for web use, your computer is toast- otherwise maybe it's just welcome to Melissa-land and here's hoping your friends like getting sent email viruses". But that takes so long to type ;)
You incorrectly assume the majority of us in the Linux community would ever want overpriced, unreliable,bloated,closed sourced crapware applications from Microsoft on our platform. I can assure you, we do not.
You have been assimilated.
Fishbowl--
Here, lemme rephase into a sound bite:
"Linux people say Microsoft can't code. Microsoft agrees--that's why their business practices are so desperate. Believing their code could not survive the rigors of a fair marketplace--even with the unprecedented technical coup that was Internet Explorer 3--Microsoft went so far as to <i>revoke the right of Compaq to sell Windows</i> under the (mistaken) impression that, unless users had the Microsoft browser crammed down their throat, they'd never switch. The supreme irony is that Internet Explorer genuinely is the better product, and never required such vicious tactics to achieve dominance."
People really forget how amazing IE3 was. It was truly incredible.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
There aren't many jobs out there that actually require you to be totally unqualified. "I'm sorry, we've found someone who seems to be even more clueless and unable to spot collusion for this post".
No, they'll appeal right away. A lot of the provisions go into effect immediately, and the only way they can delay that is to appeal.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I was reading the story on C|Net News and all of the sudden, the Windows Critical Update notice came up on my desktop. It's kind of freaky if you ask me.
So if having a monopoly in both the OS and App spheres is not illegal (and I agree that it's not) then why break up the company? Why not slap a punitive fine on them, and other remedies that will prevent further abuse, but leave them intact?
---
"Voice recognition software? Oh well, I guess it'll be another few decades before we can talk to
our computers. (SR won't become universal if it's not supported by the OS.) "
mac-heads have been talking to their computers for about ten years running. Where have you been?
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.
This is why Bill Gates went to congress this week and testified about poor little ol tech companies unable to hire enough red-blooded americans, please raise the number of h1b visas so we can pay indonesian programmers $5/hr.
When the OS company shuffles off the Office company, they'll keep all the best programmers (transfer them to the OS team), and then leave Office with the crap ones. Then the OS company will hire a bunch of cheap foreign labor, and write a new office suite of their own, intergated in to the OS.
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.
Mozilla is open source. It's free and always will be.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
If Gates planned this all along, then where is Billy boy's side of the company going to make money? Linux apps? That's a joke. Mac apps? Not enough market share. Oh, maybe the X-Box.
Not to be confrontational, but it just seems like if he planned it, he didn't plan much farther than when Windows dies out.
Granted someone else could buy Windows if the new company wasn't making money, but by then it's out of Billy's control... Windows could take some drastic turns that would make Office's market share vanish.
No, sorry, you're wrong - that's not in question. Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?
Microsoft meets the legal definition of a monopoly... you're not the first to point this out. I stand corrected. I was thinking more of monopoly in the dictionary sense:
The legal definition of a monopoly, apparently, concerns percentage of sales, which is an awkward metric, since strictly speaking Linux itself is not offered for sale. But like I said, I stand corrected.
This does not, however, change my opinion on the whole; I assume my reasoning is obvious.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
After the split, MS shareholders [1] will find themselves owning both MS-OS (Micro-S.O.S) and MS-AP (MicroSaps) [2] stock. These two stocks will find themselves competing to keep their places in the portfolios of the same investors. Since there is no reason to expect both companies to perform equally in the next year, they will have to adopt a competitive stance. Otherwise, they will be cutting their own throats to benefit their siblings
In today's tech market market, the importance of stock value cannot be overlooked
[1] except Covered Shareholders = past/present employees and directors with 5% or more
of MS (not many people in *that* group!) who cannot own shares in both companies
[2] My guess is that they'll be Windows Corp. and Microsoft Applications Inc.
If it had been up to me, I'd have set the 'covered shareholder threshold' at 0.5-1% (or even lower) to assure that more of the top management had a personal stake in the competition. However, I suppose that there are SEC reasons for the 5% mark, and most top level executives probably want to see their babies perform.
MS-AP is actually the more profitable of the two, with a broad range of apps and services, and a large market penetration in the layman desktop (a sector that is not eager to retrain in new apps). Both companies fear 'user freeze', where FUD keeps the users on their existing systems (which 'work just fine'). No more lockstepped upgrades of interlocking OS/Apps!
MSAP will find that it has a major asset that is rapidly aging: its expertise in the hidden Windows APIs. They'll be eager for partners to make use of this resource while it is still valid and valued. MSOS, on the other hand, will benefit from releasing as much API info as possible, so MSAP doesn't outperform them on Wall Street and to allow better apps to keep users buying MSOS through Win 2000/Milennium and beyond.
MSOS needs a revenue stream -- which means more paid OS upgrades or license fees, while MSAP would prefer that WinNT/9x/2000/Millenium stayed on the market for a long time. They will have no edge in Win2002 (etc.) Another revenuestream for MSOS would be to buy applications companies and to rebuild its App division (permitted under Section 1(c)(ii) of the decree)
MSAP will be more open to widely porting their apps, and will seek unifying technologies (seeking crossplatform compatibility like any app developer) Their familiar UI is a potent market edge to overcome initial weaknesses in raw performance, but they'll be scrambling for development partners who 'know the terrain' of other OS's.
The bad news is that the 1000 lb gorilla is now two 500 lb gorillas. MS-AP isn't likely to offer very beneficial terms at first! Expect tight NDAs and restrictions, since it knows it has a sure winner (MS-Office, etc.) . The good news is that this will enable Linux/BeOS/etc. to take a place on a lot more machines, which benefits these communities as a whole.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Actually, they do a pretty good job in the hardware department (Those optical mice rock).
I've seen some pretty good things in Visual C++ as well, mainly debugger features like Edit and Continue. Admittedly, I've also seen some pretty horrific things out of that group, like MFC.
--GnrcMan--
No, sorry, you're wrong - that's not in question. Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?
No, you are wrong. It's an opinion -- one judge's opinion and the government's. It happens to be an opinion of someone with a lot of power, but it's still an opinion. If someone robs me, that's a provable fact because there is physical evidence. There is no physical evidence involved here. Monopolies are designated by completely nebulous rules.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Also, it makes any other acts of punishment much more enforceable. For
example, it's much easier to declare that MS v 1.0 cannot share API's
with MS v 2.0 if they are two distinct legal entities with their own
property, employees, and management.
The must give the user the choice of whether to pay for IE or not. No more claiming that it's free (beer).
/bin and /sbin directories."
Newsline, January 25, 2003.
Today, Department of Justice officials have settled the ongoing trial against Redhat Corporation, for providing the browser Netscape in their Boxed Linux distribution.
"Everytime you buy one of these Linux distributions, you are paying, in addition to the cost of distribution, for this browser they include. Even though it's freely available for download, it is obviously costing the consumer. We are asking Redhat corporation to remove the cost of Netscape from its Linux Distro immediately. They are cooperating with our efforts to find a price at which to set this, and have gotten over their claims that Netscape is free as in beer. Similar investigations are going into Redhat's inclusion of the X Windowing system, linuxconf, and the entire contents of the
I just got finished watching Microsoft's video rebuttal (it's so blatantly misleading it's funny). Anyways, in the middle of this clip (Windows Media Player required).
Anyways, the funny thing I noticed about it is in the middle of the clip, It looks like BG mouths the words F**k You. I swear I had to look at it a couple of times to beleive what I was seeing... too funny!
Hammer of Truth
>There's also a practical matter, though:
>Writing a Java VM is a job for OS programmers,
>not application programmers. Just from an
>organizational standpoint, it should be done
>in the OS division.
I'm afraid that I must disagree. A VM consists of an interpreter that makes calls to the OS to accomplish certain specific tasks (ie. file I/O).
Although details obviously differ, this is conceptually no different from what any interpreter does. That includes Perl, for example, which runs very well on many OSes despite a complete separation between Perl development and OS development.
Admittedly, there are certain skills common to both OS authors and VM authors, but that's true for many different types of software projects.
Bill could probably do whatever he wants with the APIs to Windows 2002, as long as he publishes them. However, I would guess that unless they are very similar to the APIs in Windows 2000 then applications vendors will just switch to Linux and be done with it.
Heck, they might even be tempted to switch to Plan 9 :).
After all, if you are going to have to port to a new API, you might as well simply bite the bullet and port to Posix. I imagine that the major hardware OEMs will start pushing the software guys that direction anyway. After all, why should they have to pay licensing fees for Windows if they can get a better OS for nothing. Even more ironic is the fact that Intel will probably be pushing the hardest. After all, Linux is already 64 bit on Itanium, while Windows is still working on it.
All in all Windows is starting to look like the protaganist of a classic greek tragedy. They were at the top of the world and their hubris has brought them crashing back to earth.
We live in interesting times.
I think the Linux version (ironically or not) is more relevant right now:
"Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
Microsoft needs to be punished for past behavior, regardless of their position now
Once again, it must be stated: Antitrust laws ARE NOT PUNATIVE. They are remedial.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Very interesting stuff.... nothing too surprising though...
What about the part where it says "oh, and Bill Gates must get a haircut every other week." That was pretty surprising.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Keep in mind, though, that the DOJ isn't beating up Microsoft because Microsoft took unfair advantage of the general public. We mere citizens don't count shit to the government. Microsoft is being punished for screwing over a number of other multi-billion dollar corporations.
And if you had bothered to read my message before ignorantly blathering a reply to it, this was precisely a point. The point of antitrust law (which is on shaky ground, anyways) is to protect consumers not competitors, that's the point. This suit is about protecting competitors, not consumers. That's why this case is wrong, and why MS will win on appeal
"In their present form" would be the keyword here. Just because Linux/BSD isn't ready for average desktop users now (and I agree with you on that point) doesn't make a difference later on. Linux/BSD is in the same place PCs were in the mid-eighties and the Internet was in the early nineties; pretty much the only people using them were the ones who knew what they were doing. But that all changed, didn't it?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
This is the one that really gets me. This whole trial started over the "illegal" tying of IE into Windows, and according to this, they don't have to take it out. Since it's already in, it gets to stay in.
I can't see where anyone can claim they weren't out to get get MS from the begining, when the very thing that the whole trial was about isn't fixed in the end.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I'm just wondering how stable this arrangments going to be, and how long it can last.
I mean, what's going to stop one Microsoft from bying the other, once again leaving one company?
To nitpick, it's more like the Windows version is built out of the same sources as the Mac version. The Mac version was written first, so that when the Mac came out, it would have an office suite. Writing it gave Microsoft all its ideas for Windows UI & API's, and, naturally, they ported it...
--Arcum
Short names like that are the best.
For years I voted Republican because I thought they understood money and would probably do a better job running the economy. Now I realize that they just have a "fast buck" mentality. And it's cases like this that show that they are easily bought. Too bad.
Since when does the executive branch have any power of judicial? Bill Clinton isn't a great supportter of it either. I think slashdot should have a poll, a.) can't wait for the breakup, b.) a breakup doesn't work, c.) a breakup but differently d.) lets just break bill gates head e.) who cares its all going to be years from now and by that time everything will have changed
Actually, I believe that as soon as a company's sales represent a certain fixed percentage (over 75?) of a given market, they are a monopoly, in the legal sense. Nobody, not even Microsoft themselves, tried to argue that they didn't have a monopoly. What they argued was whether they had used that monopoly to alter other business transactions in their favor.
And picking and choosing who is a criminal isn't the government's job, it's the court's job. And that's what has happened here.
You're right, you surely don't understand the nuances of the case very well. You don't even understand the roles of the major players.
But ya know what? That's okay. That doesn't make you a bad person, or ignorant, or a fool. It just means you are underinformed. Join the club--there are lots of us.
In this case, I disagree with you that this is troubling, for two reasons. First, Microsoft got what they deserved. No, I take that back--they got a tiny fraction of what they really deserved. But at least what they did get was justified. Second, it won't have much appreciable effect one way or the other. So take heart--nobody got hurt.
Justice is only fun until somebody puts an eye out. -- Mom
>The problem is that "server", in its technical
>definition also includes things like telnetd,
>nfsd, rpc, ftpd, and so on, that us in the UNIX
>world have come to expect as part of the core OS.
Did anyone ever do a survey on this? I'm curious, as I'm a medium-term UNIX user (since about 1985) and I disagree with your assertion regarding those services. To me, they're applications (which also happen to be servers).
While it isn't *proof* of my assertion, it should be found telling that a UNIX box works perfectly well w/o telnetd.
Free at last, free at last.
-- We should kill all the intolerant people in the world.
MSK
Yes, this will definitely go the Supremes (Court, not singers). The only question is when and via what route. The DOJ would like to take it there directly, with the SC being the hearer of Microsoft's immediate appeal -- which the S. Court can do at its discretion.
Microsoft, on the other hand, understandably wants to follow the lengthy appeals cycle through the Circuit Appeals court -- a conservative crew that has already ruled once in its favor -- before letting the inevitable Supreme Court decision happen.
Dates on all of this? The Supreme Court is recessed from June until October, so even if it agreed to hear the thing, it would be October at the earliest. In all likelihood it would demur on a fast appeal -- this is hardly in the national interest -- and ask for the decision to wend its way through appeals court.
So what does all of this mean? About the same as Puxatawney Phil seeing his shadow: a whole lot longer until we're out of this dark period -- either way.
P.
http://www.groksoup.com/pkedrosky
I love microsoft appeal bid "but this will be bad for consumers" I know, it'll be terrible, they'll have things like CHOICE......indeed it will be terrible for computers in general... I wonder how many years before the appeals end and it actually happens tho? I ain't holding my breath
I had completely forgotten that. Did they "try" to do this, or was Compaq unable to sell Windows
;-)
for a time? Are we talking "3.1" ? </i>
Did it. The "smoking gun" letter made it on Cnet. I used to have a link to it; I was going to reference it in a public rebuttal to an anti-linux screed from Ed Muth. Better rebuttals came out before I finished, and I pretty much decided the horse was dead enough
This was Windows 98, incidentally. No IE icon in Win 3.1.
No, you have to f*ck with some <i>big</i> companies before you get to have the Supreme Court agree to break you up...
Anyway, Compaq capitulated. IBM was the company that had to buy Windows 95 off the street(10x the cost of OEM!) because they had the gall to sell OS/2.
Computer industry pricing structures are oddly similar to the prices that HMO's and other insurance companies get on medical care. I'll have to investigate this more...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Resaerch
http://www.doxpara.com
It is like capital punishment:
A breakup is, indeed, a "corporate death penalty." If M$ didn't want this, they could have complied with previous court orders, or obeyed the consent decree they signed agreeing not to do what they went out and did.
They broke the law, got caught, got ordered to stop, kept doing it. They signed an agreement to stop doing it, then kept doing it. Then when caught again, they lied in court, acted in blatant contempt for civil authority, and kept doing it.
Nothing short of a breakup will stop their illegal conduct, as they have made clear.
Here's crossing my fingers on that motion to expedite right to the Supremes so it can be over one way or the other.
(My guess--"affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded")
First, a nitpick: it wasn't the DoJ that decided to break up Microsoft, it was the Court. :)
Thank you for picking that nit. Why doesn't someone correct the article?
And though I believe the judge is upholding the laws, I don't believe these laws should exist. I'm not pro-MS, I'm anti-this.DoJ; and this trial is just one of the many reasons.
... crosslicensing? Or joint ventures between the two MS's? Or can "systems" company sell Windows line to "apps" (why not)?
I think many of you are missing the point.
Windows can suceed now because of competetion forcing it to improve faster than it would without competition.
I think the OS and Apps company will be around for quite a while, and with more openness and modulartity (as per ruling), both ISV and MS products will probably improve. They can finally put functionality before monopoly-maintenance
Q: Did AT&T's parts die after their breakup?
That's what it was trading at this afternoon :)
I hate Microsoft almost completely, however, I do think there is one very unfair part of this ruling. It's sad to see the Justice department specifically seperate Internet Applications from the OS buisness. As if a browser or Internet app is really any different from any other type of app. Worse yet, a browser is an enhancement of an operating system, as a matter of fact, most people wouldn't consider a TCP/IP computer complete without a browser.Whether M$ was being shady when they packaged a browser with Winblows is irrelevant. Any good operating system should include a browser and it's M$'s right to create one if it so wishes, and package it with Windows. I mean, this is bull, that is insult to innovation, and the fact that the government put so much weight in the fact that M$ created a browser and included it with Windows is bad for everyone, this could be precedent limiting developers from packaging certain utilities with their software if a competitor claims it gives them a monopoly. If the top selling car manufacturer installs airbags in their car, an enhancement to the vehicle, does that give them a monopoly on airbags in cars simply because they sell the most?
Just my nickle.....
"God is REAL
You said it yourself: "they have done some very illegal things"
:) Nevertheless, my point was simply that there are many possible (better) remedies that don't require a breakup.
If you kill someone do you think your rights will be diminished?
Well, in the US a convicted felon loses their right to vote -- I could see removing M$ reps from all standardization bodies...
I admit that my argument is based on the assumption that capital punishment is wrong; that punishments for any crime cannot include murder, even if the original crime was murder. Putting the power to LEGALLY KILL SOMEONE in the hands of a government is (IMHO) a frightening concept. If you differ with me here, then this argument could go on forever...
But to elucidate a bit further, this whole thing reeks of something like this:
"Well, Mr. Gates, Uncle Sam will now teach you the difference between MONEY and POWER. You have the money, but we have the power to take it all away. You may now bend over..."
- jonathan.
The Moral Majority was disbanded in 1989
If Valve and Interplay owned effectively _all_ of the game market, Sherman Act would apply to their working together so closely too. The fact is, it's so unnatural for something like that (Valve and Interplay owning 95% of games or so, nobody much even considering buying games from other vendors, 'nobody ever got fired for buying ValveAndInterplay') to happen, that it's hard to see how unnatural the Microsoft situation is. Does one car maker sell 95% of all cars? Does one soft drink vendor have 95% of the supermarket shelves and twist the arms of supermarkets to have veto power over anything in the supermarket, by threatening to withdraw their product?
When Valve and Interplay can work together so well that they can _break_ a computer software store simply by pulling all their products and leaving the store with empty shelves and nothing to put on them, _then_ I'll consider forbidding them to share information except in public.
Microsoft's been in that position for _years_ and the restriction is deeply justified. I personally would have been happy with just a *SLICE* "OK, now go about your business", but as we know, Microsoft lies, so the ruling _assumes_ that if you just went 'chop' and walked away, Microsoft would go 'florp' and join together again immediately, either clandestinely or right out in the open, and would _be_ still one company, with nothing changed.
It's a pity the ruling had to get into this stuff and make picky little regulations, but really- as if you could tell Microsoft "Okay, break up now! And be good and allow real competition to happen!" As if! So, since they are so deeply criminal, you have to oversee every little thing, because they are totally unrepentant.
*sigh* Hell, nuke 'em. Simplest solution :)
Stock ticker symbols GPF and BSOD?
They do get into a load of marketing trouble if they were to hike their license fees on their IP since this customer unfriendly action would be reflected in revised TCO numbers and whadda ya know Windows becomes much more expensive than Unix.
The fact that they were less expensive than the commercial Unix variants was one of their strong points on the volume low/medium segments of the market.
Quietly, without much fanfare, I've been prepping to move our IT out from under MS's thumb into a standards based, platform neutral infrastructure. I doubt I'm the only Network Admin to be doing this.
DB
I think directories could be the next frontier for illegal monopolistic behavior. Active Directory wasn't mentioned explicitly in the language regarding middleware.
Active Directory certainly is middleware--directories sit on top of the OS and provide a service to clients and applications.
Failure to explicitly mention AD in the list of middleware MS must give to the apps company just leaves MS a hole. Through this hole, MS might be able to sneak AD past the gov't and illegally lock out directory providers such as Novell, iPlanet, etc.
I hope that the gov't requires MS to give AD to the applications division rather than allow them to keep it in the OS division. It would suck if customers were forced to pay for a directory they don't want. It would be good if they could choose the directory that best meets their needs.
I think failure to mention AD explicitly in the ruling indicates that the judge has missed something, ironically what MS has been saying all along--the market is dynamic, not static.
The judge evaluated what MS was doing illegally in 1998, then formulated his ruling based on that evaluation. He should have also taken into account what MS is doing in the year 2000.
............ kris
Kris Magnusson
Director, Developer Relations
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
Microsoft became more, larger than the government... The government did not like that... Microsoft is broken up...
You can't handle the truth.
Our difference here is semantic. At least here in the US, we say the Legislature writes laws, and the Judiciary interprets them. These are deemed branches of the Government, along with the Executive branch. Lawmaking and judging are, of course, kept separate (or they're supposed to be... but that's a different rant). Perhaps you put things differently up north... but to my ear, it seems odd to say that the courts aren't part of the Goverment. They're certainly not private.
in canada the prime minister (who has incredible powers compared to the u.s. president) appoints supreme court members himself, albeit from a list provided by the provincial law associations with regional restrictions-- ie. three must be from quebec, etc.
In the US the president picks all federal judges, subject to the approval of congress. He generally picks the Supreme Court justices firsthand, and takes the advice of Governors and legislators from his own party on the lower positions. Congressional approval is usually a rubber-stamping, with a few notable exceptions.
such a narrow selective process and yet canadian citizens have complete faith in their supreme court and judiciary. how do they do it?
From your description of the gun control situation, I'm tempted to say, "low expectations". ;-)
Seriously, though, we've had major problems, IMHO, with the whole scheme. Checks and balances only work when the branches of government remain in opposition to one another... if they begin to cooperate, things get messy. In the 20th century the US Executive branch began loading the Judiciary with people biased in favor of increasing the scope of Legislative power. Long, sordid story, and it's nowhere near over.
they recently named the first woman supreme court chief justice in the world.
We appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the US Supreme Court in 1981. Either your justice isn't the first, or you're very casual in your use of "recent". :-)
may i also comment that this has been one of the more civil threads that i have ever seen on slashdot.
Oh... wait a second, I forgot...
YOU FOOL! YOU DISAGREE WITH ME? DIE!!!
Ahh... much better. Forgot I was on Slashdot for a minute there!
your signature doesn't sit well either. you're certainly right about the trade off between individual liberty and the greater good.
I think I'd prefer to say, "the common good". I'm not sure I'd like to say there's a greater good than individual liberty.
while on the subject of canada, somehow the banning of handguns and other firearms north of the border has impinged on the personal freedom to shoot each other and yielded the greater good of fewer broken families and lost friends.
I'm pleased for you. My impression is that your country has indeed often chosen to limit individual liberty in the interests of what it believed was for the common good. It's well that such a place exists; if I wished to live in such a society, I could move there.
I want to be free. I want to be left alone to order my own affairs as I see fit, so long as I don't prevent my neighbors from doing the same. And I want to own guns.
As it happens, I don't at all believe that banning handguns in the US would stem violence (corroborating data available upon request). Frankly, even if it would, I would oppose it. I have no wish to trade liberty for security, and there ought to be a place for such people as I. People who shared this attitude founded the United States, and quite a few still live in it. We'll fight to keep it free.
the idea of needing a gun to defend yourself from the government-- having that *enshrined* in our constitution-- to me is ludicrous. what happened to government of the people for the people?
It has a nasty habit of turning into government upon the people and against the people. Privately held guns are at least something to help prevent that eventuallity. And actually, I see the fact that the goverment might try to take our guns as sure proof that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government.
They are useful for defense against unlawful individuals as well. I don't wish to live in a place where I am not allowed the most practical means of self-defense.
to me that would be like microsoft giving you are hammer to smash the monitor with so you would get less blue screens.
Our government doesn't give us guns; we make and buy them ourselves. Your solution is a little more like Microsoft coming around to collect your hammers, so you don't damage your monitors.
why not fix the problem of disconnection between the government and its people rather than coming up with an ultimately destructive escape hatch?
First of all, I'd prefer the Government wasn't too closely connected to the people. I don't approve of mob rule... the masses are not much more benevolent dictators than individuals. I expect a government limited by constitutional principles.
Secondly, the US government has the potential to run amok. Now granted you guys made us look bad in the 1812 War, but these days the Canadian Government seems an unlikely candidate for Global Despot... they'll just have to stick to overtaxing the Canadians.
Our Goverment is proven dangerous, powerful, and getting more powerful. It's all very well to say, "well, change it, then!" but doing so's another matter. It's not in the nature of government to give away power.
Anyway, there's a long rant for you. Pleasure hearing from you... though I'm not sure why you chose to make a thoughtful post as a Coward.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Have they? Every single national public opinion poll of Americans that I've heard of has shown the public as a whole to be pretty squarely against the antritrust case and the DoJ.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. It might have been closer to a monopoly when it assaulted Netscape, but it's obviously not so now. Linux (okay, okay, GNU/Linux), is prospering happily alongside Windows, and the movement has spawned its own little industry.
You seem to forget a few points: Microsoft needs to be punished for past behavior, regardless of their position now (and I disagree: business structures and attitudes in place unfairly favor M$ precisely because of their monopolist behavior. Since that behavior damages consumer choice, the monopoly is illegal). Also, I think M$'s past conduct and history of not abiding by promises / good faith agreements preclude any punishment less harsh than structural remediation. If M$ had not engaged in predatory behavior after the consent decree, and had proven itself to be an honest player in the eyes of the Justice department and the American people, Judge Jackson probably wouldn't have had the need to pursue the breakup.
Also, while there's a great deal of attention being paid to Linux and M$ competitors, the truth really is that M$ continues to hold a significant majority of market share through illegal machinations. This must be remedied.
Note as well that there is no regulation in the software industry. Would you rather have a US Department of Computing or a series of unorganized Justice decrees? Personally, I think our freedom to compute lies not in government regulation but in the correct and apropos application of meatspace law towards the 'net (or at least the US portions), keeping in mind the ways in which the 'net is different than the environment that formed the laws in the first place.
The more I work in the IT industry, the more I come to appreciate the DOJ's opinion on the M$ matter. M$'s hijinx with Kerberos, its security probs with IIS/IE, etc. only help justify my rather unfriendly attitude towards it..
Your Working Boy,
Heheh.
MS - "Your Honor, I can proove beyond any and all doubt that the DOJ was out to get us from the start."
Supreme Court Justice - "Oh really?"
MS - "Yes. They filed suit against us. That's clear evidence that they are biased against us."
As far as I have heard, Microsoft came out with two original ideas. The talking paper clip and Microsoft BOB. I don't know if you ever heard of Bob, but as I understood it was almost another version of Windows. Failed miserably, disapeared within months.
MS BITTERS: (to nurse) (pointing at ZIM) That one has head pigeons. (talking about Dib) The other one is just annoying.
From a purely technical point of view, it does not make sense to have the OS do anything but enable communication between the apps and the hardware. This will, in the end, allow a more flexible and powerful system than an OS which tightly integrates lots of features. Similar to any other program with a fundamentally good design, a good OS will allow the user to swap in and out components at will to give them the most effecient, streamlined, and powerful OS possible.
It does not matter one way or the other wether Microsoft made mistakes in the case. They are one of the interested parties. Jackson was supposed to be impartial. That's why he was the judge. His reputation rides on this case, and from what has already been seen, he's screwed up before.
I am counting on them to do the right thing and dismantle or severely limit the scope of the antitrust laws as unconstitutional restraints of trade.
ROTFL! You should be modded (+1:Funny) for that one. Antitrust law has withstood constitutional challenge for nearly a century. This current court has reviewed at least one antitrust decision without any sign of constitutional concerns.
As for the microsoft issue, the Supreme Court is not going to take some showboat judge's word on 1) what constitutes monopoly power, which is a question of law, not of fact, and 2) what is the relevant marketplace which is supposedly being monopolized, (also a question of law) and 3) whether it is possible (question of law) to forbid an allegedly anticompetitive activity which is even nominally innovative, (question of fact) which in the past the court declined to do in an antitrust action against Kodak for the instamatic camera.
You've got these entirely wrong. 1) and 2) are questions of fact and 3) a question of law. The SC will review the findings of fact, but it is very unlikely to reverse a finding of fact especially when they were so well presented. Jackson addressed the appeals court ruling wrt 3) in his decision. He rightly concluded that the appeals court's analysis was inconsistant with Supreme Court precedent. Innovative don't enter into it if it was anti-competitive.
BTW, quess who the lead attorney for the Kodak case was? Hint: MS has a lead attorney too.
He appears pretty incompetent in this case. Probably because MS has tied his hands.
In short, there is plenty of room for MS to win. Rather than bemoaning this, maybe people should think about what a bad precedent it is to have the government involved with the market-based development of technology. I was involved with the legal battles to dismantle the export controls upon encryption, so my philosophical position has never had to change:
Antitrust Law is a part of American law and jurisprudence. Get used to it.
Here's another bit of advice. If you want someone to take you seriously, get an account.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
I was thinking that one would keep the microsoft name, and the other could be appropriately named, nano-flaccid.
-----
"I will be as a fly on the wall... I shall slip amongst them like a great
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Is anyone else disgusted by this?
No, Joe, I think you're the only one. The rest of us are overjoyed, or at least indifferent.
I've read quite a few reporter's accounts of the trial from day one. It seemed to me that Judge Jackson was biased fairly quickly into the affair, largely due to MS's ineptitude from the very start.
While Jackson's Findings of Fact were of themselves impressive, they arose from a court proceeding that had a number of holes in it. The most glaring incident, to me, was when Jackson publicly considered a split into *three* companies, even though not even the DOJ was interested in asking for that. He also hurried the remedy phase through unreasonably fast, not giving either side enough time to marshall arguments and talk over the issue.
Basically, I think Judge Jackson knew, as well as MS did, that the appelate court was much more likely to find in MS's favor. MS seemed to be counting on that fact from the beginning, and thus acted as if they'd be fully vindicated eventually, not giving any ground. This pissed off Jackson, so he railroaded the appeal phase in a fashion designed to hammer Microsoft.
The problem is that, in doing so, Jackson made the case for appeal even stronger. If his handling of the case had been more moderate right through the end, it would have made an appeal more difficult. But Jackson's anti-MS actions may well have been enough to push an Appeals court to overturn the decision on the grounds that the case was mishandled.
I broach the subject to predict what editorial position of the Wall Street Journal (an otherwise astute publication) will be on today's ruling: "The ruling interferes with the function of the free market, and government ought to butt out before they ruin the whole thing. It is a step toward a centralized economy, etc.." (Their stance is not a mystery; they've been saying that ever since.)
What they don't seem to get is the nature of monopoly. Monopoly is a situation in which the dynamic of the free market has been crushed out of existence. One might liken it to a singularity in the space-time of economic interactions. Microsoft is a black hole in the fabric of the global economy.
Enforcement of the anti-trust act(s) is simply trying to ensure that the singularity doesn't grow to absorb neighboring markets (like Canada).
You can't take the sky from me!
I've been an opponent of the two way breakup since day one, and not because I don't like Microsoft. I really do hope this gets moderated up so that people will perhaps see this.
;)
Quite frankly, two companies is doing nothing. The 'applications group' definition is so blatantly ambiguous and vague that it's trivial for the applications group to say 'okay, we claim WebTV, all our cable company holdings, MSN, etcetera' and embed these kind of things within their applications, continuing to illegally support the applications side of the monopoly.
The OS group will likely compensate by raising prices - there is absolutely no clause whatsoever in the ruling against unfair pricing for consumers and OEMs. Microsoft is not forced to justify costs in any way, shape, or form.
The ruling also has a very severe loophole, which the OS group will be very quick to abuse. They know that in 10 years, if they don't win in appeals, they can get back together again. And they will. Now, what's this loophole? If you read over the ruling, Microsoft is not allowed to cause any "Middleware" to run at decreased performance levels or have difficulties with the OS, *EXCEPT* in the instance where they provide in writing a reason for this, and possible workarounds.
There are NO requirements for what the reasoning must be whatsoever, or restrictions on workarounds. So, in other words, they will DELIBERATELY collaborate WITHOUT collaborating. Microsoft will claim that Office was DESIGNED for Windows and the competitors did NOT so they are trying to 'catch up' or some such nonsense. Or they may just say 'because we feel like it' and list 'only write for OUR OS' as a workaround. There are nowhere NEAR enough preclusions and restrictions against abusing existing market share.
This ruling has more potential to cause HARM to consumers than anything else. It is VERY easy for the applications group to claim WebTV and abuse market share and marketing. There are so many ways for Microsoft's two groups to abuse this ruling *within the ruling's context* and get away with it.
I have ALWAYS advocated a three-way split. Operating Systems, Applications, and Other and Internet Holdings. In case you didn't know, Microsoft owns *MANY* Internet properties, which are tailored EXCLUSIVELY to Internet Explorer. With the applications group in control of these properties and Internet Explorer, they can continue to do this. They also own a cable company that operates near/in DC as well as WebTV. Allowing the applications group to maintain/retain control of these properties and refusing to force them to divest themselves of these properties and/or splitting these properties into a seperate group will give the applications group a painful advantage.
Assuming that the OS group does poorly, once the 10 years are up, the Applications group could merge with them again, or they could just build their own OS based on the OS group's code. There are no restrictions that will prevent Microsoft from regaining a monopoly within a month after the 10 year period has expired, much less a year. Once the 10 years are up, Microsoft will be back to their old ways.
Do you really think this is teaching Microsoft a lesson? They've probably been hiring managers and high level people like mad for weeks leading up to this. All they have done in court is posture and lie. They have known for weeks they would lose and are counting on appeal. They're ready for a split if it comes down to it, and if not, they can simply fire the extras. They won't move, either. To move would cost them all credibility.
Reguarding their stock, as a couple people have asked me, I am not an analyst, but I don't forsee their stock actually plummeting till they lose on appeal. Microsoft's cockiness, attitude, and general "we will get our way because we're the biggest thing America has going for it" (think about the tax revenue) seems to be contagious. Especially to investors. Combined with the sheer amount of shares within the company, this would tend to indicate low volume, maybe a sharp drop, but not a true freefall. Perhaps another point or two. However, Ballmer has damaged confidence and trust *SEVERELY* by filing to sell several million shares *BEFORE* the ruling was issued, as if knowing that the stock was going to plummet. This was released by the SEC today - they seem to be going out of their way, AND the DOJ (note how the ruling wasn't issued till AFTER close of the market?) to prevent a collapse in consumer confidence. Were consumer confidence in Microsoft to collapse, very VERY bad things could happen to the market, and with Microsoft's market cap and valuation, could trigger severe repercussions, in my opinion.
I don't forsee this being out of the courts for at least two years - Jackson had the option to expedite the case to the Supreme Court on appeal (IANAL, that's just how I understood it) and chose not to, indicating another force towards not destroying consumer confidence. Maybe they're counting on everyone forgetting while Microsoft waits on their appeals to be heard. I'm not sure - I don't work for the gov't, and IANAL.
Disclaimer: These are my views, not yours, not my employer's, etcetera, ad infinitum. Reproduction of this comment in whole or part is expressly prohibited without written or emailed consent. Emailed consent may be obtained by sending email to prj@nls.net. Absolutely no commercial reproduction is permitted without written consent, so much as is allowed by Slashdot and VA Linux, formerly Andover.Net's "comments are owned by the poster" policy. No, I'm not anal - I'm just sick of my quotes being stolen.
=RISCy Business
your company here.
shelby != ford
anyone can post here. doen't mean they will be moderated up. There are some people that do like MS products. (I use them but don't like them) Furthermore, I have yet to see a linux distro in which there is absolutely no need for admin work involving the command line. Some people (such as I) don't mind the presence of a command line but don't want to be forced to use it. For example I gave up trying to use linux on my pc because I simply couldn't get some things working with a resonable ammount of effort. The clincher was that I simply couldn't get it to work properly with some of my hardware, including vid card ethernet and sound. Tulip was simply an nightmare. X caused significant loss of hair and simply forget sound.
Why am I not surprised
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
instead of one company with 90% market share we have two companies with market share. Is it me or am I missing something? CJC
Businesses harrass each other all the time, so no monopoly there. Don't like your curent harasser? It's a free market, go piss someone else off!
As for shooting people of different religious beliefs, that appears to be a major world growth industry, with plenty of room for growth yet.
dave ":-)"
"--and the bottom line is, splitting one ravenous horde into two still leaves you with two ravenous hordes."
Yes and each ravenous horde also has a Khan, a leader, a big kahuna. Each Khan will seek to maximize "the good" for his horde. Since the two hordes will have different interests, they will have different goals and will begin to drift apart.
People who make your "two monopolies" argument always forget this part. As though whoever is in charge of the new company will be just dying to kiss the allmighty Bill's butt.
Didn't you ever see Scarface... "Rule #1, don't ever underestimate the other guys greed."
"Hey... don't be mean." --Buckaroo Banzai
So, did this supposed "monopoly power" spring up early in the history of PCs or is it a new power that MS started abusing? You say both.
Market forces have been at work, are at work, and will be at work, DoJ case or no DoJ case. Microsoft's dominance of the market has been eroding ever since the explosion of Linux. Windows NT (2005, whatever they call it then) will be near death, if not utterly dead, in the server market in 5 years The breakup, if it's not overturned (which I actually exprect), will not make that happen any faster or slower.
The way the system works in America is to let consumers make choices and let companies compete, not to let the government try to pick winners and losers.
No, you're wrong. Significant parts of the remedy take effect exactly 90 days from now. Make no mistake about it: In 90 days they're putting the handcuffs on Microsoft and marching them off to jail.
Except, of course, that MS is filing a stay on this order to prevent it from happening before the appeals process is over.
We may well see nothing change for a year or two.
Now, if the order DOES go through.. Microsoft has to keep every e-mail they recieve. I propose the following:
Subject: DOJ Ignore this ####### Server Filler
Body: This is message ####### which is used as server filler and to be sure that MS is keeping all e-mail. A list of all the numbers sent can be provided upon request.
Please mail such requests to:
Send a few million of those with a random number on each one, and keep a list of the numbers somewhere.
Have fun!
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Doesn't exactly roll off your tongue, does it?
Actually, I thought that, since they used to be called Microsoft, and now they are smaller, they should be called Nanosoft. :)
But I capitulated when someone here suggested MICROS~1 and MICROS~2. Now that's funny!
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
I don't think it was Judge Jackson as much as MS, really.
TPJ was good, but MS lawyers were really bad.
As TPJ pointed out, MS doesn't actually believe they did anything wrong. They sabotaged their own trial. They manufactured evidence (badly). They were/are banking 100% on the appeal.
I must say, I think you're missing the point. It is assuredly not the business of the US Government to look out for Microsoft's good, helping it to improve its products.
Besides which, to say they'll improve their products isn't to say they'll succeed. Improving their products isn't their goal; making money is their goal. If the best product made the most money, several today's underdogs would be on top, along with numerous companies which died along the way.
Q: Did AT&T's parts die after their breakup?
Did AT&T make a living by marketing products with a shorter lifespan than a hamster?
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
That's a great word. Was it a typo, or intentional?
Yes, but intellectual Property that is used both in a product developed, distributed, or sold by the Applications Business and in a product developed, distributed, or sold by the Operating Systems Business as of April 27, 2000, shall be assigned to the Applications Business, and the Operating Systems Business shall be granted a perpetual, royalty-free license to license and distribute such Intellectual Property in its products...
:) I don't see what the problem is?
This means that OS can continue to use COM without restrictions, they just don't own it
if he asks.
--
+&x
stupid dumbass nigger
:) hehe... i wish i hadn't used my last moderator point earlier...
--
DeCSS source code!
you must amputate to email me.
--
you must amputate to email me
i read all replies to my comments
Maybe I'm missing something here or just out of touch with things, but what does the ruling say about microsoft's web properties ? Which division would that go to ? To me that appears to be of significant importance.
Also what about the controlling stake microsoft has in many companies ?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
There's another possible sequence of events that would prevent the breakup: the DOJ backing off.
Sorry, the plaintiffs are the DOJ and 19 state attorneys general. Even if the DOJ folds, the order stands and the divestiture continues. The
states will see to that.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
the people? the idea is that this is what the people want, and it IS what the people want. If the government wasn't splitting them up, then they wouldn't ever get split up, unless we ran them over with tanks ourselves.
This is my sig. The post is over.
With more and more restrictive EULAs popping up it's rather:
"You're not going anywhere today!"
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
So they might as well keep the media stuff- they can go play with AOL/Time Warner *g* get used to the idea that they are allowed to still be slime, because the ruling _must_ restrict itself to the areas where MS is literally choking off all the air, and the venture capitalists are obliged to run every potential project by MS to see if it gets thumbs up and 'yawn, we will allow this to thrive- for a time' or thumbs down and 'I wouldn't- we're going to kill those people, don't invest in that'.
MS media is _far_ from that powerful. Hence, it can go wherever they think it should go, and best of luck to it. Very likely it will continue to struggle for some time- and it's no longer so feasible to dump money into that stuff financed by OS/Office revenues. Some of these things will have to start paying their own way- that is the point.
How does the Matrix pass as a commercial for Linux. If I'm not mistaken the special effects in the Matrix were done using Houdini, which at the time ran on FreeBSD (although it's recently been ported to Linux).
No, you didn't understand what I was saying. If you develop a product that competes against their similar product, they cannot take action. But if you infringe on their patents, they CAN take action. You are no longer legally competing when you use their patents w/o their permission, and there's no reason for them not to be able to sue the pants off of you.
OTOH if you could implement a player that played their stuff but did NOT infringe on their patents (reverse engineering is generally not sufficent) you'd be totally fine. But that's not what you propose.
There is a gigantic difference between honest competition and patent infringement. We still can't use their patents; they are not prevented from taking legal action if we do.
-- 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.
Who's going to compete against them? Lotus? Lotus software has been a joke ever since excel unseated 123. The free software programmers? They have a lot of potential, but not even a decent mail app at the moment. Betcha they also squat and shit their own platform independent GUI library within 2 weeks of getting split off from the Mother Company, too.
The OS? Who cares once you have an easily portable GUI library. So what if you need to port it to Plan 9 or BeOS or CPM/2000. 93 million people are going to need SOME OS. Maybe you even make money selling that. Of course people will buy. It's MS2 after all...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
I see a lot of people here being a bit exhuberant about this ruling. I tend to take everything with a grain of salt..
I'm very far from being any kind of M$ advocate, but splitting up any company is just wrong. It is one thing to punish a company, it is wholly another matter to forceably split it in two. It is like capital punishment:
the government decrees that this entity shall no longer exist, and poof! it longer exists. I hate microsoft, but this concept is scary to me.
While I agree that they are not really that innovative, and that they have done some very illegal things, and that they might even be a monopoly, but a split-up is not the right way to go. There are a myriad of other remedies (opening the windows source code, fines, forcing them to port office to other platforms) that would benefit the marketplace much more than a breakup.
Also, tell me what good does being required to publish interfaces do if they can still keep putting in secret hooks for their apps. Yes, their apps company will know about these hooks, and other apps companies won't... this will never change and it's futile to try to change it... If you force them to open up their IMPLEMENTATION, their SOURCE CODE, then you have actually transferred some power to the end user.
Well, don't flame me just because I'm not all "yeah yeah let's dance in the streets" about this... I'd be curious to hear what rational people have to say...
- jonathan.
The Moral Majority was disbanded in 1989
boot: Will there be a time when Linux won't be available for free?
Torvalds: No.
boot: You say that very quickly.
Torvalds: Yes. One of the reasons I say it quickly is I've been asked the question before, and I also have made certain there is no way anybody can take the freeness away. I very strongly feel that it's a good thing, and the copyright requires it. And when somebody sends me big patches, I don't ask them to assign the copyright over to me. So right now, for example, the kernel itself has probably on the order of 50 or 100 copyright holders and the actual copyright license has always been the same. It's the GPL that requires that sources always be available. So in order to make a version of Linux that is not under that license, you have to get all those copyright holders to agree to the new license. The parts of the kernel that I own completely are significant, but they aren't enough to really make a good system. I did that consciously. I wanted to bind my own hands so that even if people don't trust me personally, they trust the fact that even if I wanted to turn commercial, I couldn't.
Check out the interview, its pre 2.2 !
Lars -
Basically, I think Judge Jackson knew, as well as MS did, that the appelate court was much more likely to find in MS's favor. MS seemed to be counting on that fact from the beginning, and thus acted as if they'd be fully vindicated eventually, not giving any ground. This pissed off Jackson, so he railroaded the appeal phase in a fashion designed to hammer Microsoft.
Railroaded is a strong word. MS can't claim a right to extensive pre-sentencing hearings. The findings of fact and the findings of law allowed no other remedy. Jackson was right to suggest that any testimony would be speculative.
The problem is that, in doing so, Jackson made the case for appeal even stronger. If his handling of the case had been more moderate right through the end, it would have made an appeal more difficult.
You've been listening to too much Microsoft spin. Jackson was fair. The case for appeal is weak precisely because the case will bypass the appeals court which ruled against the DOJ before.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Nonsense. This is like saying that Linux is built out of the same sources as Minix.
Before version 6 of Microsoft Word, there were two teams: the Windows Word team, and the Mac Word team. The two products had completely separate code bases. It's true that early WinWord was probably ported from MacWord, just as early MacWord owes something to DOS Word, but that's just history, and not important. WinWord had hundreds more features than MacWord. If WinWord got a new feature, MacWord didn't get it unless it was coded in from scratch by a MacWord developer. From version 6 on, the Mac version has been built out of the same code base as the Win version. (This is why hundreds of new features appeared suddenly in MacWord6, and also why MacWord6 was so much bigger and slower compared to previous MacWord versions.)
Excel is a similar story, except they unified sooner, and as far as I know they did a tidier job of things. (Word uses compatibility libraries, not completely unlike WINE, for the Mac version. Excel doesn't need them.) The other parts of Office are, I'm sure, similar stories.
The essential lesson: Microsoft figured it had to leverage a single code base for the Mac version. Since Mac has 10% of the market or less, Microsoft felt it could not afford another whole development team coding duplicate features.
My original point stands: now that Microsoft has invested the effort into the unified code base, Mac Office is in no danger of being shut down.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Erm... http://msdn.microsoft.com? free and online enough for you?
--
Cheers
Cheers
Jon
its about what they did to stifle competition using powers that only a monopoly has, and how they tried to use their monopoly in one market to create a monopoly in another.
being a monopoly isnt illegal, what microsoft did was and they must be stopped from doing it further and punished for their crimes as well.
simple as that.
I've done extensive work with extranets, SSL, and web applications here. Here is why the judge has separated the two:
IE does things to the underlying OS that Netscape and any other browser does not. When you install it, it replaces the SSL libraries already on the system. It also replaces a large amount of system files.
As a matter of fact, IE 5.01 will install half the SSL files and security permissions needed to access the supposed secure features of W2K, such as driver signing, encrypted file system, and the Certificate Authorities that w2k uses to authenticate.
Netscape does not do this on any version. As a matter of fact, you can mix and match Netscape versions on your machine, which you CANNOT do under IE. Merrill Lynch, when they first released Merrill Lynch Online for Windows, shipped NS 3.04 because it did the least damage under 128-bit SSL to the system, and it worked.
It is this level of integration that caused this issue in the first place. This is why they want to separate the two between two companies. This level of integration is a NIGHTMARE to all of us who have to deal with SSL. I would prefer to have it so the following happens:
1. I can install multiple versions of IE on a machine, which this will guarantee if this goes through. I now have to have multiple machines to do this, because VMware is slow, especially when emulating IE 5.5 or W2K.
2. The underlying OS will not dictate certain brower functionality and vice versa. IE is notorious for changing the functionality of a system depending on the version.
3. SSL will not screw up a system anymore, and will not install things you do not need or will not use (hopefully!).
AOL & Netscape are APPLICATIONS, no matter how you say it. IE does things to the OS. Netscape does not. AOL does what it has to to the dial-up networking stack because MS's is incredibly flaky and will not work on all computers. AOL is the only application I know of that will work on all computers installed with Windows without the usual major issues of the MS TCP/IP stack. They did an awesome job with it.
I am glad some people see the light and know what MS has done here, which causes all sorts of issues that developers and integrators have to work around because they call it "innovation". This work with IE smacks of typical strong-arm tactics that turned developers away from them.
It does? I just read it and reread it, and I can find nowhere a definition of a monopoly. Please point this out.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Java virtual machines? Every major OS has now successfully integrated Java, but now Windows can't? Does that mean I have to run my Java apps within IE, or application providers have to include a VM with their package?
IMNSHO this is a good thing. Microsoft has reportedly implemented a broken Windows only form of Java, just like they implemented ie only propriety code without fully supporting current standards. By forcing Microsoft to leave Java out of the box the way is opened up for the user to think "I need Java, lets choose", and choices such as Sun's or IBM's implementation of Java come in to the picture, just like forcing Microsoft to leave ie out leaves the way for the user to realise "I need a web browser, lets choose."I know for sure that Word and Excel are built out of a single unified code base, and I am pretty much certain the rest of Office is the same way. Microsoft decided it could not afford to have two teams, each redundantly coding similar features into the Win and Mac products, so the code bases had to be unified. Now, the Mac version adds an incremental cost, rather than a whole separate team.
I don't have hard numbers, but consider this: at the time Microsoft made the decision to unify the code bases, Mac was about 10% of the market. This implies to me that if Linux (as a personal desktop system, not as a server) can take 10% of the dollars spent on software, Microsoft might start to consider Linux Office.
(It might have to be more than 10% since Microsoft doesn't already have Linux developers, testers, and development tools in-house.)
If Microsoft does Linux Office, it will be built out of the same code base as Win Office; it will use WINE, much like Corel Office, to ease the port; and it will probably ignore non-x86 versions of Linux, at least at first. There is zero chance that there will be a huge Linux Team to code something up from zero; Microsoft will leverage what it has.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
His reaction to the decision, read the transcript here.
If I recall correctly, Larry Ellison of Oracle is now the richest man on earth. does this still hold true?
Think --> Think Different --> Think OSS
I stand corrected... it would appear that they are, from a legal standpoint, a monopoly. Let me put it another way.
I submit that a legal definition, such as this, is a formalization of a common definition. We commonly use the word, "murder", in a certain imprecise but meaningful fashion. Legally OTOH, murder has necessary and sufficient conditions.
Microsoft has viable competition. The people have choices... mine, for instance, is Debian. Calling such a situation a monopoly is like accusing someone of murdering a still-living person. If it's legally true, the law's wacky.
What they argued was whether they had used that monopoly to alter other business transactions in their favor.
And this is clearly nebulous. :-) What kind of a law is that? You can have a monopoly, but you can't use it... and you, the company, are responsible for figuring out what that means.
But putting aside the (to me, real) issue of whether it's a bad law, I'm far from convinced that splitting up Microsoft is an appropriate "remedy". As Reality Master 101 points out, Antitrust laws ARE NOT PUNATIVE. They are remedial.
And picking and choosing who is a criminal isn't the government's job, it's the court's job.
The court is part of the government. But I think I should be more clear than to say, "pick and choose". When I speak of picking and choosing, I mean when:
When laws are vaguely written, people can easily be selectively prosecuted for violating them. You can write laws so that everyone is a criminal... if you can then pick and choose who to prosecute, you've got tyrrany.
You're right, you surely don't understand the nuances of the case very well. You don't even understand the roles of the major players.
But ya know what? That's okay. That doesn't make you a bad person, or ignorant, or a fool. It just means you are underinformed. Join the club--there are lots of us.
You argue couthly... I appreciate the courtesy.
In my own reductive view, there are only two major players. The People of the US (moreso those of certain states than others), and Microsoft. Laws are in place which limit the freedom of economic activity, in the economic interests of the people.
That doesn't qualify me to decide the case, but I can certainly evaluate, in a general way, the justice and efficacy of the laws, and the way in which they're being enforced.
I disagree with you that this is troubling, for two reasons. First, Microsoft got what they deserved.
By this argument, you can throw out due process entirely, so long as someone gets what they deserve. You could justify lynchings that way.
Second, it won't have much appreciable effect one way or the other.
Again, the end directly justifying the means. You're probably right... I don't see how MS can beat the Free Software movement. But there's a big difference between losing a fight and being forced to forfeit.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
ok, but i'm just feeling that we will miss MS... Anybody needs to have a Devil. We need to find another devil quick ! (i suggest AOL)
Don't get me wrong, i've got my problems with microsoft too, but what about the hardware and the entertainment portions of their company. I mean I can't wait for the X-Box and I own a ton of Natural Keyboards & InteliMice (yes even the pretty optical ones). Doesn't anyone think Microsoft has done more good than bad (and yes I know that there is a lot of bad?
its about what they did to stifle competition using powers that only a monopoly has, and how they tried to use their monopoly in one market to create a monopoly in another.
I'm sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. Any questions as to how they used their monopoly powers is predicated upon the assumption that they had a monopoly. And whether they had a monopoly is a question of whether they have competition.
being a monopoly isnt illegal, what microsoft did was and they must be stopped from doing it further
Of course, whether it should be illegal is at issue here. And yeah, wouldn't all hell break loose if Microsoft were to give away yet more software. Sheesh.
and punished for their crimes as well.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there's no question of punishing Microsoft here. Antitrust laws are not punitive. They are remedial.
simple as that
Your opinion is simple indeed.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Wrong, Microsoft may not be a monopoly in the server space, where Linux is competing most, but nobody claimed that. OTOH MS is still a monopoly in the desktop space, where the only real competition now could be Apple and maybe BeOS, Linux is only entering this and is far from being mature (but its coming).
Instead, we're to see the US Government step in. Now I'm no lawyer, but these antitrust laws seem to me pretty darned nebulous...
Don't worry, any suit seems nebulous when you are not a lawyer, this is because the law got out of our reach, whic is bad IMHO.
I'm surprised to find so many Slashdotters hailing government for meddling with technology, using all those oft-maligned outdated laws, simply because this time it suits their purposes.
I don't like the Government meddling with technology either but I still think that the anti-trust laws are still up to date.
I don't know. I surely don't understand the nuances of this case very well, so perhaps I'm wrong and MS does deserve what's tantamount to a death penalty.
They have. It is not as if they weren't told it was wrong. They already had problems at the beginning of the decade and had a consent decree with the DOJ. They used a loophole to continue to use the same tactics. Basically the loophole was to say that Windows wasn't MS-DOS so they could do whatever they wanted. The DOJ was not happy, they sued again on new grounds (given that they settled on the old ones), most notably IE, MS tried the old trick again by saying that Windows 98 was not Windows 95 and that IE was an integral part of the OS, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. After that MS kept saying they were innocent despite all the evidence of the contrary, they tried to rig the trial (fake video comes to mind) and continued to deny everything despite the finding of facts and the ruling. They didn't even try to settle, they just trie dto have the DOJ let them alone once more.
Frankly, I am not sure it is the best remedy and it may be too harsh with them but they certainly acted as if they wanted to have it. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft's directors were found to be masochistic given the way they handled this.
Oh, BTW, have you kids? Pretend yes for one minute.
Let's say that you caught your kid doing very bad things.
Let's say that he ask for forgiveness and you grant it.
Let's say you catch him again doing the same thing.
Let's say he deny everything despite ample proofs of the contrary.
Would you let him go away easily?
But what fear have I of Microsoft? They cannot arrest me or take my property. Not yet... (Ok, this one was a HHOS). Seriously, they cannot arrest you directly but with the current trend in copyright/patent/trademark/intellectual property laws in general companies (MS included) will have enough powers to put you in jail at a whim because it would be next to impossible not to break these law and to still have a spark of liberty left.
As for taking your property, they are already. When I buy a book it is mine; when I buy a painting, it is mine; when I buy a car, it is mine; when I buy a software, it is not mine (and now even less than ever with MS's last move). Unfortunately that applies to all proprietary softwares.
A government which picks and chooses who is a criminal is another story. Isn't that the role of a governmnet? A government is here to make laws, the congress is here to vote them (or reject them) and the government, with its tool called the police, is here to enforce them. The judge are here to decide whether those that the government think are criminals really are, and judge jackson ruled that MS broke the law.
Of course, this is an idealistic view of politics and justice but this is the basics.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Well its generally precident that in anti-trust cases, the verdict is not supposed to be punishment, but remedial in nature. In other words Microsoft isn't being punished (and if they were the punishment would have been harsh,) but simply the desisions by the courts are indented to fix the problem and help everyone, even possibly Bill Gates if he handles the split right, could continue to make even more money.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
If the WIndowsOS is only worth $17, then what's BeOS worth?
It doesn't matter how much each share is worth, because each company has a different total number of shares. What you want to compare is market capitalization. For example, using the $17 figure:
Windows: $90 billion
RHAT: $25 billion
BeOS: $0.3 billion
Oh, and you forget the most important non-innovations:
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
I appreciate the interesting point. I looked the matter up. The US Constitution forbids both Congress and the States to make ex post facto laws, without distinguishing between criminal and civil laws. (Aritcle I, Section IX, Clause III, and Article I, Section X, Clause I).
Disturbingly enough, however, you're right... the interpretation that these clauses apply only to criminal laws goes back to 1789, Calder vs. Bull.
I am appalled. The more I learn about the constitution, and the way it's been (mis)interpreted, the spookier it all gets. Thank you for pointing this out.
Obviously, MS is not in criminal court, and so your argument of sacrificing an important principle is, in this case, invalid.
Actually, I maintain that an important principle is being violated. It cannot be just to punish people (or companies) for violating either secret or yet-unwritten laws. I didn't realize, however, that such a state of affairs was the status quo.
As far as "picks and chooses who is a criminal", that's called legal judgement. It's the foundation upon which our entire system is based :).
I guess I'm not sure what you mean. Selective enforcement of laws is certainly illegal, however.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
IE is based on MOSAIC....
IE actually grew from Spyglass's version of Mosiac, but it's so ridiculously unfair to deny the order of magnitude improvement that IE3 was. For crying out loud, it had the first good JVM *anywhere*.
IE would have destroyed Netscape without the dirty tricks. Problem was, they got greedy and tried to both co-opt HTML(thus dooming IE4) and enforce compliance By Any Means Necessary.
They just didn't need to.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
If someone could point out a major innovation they actually engineered themselves, I'd be glad to hear it.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Picture from StarTrek III The Search for Spock.
When the Exel.. whatever... the Transwarp driven prototype Scotty sabotoged...
Picture the sean where the transwarp drive is enganged to go after the Enterprise....
"Transwarp drive in 5.. 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Good mornning Capten"
open service pannel to find Microsoft Windows logo....
I don't actually exist.
So they break it up into two companies... how is that going to change anything. Windows (OS) will keep on creating operating systems that support windows apps and Window (Apps) will keep on creating apps that run on Windows (OS).
This doesn't change anything. There must be a better solution, such as sharing their source code or something.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
I also agree that we, The United States Goverment, has created two 700 lbs gorillas. And let me guess who will run the companies, Gates and Ballmer? Nothing will change. They are the same person.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang , but a wimper
Of course, a big reason that Linux (and BeOS, and possibly the revival of Macintosh) got so successful is that they were given their chance to come out and not be strangled to death when M$ got hauled into court. Otherwise, those OEM deals would have been very stifling.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Just a hell of a lot better than when private business intervenes in government!
I'm not so sure there's a valid distinction to be made between the two, for the purposes of this argument, but let's pass on that...
OTOH MS is still a monopoly in the desktop space, where the only real competition now could be Apple and maybe BeOS, Linux is only entering this and is far from being mature (but its coming).
I daresay, Linux is running quite a few more desktops than BeOS, mature or not. In any case, Windows is certainly not the only choice a person has for their desktop, so they're not a monopoly in that sense, at least. And as far as I can tell, that's the only sense in which the consumer needs any protection here.
Don't worry, any suit seems nebulous when you are not a lawyer,
And often, I'm told, if you are. Let me rephrase that... this one seems more nebulous than most. :-)
this is because the law got out of our reach, whic is bad IMHO.
Amen, Brother!
I don't like the Government meddling with technology either but I still think that the anti-trust laws are still up to date.
The more I think and read about it, the more I think they're not. The Sherman Act... we're talking about a document intended to keep a company from limiting the supply of a physical good in order to raise prices. It's being applied in a situation where the company in question is only too happy to produce as many copies of their software as anyone will buy... and their great anti-competitive act was to drop their prices to zero! Something's amiss here.
perhaps I'm wrong and MS does deserve what's tantamount to a death penalty.
They have. It is not as if they weren't told it was wrong.
Yeah, they surely were guilty of all the antics you list. The real question, to me, is more about the power of the US Government than Microsoft's scruple shortage. Saying that MS flaunted the laws doesn't answer whether the laws are just.
Oh, BTW, have you kids? Pretend yes for one minute.
Let's say that you caught your kid doing very bad things.
Let's say that he ask for forgiveness and you grant it.
Let's say you catch him again doing the same thing.
Let's say he deny everything despite ample proofs of the contrary.
Would you let him go away easily?
With this characterization I totally disagree. The US Government is not our parent, and we are not its children. We are adults, governed, supposedly, by our own consent.
Had I children, they would not be secure in their effects against search and seizure on my part. I would not hesitate to ask them self-incriminating questions, and demand answers. They would not be permitted to speak in any fashion they pleased. They are children, and are ruled by their elders, not governed by their elected peers.
There is a growing paternalism in the US Government, which I find most offensive. They're not supposed to be protecting us from ourselves, or deciding who's naughty and scolding them back into the fold. They're supposed to be protecting our rights, and enforcing our contracts and clearly defined, categorically applied laws.
Seriously, they cannot arrest you directly but with the current trend in copyright/patent/trademark/intellectual property laws in general companies (MS included) will have enough powers to put you in jail at a whim because it would be next to impossible not to break these law and to still have a spark of liberty left.
This, however, is really the fault of the government. They're the ones who put you in jail, and who make and enforce unjust laws. So no, it's still not MS I have cause to fear, IMHO.
A government which picks and chooses who is a criminal is another story. Isn't that the role of a governmnet?
This has come up elsewhere, so I believe I should have been clearer in my diction. No, they don't pick and choose, in the sense that they should never have discretionary power over enforcing laws. The role of the Legislature is to make clear, generally applicable laws. The role of the Executive is to bring charges, uniformly, without favor, against anyone who seems to violate those laws. The role of the Judiciary is to decide whether those laws have indeed been broken.
It should never be the case that the Legislature makes laws which are vague, aimed against individuals, or which make the whole population criminal. The Executive must not choose to prosecute one fellow but not another, according to their desires. Nor should the courts play favorites, or interpret law to suit their purpose. These things I mean by picking and choosing.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Yea right, Like they would give the job to a person who posts messages here.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang , but a wimper
Well, you can download ssh1 or ssh2 and its free for personal use, but I think its not free for commercial use, however 1.2.27 was totally free, and OpenSSH is what resulted. Its compatible with its commercial counterpart, and totally free. See where I'm going with this?
Lars -
I just want to be able to try to sell a different solution to a client.
I don't care if they decline on the merits.
I just want the ability to offer a solution that is low on software licensing and maintenance costs, but, slightly higher on up-front installation costs.
Of course, I'll make less money because I won't have to show up constantly for service packs, but.....
Perhaps, I'll spend the extra time "innovating" new and useful {fun?} applications.
This might be good.........
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Yes... I notice your post was number 666 as well! ;-)
I didn't want to post this myself for fear of mindless flaming and ridiculous moderation (as I've already seen).
Yeah... that's a sad state of affairs. I half expected it myself.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I don't keep up too much with Microsoft software for Macs, but I thought that a big deal was made about Office 98 not being a port, as opposed to the previous versions. I could just be thinking of Internet Explorer, but I really thought that was the case for Office 98. That's my recollection, anyway, I just checked a couple of Mac sites (here and here, the first two results from Altavista for '+"office 98" +"not a port"') and they seem to agree with me.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I think it may be the whole thing about the huge piece of software meant to blind you from the truth (that there are better OSes out there), and that in the end, Neo shows them what they don't want them to see (Linux). And of course, I just can't forget to mention the "System Failure" (remind anyone of the BSOD?)
Think --> Think Different --> Think OSS
Maybe the American Sherman Act needs to be changed: since monopolies are allowed in the US (other than in Europe), excesses like these can become real. The result? Well in this particular case: Microsoft (do I need to say more?) and a long lawsuit, ultimately ending before Supreme Court. So Id say: Congress, make monopolies illegal. How this will hurt consumers? And yes, now consumers will have to pay since any company (like Microsoft) wants to make a profit and still hold that monopoly position, consumers will pay for the lawsuit and their losses over it. Since it will take some time for competitors on the same market to bring a new, equally well-known and competitive product to the masses. In the end it may be better, for now it will hurt consumers. Plain and simple.
Ja toch? Niet dan? Nou dan!
As Reality Master 101 points out, they're not supposed to be punished at all.
regardless of their position now
Since they are supposed to be remediated, only their present (and possibly immediate future) position counts.
(and I disagree: business structures and attitudes in place unfairly favor M$ precisely because of their monopolist behavior. Since that behavior damages consumer choice, the monopoly is illegal).
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I run Debian. I don't see that my choices as a consumer have been overly limited by business structures or attitudes.
Also, I think M$'s past conduct and history of not abiding by promises / good faith agreements preclude any punishment less harsh than structural remediation.
That's an interesting point... they are a lying pack of dogs, aren't they? If one accepts your prior argument, this one probably merits consideration.
Also, while there's a great deal of attention being paid to Linux and M$ competitors, the truth really is that M$ continues to hold a significant majority of market share through illegal machinations.
The law is not intended to prevent companys from gaining a significant majority of the market share, by hook or by crook. The law is intended to protect consumer choice. Linux, *BSD, BeOS, and other operating systems are available... as are Mozilla, Lynx, Netscape and Opera. Consumers have numerous high-quality choices, and some free ones to boot.
Note as well that there is no regulation in the software industry. Would you rather have a US Department of Computing or a series of unorganized Justice decrees?
I'm not sure what I could have said to prompt such a question, but no, of course not. I'd rather have the Feds stick to their Enumerated Powers, and goverment in general go back to protecting rights and enforcing contracts. I don't see why I must choose between the present (IMHO unacceptable) situation, and the worse one you portray.
Personally, I think our freedom to compute lies not in government regulation but in the correct and apropos application of meatspace law towards the 'net (or at least the US portions), keeping in mind the ways in which the 'net is different than the environment that formed the laws in the first place.
You're an optimist. I think our freedom to compute lies mostly in strong crypto and in ignoring many laws on a fairly massive scale. :-)
M$'s hijinx with Kerberos, its security probs with IIS/IE, etc. only help justify my rather unfriendly attitude towards it..
If an unfriendly attitude were all that needed justified here, we'd be in complete agreement.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Authentication to an NT domain over a tcpip network.
File formats for all the office programs.
Lars -
Perhaps, but what happens when they find out why the judge got pissed off. After all, the appeals court isn't likely to not consider the fact that Microsoft tried to make a mockery of the justice system.
I think this is where the other aspects of the remedy come into play- the requirement to make pricing arrangements public etc. These measures are intended to make it impossible for M$ (whether one entity or two) to dominate OEMs and others the way it has in the past.
Microsoft is not a monopoly.
No, sorry, you're wrong - that's not in question. Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
will MSR be part of MS1 or MS2? Or will it be a seperate company......
http://freshmeat.net/appind ex/1999/11/27/943756349.html
Explore2fs
John Newbigin - November 27th 1999, 21:32 EST
Explore2fs is a Windows program which allows read & write support for Linux filesystems, and works under NT, 95, 98 & 2000
Lars -
What the hell does office have to do with windows anyways. That was his arguement? Office is a word processor windows is an operating system.
I was thinking that since MSFT wanted to take over the world eventually, "Dr. Evil" for the OS and "Mini Me" for the apps portion seems fairly appropriate :-)
-Mr. Macx
Moof!
Under the circumstances, the higher court's opinion of Judge Jackson's actions don't matter much. The damning part is in the findings of fact, which the appeals courts cannot challenge, they can only review the findings in law. Since the findings of fact essentially say "Microsoft broke US antitrust laws", they have extremely limited room for manouevre.
Similarly, if the higher courts uphold judge jackson's judgement, which they pretty much have to do, they can't change the remedies.
Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure. Personally, I don't think that the suit did more than speed up Linux's inevitable ascent... you can't strangle it, and how many people get Linux pre-installed even today?
You're probably right about the Mac (though the pretty colors helped). But then I don't like Apple much more than Microsoft... at least Microsoft has never disappointed me.
BeOS still is barely treading water, as far as I can tell, so God knows what they'd be doing if the suit hadn't come along. Probably sitting on El Camino Real with "Will code for food!" signs. :-)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Why do people continue to treat IE as a separate application?
The only setup that makes sense in our current Internet world is to have Internet tools in your face, in the OS, maybe even in the kernel.
How many OSs can you name that ship *without* Internet tools? Linux, Solaris, etc. all definitely DO come with web browsers! All these operating systems also allow the use of alternative browsers (eg. Solaris ships with HotJava, but you can install Netscape).
In fact, MS (and I hope everybody else) has been tending towards HTML interfaces for everything. Few people would doubt that it is easiest to write a user interface in HTML/XML/.../{insert favourite script language}. The entire Windows desktop will be a XML page, as soon as they can do this without all the backwater redneck laggards crying foul because they didn't think of it first.
I hope that IE gets in with the OS division and not the Apps division. It is, after all, the Windows equivalent of Linux's "bash".
i would certainly have a problem with the statement 'The court is part of the government.'
but maybe i'm just hairsplitting and kvetching.
your arguments are strong and you seem to have an excellent knowledge of american law-- but *the* fundamental of western democracy is the division of the government and the judiciary. the government writes laws, the courts strike them down or uphold them. the government must do whatever the supreme court says. yes, supreme court judges are nominated by the president and approved by partisan politicians-- but who else would you have appoint the arbiters of justice aside from elected your own elected officials? in theory, the system works well. the government and the judiciary are very seperate. if you don't like the laws, vote for someone else.
i can digress even more...
in canada the prime minister (who has incredible powers compared to the u.s. president) appoints supreme court members himself, albeit from a list provided by the provincial law associations with regional restrictions-- ie. three must be from quebec, etc. such a narrow selective process and yet canadian citizens have complete faith in their supreme court and judiciary. how do they do it? they recently named the first woman supreme court chief justice in the world. backwards foreigners!
may i also comment that this has been one of the more civil threads that i have ever seen on slashdot. truly pleased to read the comment above that bucked the trend. touche. if we could only be so lucky all the time like this.
last whine...
your signature doesn't sit well either. you're certainly right about the trade off between individual liberty and the greater good. while on the subject of canada, somehow the banning of handguns and other firearms north of the border has impinged on the personal freedom to shoot each other and yielded the greater good of fewer broken families and lost friends. shooting deaths in canada, as in every other western nation that has banned handguns, is an order of magnitude lower than in the u.s. toronto, the fourth largest city in north america-- and the most racially diverse (source: cia factbook) city in the world, has fewer murders in a whole year than detroit, a smaller city, has every month.
the idea of needing a gun to defend yourself from the government-- having that *enshrined* in our constitution-- to me is ludicrous. what happened to government of the people for the people? to me that would be like microsoft giving you are hammer to smash the monitor with so you would get less blue screens. why not fix the problem of disconnection between the government and its people rather than coming up with an ultimately destructive escape hatch?
i got all worked up and couldn't stay on topic, hard day at the office...
*****Microsoft's
hardware division actually has to compete with other companies for business, so it has to provide products that are good enough to convince
people to buy them instead of the competetion.*******
Same goes for many of the games they make. Flight Simulator, Age of Empires are quite good, because they have a lot of competition in the game market. I'm delighted that the company will be broken up, and that a thousand flowers will bloom in the OS market.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
It was clear from the start that Judge Jackson was out to get Microsoft,
If you listen to the words of Mr. Gates, yes. If you actually read Judge Jackson's findings, you might see that he is indeed quite fair. To listen to Microsoft's legal, PR, and the media outlets they have bought and partnered with is being biased.
Microsoft fakes video tape and lies in court, aggressively pays for opinion pieces in its favor, and we even get to see some of its employees post here. Its not a one time thing. That's what they do. Contrast this behavior to the court. Who do you trust? Microsoft is going to use every trick it can to maintain its monopoly, because one they lose it, its gone.
"fake videotape" ?
MS provided a demonstration tape that involved two different PCs (as is common among trade demo tapes which the producing techs were used to making). After the court pointed out that this wasn't good enough, MS came back *the next day* with a new tape all recorded on the one PC, and this was accepted.
Try getting some facts instead of just hype.
The OS company shall simply be called Windows and the applications division shall retain the name Microsoft.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
How is it that Linux ssh is alright to download (my linux distro, shipped from the US, sure had it), but clients like SecureCRT are subject to arms export restrictions and cannot be downloaded from the US ?
No, Joe, I think you're the only one. The rest of us are overjoyed, or at least indifferent.
Oh, twaddle, we are not. As well you know, having replied to my gripe... so cut out the knavery. ;-)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I agree with you that I probably shouldn't feel so giddy that Microsoft is finally "going down," but one has to admit that Microsoft has done everything in its considerable power to hold back Open systems.
Now instead of trying to reverse engineer Microsoft's strange protocols and formats there is at least some hope that we can start implementing truly innovative technologies. For example, this ruling means that there is some chance that I might soon be able to roll out Coda instead of having to deal with SMB. Even the Samba developers have nothing good to say about SMB. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Open systems are poised to win big at this point, and that is definitely a good thing.
There is nothing to stop MS continuing as normal, here is the premise, the OS company will not make big bucks but the apps company will, so MS just needs to focus on the apps company, and make the OS company a non profit making one, supplying the OS for free (but not open source), then everyone will get the OS and still have to buy the apps, the business community will love MS for this, and continue to buy into the MS is best mindset
No. Sell it.
The value in Microsoft IS the Monopoly. Which is History. This ain't no oil company.
Remember: The deal of a lifetime comes Every Day!
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
"The folks who line their pocket are the large corporations who then get the rules they want. You would rather leave it to the corporations directly? Isn't this logic flawed somewhere?"
Exactly, we *should* leave it to the corporations directly, i.e, survival-of-the-fittest vs. Govt. regulation to ensure "good" outcomes. Whatever you may say about MS, it won its battles on the field, without using the govt. to do its fighting. Compare this with defense, which gets billions of $$$ in contracts in return for campaign contributions, or tobacco, or the gun lobby, all of whose profits depend more on how happy they keep their congressmen, instead of their customers (well, doesn't matter in tobacco's case - what can the customers do, smoke something else?).
Until recently, the software industry was remarkably untainted by govt. intervention, AKA campaign contributions in return for political support. Companies didn't have to worry about keeping congressmen in their pockets, coz this was one industry where nobody gave a shit what our eminent elected representatives thought.
Now, you can rest assured it'll be like any other heavily lobbied industry. Now, companies will have to spend their resources on keeping politicians on their side, to prevent something like this. Well, it was a good ride while it lasted.
That's right, the pain is real as of now. Remeber what happened to IBM in the seventies when they were fighting their anti-trust battle? They developed a political commisar type system, only with lawyers. Most middle and upper managment had a lawyer with them in most meetings and reviewing most of their communications. Every decision, every initative, sometimes every memo, had to be vetted by the lawyers.
I have always believed that the incredible inefficiencey this engendered was the real reason IBM missed the boat on the personal computer. They were fataly distracted.
Now MS will not make the same mistake. That's ok, they will make new ones. The signs of distraction are already apparent. Look at the disasterous PR blunders of the last six months. This will get worse with the introduction of NGWS.
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer may not care what Judge Jackson thinks, and they may be 100% certain of a win on appeal, but they run a public company. They cannot run this company as if there is no court order. The board cannot allow it. The resulting mess of a collision between Ballmer, Gates, the board, the fleeing employees and NGWS (and Win 2x or whatever) will be amusing for all of those long accustomed to loath MS.
Then it gets interesting. Like a classical tragedy, will the things that made Gates the most successful businessman of the age be the same things that will lead him to destroy that success? The man seems unable to comprimise. The smart thing would be to acceed to the break-up and fight the conduct remedies. MS and Bill Gates are unable to do that.
Stay tuned folks, the next six months will be the most interesting of the whole saga.
So how does the requirement to publish 'all protocols' help us with the kerberos problem?
Speaking on the Porting of Office applications to Non-mainstream OS's, look at the application repertoire of a Macintosh. There are quite a few available and widely used Office applications on Mac. Of course they will port their Office suite over to other platforms because they can then sell it to anyone. They will no longer be able to maintain their Vertical Monopoly (meaning that they wanted to do EVERYTHING for one type of PC), so they will go after the Horizontal Monopolies (trying to make their software be used ubiquitously on EVERY platform).
How much money does Microsoft get for each copy of Windows sold?
How much money does Redhat get for each copy of Redhat sold?
How much money does Netscape get for each copy of RedHat downloaded?
How much money does Microsoft get for each copy of IE downloaded?
Thanks for losing. It proves my point.
No loss of functionality seems likely with JVM, client applications, compilers (assuming they release complete specs on the OS), or server software separated from the main OS group. The only disadvantage is that things don't get bundled anymore. This is a good and a bad thing.
For example, buying NT Server means you get a free streaming video server (unlimited # of streams). Pro: free, fairly good technology. Con: requires Windows clients (insert cynical laugh here about their pretended attempts to port ASF clients to Mac and Unix). This is going to be a painful but necessary transition: many streaming video producers have been happy with telling their clients to view from a windows machine. Now they will be forced to buy the server software anyway, so they will be much more likely to pick one that is alternate-OS friendly. Splitting off server apps would probably be a good thing. (As far as file sharing goes, you can consider that an add-on, just as advanced server capabilities are added on to the NT platform to get NT Server, even though the underlying OS is the same)
On the other hand, unbundling client apps makes me uncomfortable. Buying Windows means you get standard ftp, telnet, WordPad, browser with JVM, defrag, scandisk, file manager, email client, news reader on EVERY MACHINE. I always replace the telnet app and get a real word processor, but it would really suck to have to buy all of these things separately, or to try to find freeware copies of everything. Pro: You can do basic things on your computer after installing just the OS from one CD, and everybody with Windows has the basic software. (Don't discount how useful this is: imagine trying to fix somebody's computer over the phone, and having to ask them, "which text editor do you have installed? What? No text editor? No way to edit your config files? Uh, do you have an ftp client? Which one? Oh, the new one I've never seen before. Great...") Con: They get to steal the wind from the sails of anybody who makes anything useful.
I dunno. I like having ftp, telnet, defrag, scandisk, a basic web browser, a wordpad, a notepad, and a file manager come with Windows. I don't know where to draw the line, but I think they should be able to bundle basic utilities.
(Hope this didn't post twice...)
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
So, you won't explain why you don't think that the DoJ prosecution of Microsoft was political in origin?
But, to be fair, yes, my claim is the one that requires support. Previously, I missed out on the opportunity to explain and support this (I wasn't at the computer for a couple of days, and I didn't think anyone would actually SEE the reply), so I will do so now, briefly.
Before the anti-trust case, Microsoft avoided both the subtler and grosser forms of lobbying and contributing money to politicians.
From "Social Engineering by Legal Brief", The Washington Times, HTMLed here.
In contrast, the instigating companies in the case all happened to come from states (particularly California) with much more Congressional clout than Washington. Orrin Hatch, the Senator from Utah (the home of Novell) chaired the hearings where he personally blasted Microsoft and Bill Gates.
As pointed out in "Texas Swing", which appeared in the August/September 1998 issue of Reason, it's silly to try to pretend that anti-trust proceedings are disinterested government actions. Like most actions in our government, they involve the advancement of personal and corporate agendas and the application of political leverage in the form of favors and political contributions. Essentially, this entire trial is a big political favor to some of Microsoft's competitiors that also serves to promote the career of Joel Klein, one of the most active (and hence, famous) heads of the DoJ Antitrust Division in decades. (It's had little benefit to anyone else trying to jump on the bandwagon, and in fact, G.W. Bush got a little boost in the polls from announcing his opposition to the whole thing.) "The New Trustbusters" from the March 1999 Reason gives an interesting look at the curious history of antitrust, but more usefully, at its present application by those such as Klein. "Barbarians at Bill Gates" from the web site of the Foundation for Economic Education expands some of the points from that article with regards to MS's case.
Ultimately, this trial is a joke. The actions Microsoft is being punished for are only considered crimes because Microsoft holds a "monopoly" (meaning that it has no competition). This accusation of monopoly was brought by its competitors, of course. The trial showed that the presiding judge was biased against MS from the start, and the proposed and actual "remedies" wouldn't do anything to remove a monopoly if it really existed. (Or does anyone actually have a cogent explanation of how, if Windows is a monopoly, spinning it off into its own company will stop it from being a monopoly?)
What really gets me about this is that Linux and other forces would have brought down Microsoft in the marketplace in about the same timeframe this case will, assuming it doesn't get thrown out. And now, of course, when Windows slips from its current dominant position in (desktop intel-based system) OSes, as Lotus slipped away from its dominant position in spreadsheets years ago, interventionists will claim it was somehow due to the trial and not the workings of the free market. And Joel Klein will claim credit for that for the rest of his life.
So, when you were deciding which OS to pick, you thought to yourself "Ok, who has a monopoly? Microsoft does, so I had better increase their monopoly by buying their product."
Yeah right. You chose Windows because it supports everything that you want to do. This is because Windows is superior in its support for a variety of uses.
Common, folks! It's only dreams....:( Mega-Shit will appeal and , unfortunately, will win...:( From the beginning of the process it was actually clear to me that the verdict will be "to split". And judge made so many decisions that could be undermined...:(((( I tell you, Billy will last for atleast 10 years more...:((((((
I have said it before and I will say it again. Microsoft Windows 9x may not be as stable as linux, we all know that linux is solid, however Microsoft has a very strong user base and for the average and the new users Linux is just to damn hard to use. I have been using a computer for most of my life starting with GeoWorks, and I have found no other opperating system that can do what Windows does. Face it, Linux is a COMMAND LINE interface no matter what Window Manager that you use weather it be KDE, Gnome or Window Maker or what every else there is you still ne to use the Xterm or the Console to execute programs, Moreover the installation process for applications, software drivers and System files under linux is extremely hard to do, I was lucky to get Xf86 4.0 to sucessfully upgrade over 3.6. With Windows all you need to do to update a driver for a spacific piece of hardware is find it on the net, go to the device manager and click on the hardware that is listed and then click on update driver also if I want to update to new revisions of main system files, i don't need to recompile a kernel and I don't need to make symbolic links to files, all i need to do is for windows is get an update patch and double click on the icon and bam.. my system is up to date. Also the average user don't want to figure out how to use a command line, they want to be able to turn on their pc and use the internet or type a doccument, with out haveing to worry about compiling and debugging, they want to put the keys in the ignitiion and drive, with linux you can not do that. Also, you really can't compare Windows 9x to Linux because Linux is not designed to take the place of an average user on the desktop, it is designed to be a web server which it does really well.. I am sick of all you loyalist hypocrits, you MUST admit that without microsoft, the computer would NOT be able to do what it does today with the speed that it does it and the computer would NOT be as versatile as it is now with out microsoft and NOBODY can deny that. Now the ONLY way to shift the power of the opperating system game is to GET UP OFF YOUR ASS and make a product that is intuitive, efficient, easy to use and is either compatable with a vast majority of hardware or it is easy to write hardware drivers for. If you want to be the big shark, first you gotta beat the big shark and unfortunatly with linux in its current state, it will never do it. Also remember that the average joe don't give a fuck about compiling and shit that makes linux so compelling to nerds, they just want to go online. Chris
I heard a clip of the infamous Judge himself saying that a Microsoft appeal would go straight to the supreme court.
Basicly the reason for this is to prevent more than one appeal. In the Supreme Court the hearing would then be the other way if I remember right. More focused on defense instead of prosecution. I know that being of the non-lawyer type, I don't know too much about this, but I doubt Microsoft will be able to get a sucessful appeal together. They have done too much wrong, and in many ways they will need to admit to part of what they have done wrong and hope that the rest is considered biproducts of that wrong.
Thier appeal will fail. And Microsoft will be swiftly broken apart. I doubt they will be as agressive now that they have been sentenced, but you never know, Microsoft was pretty retarded for the entire duration of the trial. You'd think that with the law breathing down thier backs they would have been a little more carefull about thier actions (kerberos, ASF, etc) but it was business as usual.
Dunno about you guys, but when I see flashing red lights behind me, I usually check my spedometer and pull over. I might lie about how fast I was going, but I don't deny that I was indeed driving at the time.
Damn it M$!
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
If you develop a product that competes against their similar product, they cannot take action. But if you infringe on their patents, they CAN take action.
Nope, you don't get it. They can't take *any* action, legal or not, against you if it violates the terms of the remedy. That would include creating and patent licence conditions that would violate the terms of the remedy, or enforcing them if they somehow existed. They can have their patent but they can't use it against us.
This gives us three years to figure out how to defeat the patents themselves.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Just wait and see!
I have seen this technology at work with my own eyes! Trust me, it will change the computing industry as we know it!
There is still much to be done though, but the foundation is there and it`s the most amazing and exciting OS development I have seen in the last ten years!
"Microsoft went so
:-)
far as to revoke the right of Compaq to sell Windows"
I had completely forgotten that. Did they "try" to do this, or was Compaq unable to sell Windows
for a time? Are we talking "3.1" ?
Also, I cannot believe I misplelld "typo"
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I've been saying this from the beginning. There should of been no less than THREE splits. I agree with exactly what you are saying. They need to be split somewhere along these lines: OS (NT/CE), apps (office), media apps(streaming video, multimedia, games), hardware (duh), media/services (news, ISP, multimedia business line, msnbc).
A break up at this level requires that they treat the various business segments as they would any other company. As is, the sector will gain some from the breaking for the OS/application tying, however, it does little to make them compete on the basis of applications in other technologies embedded within those applications (e.g., aside from the the various bone head moves Real has done, they would be much futher along in market pentration otherwise). Likewise, it would also prevent them from doing the same thing in the growing internet market (Internet, desktop units, smart phones, etc). In case it's not already clear, I'm saying that they are still too strong in this position which can prevent the desired results from happening. As is, I see nothing that prevents them from maintaining their current monopoly on the existing markets. In short, once this goes into effect it could take years before the market feels the effects and Microsoft loses it's grip.
Bill Gates will not any richer with this split. One of the provisions of the remedy prevents anyone who owns more than 5% of todays MS stock from owning stock in both companies. This was aimed directly at Billy boy. Although the news report I saw this on didn't explicitly say so the implication was that Gates is the only person to own more than 5%.
"Lend your ear while I call you a fool" Ian Anderson
-Stop buying M$ software.
-Boycott OEM's with only M$ software pre-installed.
-Join an Open Source Project and contribute.
-Show Linux/BSD/Be/etc. to your friends.
-Use Linux/BSD/Be/etc. at work.
-Champion your cause with action AND words.
so wait, who has the rights to the 65k+ bugs in w2k? I mean, could microsoft argue they are vital to the OS, or could MS-APs sell them as special add-ons ??
No physical evidence?!? You're kidding, right? If someone robs you and then burns what he took, then it's not provable because there's no physical evidence?
I disagree. The Sherman Act defines in great detail what is and is not a monopoly, and how a monopoly may and may not be used legally. There is very little that is "nebulous" about it.
I wish more people would take the time to read the Findings of Fact. The text is long, but very informative. It first demonstrates that Microsoft is, in fact, a monopoly (which isn't illegal by itself), and then exemplifies how they used this monopoly contrary to the Sherman Act (which is definitely illegal).
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
The appeals court will rule that either Judge Jackson isn't computer literate and therefore not qualified to make this decision.
If you were talking about the DC Circuit Court, maybe. The Supreme Court, less likely.
The DoJ has just moved to expedite it directly to the Supreme Court, to dodge the Microsoft-friendly DC Circuit.
It is if you take into account linux's growing market share and the fact that you can develop it for linux and solaris simultaneously. MS Office served off an Ultra60 would be a pairing no company could resist.
-jpowers
-jpowers
All of this started just because Microsoft bundled their Internet Explorer with their OS. Hmm... Doesn't Red Hat Linux ship with Netscape installed??? Is that the same thing???
You've missed the point entirely. A monopoly is bound by a different set of laws than normal companies. Red Hat is not a monopoly. MS is a monopoly.
I use both Red Hat and microsoft products and I'd have to say that this break up will not only hurt the economy but also hurt the computer industry.
"THE" computer industry? That's a rather broad term. I know I won't be harmed by this.
I mean how many flavors of operating systems do we really want out there?
As many as people care to make. The more, the merrier.
Its bad enough try to get companies to support 3 or 4 OSes, but what happens when there are more? I'm afraid that because of this things are going to become even MORE incompatible.
This will help create a level playing field where companies can decide what OSes to support, instead of allowing MS the bully to dictate/coerce others into making their decisions. Choice is good.
As far as compatibility, an argument could be made that this will encourage open standards and thus IMPROVE intercompatibility.
In the little town of Springfield, Nelson Muntz is lifting his finger toward Redmond and saying, "Ha ha!"
would be nice, to break the record with ths article... Does such a record exist??
OK for hardware. Microsoft was pretty good. But take a look "inside".
Mouses must be "awakened" by the OS. Why ? Did we really deserve this ?
Remember optical mouses are now 15 year old technology. Ask Sun about it.
Remember USB is a VERY old technology too.
Kerberos existed long before Microsoft used it.
So Microsoft's "innovating" is rather copying.
Also take a look on your negative electrical voltages while Windows 9x is running. Why are they unstable (and stable with Linux, so the power supply is fine) ?
BTW, this is the best method to reduce the lifespan of any electronic device.
So buy hardware more often. It's called quality !
Feel free to take a look at The Halloween Document and you'll see what Microsoft wants for its users for tomorrow: "In order for Microsoft to win, the customer must loose" (halloween document).
Even fanatics can turn to Linux when they realize they have been cheated.
----------------
----------------
If Internet is Freedom, Linux is Democraty
This time it isn't a oil or steal company buying up many little companies and jacking up prices for its own needs.
Actually it is a "steal" company.
And it most certainly has jacked up prices, and kept them artificially inflated through monopolistic practices.
Linus can only prevent the kernel from being sold under the "Linux" name. The kernel is GPL'd and as such anyone can repackage and resell it under any made up name and Linus cannot stop that. Linus only controls the use of the "Linux" trademark name.
grouchosoft
harposoft
chicosoft
zepposoft
dave
uhhh, yeah. Major League Baseball instituted this to try to allow the "small-market teams" to compete with the likes of the "big-market teams" (Yankees, Dodgers, etc.) that make more money.
Yes, it complicated, and no, it doesn't work. (Look at who's won the last few World Series.)
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
It's about time. Although it'll obviously hit the appeals process, the decision has the split beginning in 90 days. (Hopefully it'll get expidited to the Supremes, who can save everyone time by letting it stand without hearing it)
;)
At any rate, given that I live in Bellevue, not more than a mile from MS, I believe I'll be cruising by and taunting them today. It's childish I know, but I think I deserve a chance to vent after putting up with them for so long.
-- 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.
continue for three years after said release to license on the same terms and conditions the previous Windows Operating System Product to any OEM that desires such a license
Yowch! Given that most of the software industry seems to be working on a 1-year or less release cycle, the idea that you have to continue selling version [x] for *three years* after the release of version [x+1] is mind-blowing.
Wonder if they're also required to provide bug fixes?
...As the ruling was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. But that would be nitpicking...
Contempt of court, jail time, billion dollar fines...little things like that.
-B
CP
At present Windows is losing ground compared to other operating systems. It seems to me that it just wasn't designed to go much further than it has.
My bet is that Microsoft keeps appealing this until Windows loses enough ground that it ceases to make them any money. At that point they can surrender and allow Windows to be split off into a seperate company. They won't even have to support it anymore. How convenient that would be.
Of course, that's just what I'd do if I were an evil software mogul. I would have repeatedly and intentionally pissed off the DOJ until they had no choice but to split it up.
numb
IANAL, but per the terms of the decision, the OS division wouldn't be able to issue GPL'd software: ...the Operating Systems Business shall be granted a perpetual, royalty-free license to license and distribute such Intellectual Property in its products, and, except with respect to such Intellectual Property related to the Internet browser, to develop, license and distribute modified or derivative versions of such Intellectual Property, provided that the Operating Systems Business does not grant rights to such versions to the Applications Business. ... and since a GPL license specifically grants rights to everyone who receives it, the OS division can't GPL, right?
Can we not have MICROS~.ONE and MICROS~.TWO?
http://www.dell.com
Try out a lattitude w/RedHat.
or order a box without an O.S., then install it.
I have various flavors of Liunx running on a half dozen notebooks, and it runs a whole lot better than NT. Even on IBM StinkBad's
When one considers the breakup of a major company, we must ask ourselves "How long could this possibly last?" Ma Bell was considered a monopoly and broken up into all the baby bells. This was difficult, but it had worked for the time being. Now we are seeing the baby bells start to jell back together and begin to work as one--> We even see the Bell company beginning (in seperate parts) to monopolize on the internet... That is all well and good, but how long and to what extent can microsoft be broken up? There are a lot of factors that arnt the same as Ma Bell. For one thing, Microsoft must still support all of its previous software releases.. this means that no matter what --> there will still be Big Microsoft supporting MS-DOS, Win 95, Win 98, and Win 2000. While they might be broken up from now on, they will still be together until there Operating Systems are FULLY unused... and how much market share are they now?? 80%+?? Ma Bell could be successfully broken up because it did not have a need to "support" as in the way Microsoft has to. Because Microsoft will not be FULLY broken up because of this, they will continue to dominate the vast market share and computer operating system use. And who is to say that their supporting a previous operating system doesnt include new "bug fixes" that could act as "upgrades in lieu." How this is handled will be EXTREMELY interesting to see as it will provide an example to follow when dealing with the breakup of software companies from now on. I for one will tune in. What are you guys take on all this? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - Connecting at 300 makes you want to push =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yea! 2 years should be enough time to move MSHQ to Canada...
Of course, where were you when Standard Oil was broken up? How about when the movie studios stopped owning all the movie theaters? ATT? IBM nearly coming to tbe brink, giving MS and the rest of the microcomputer industry the room they needed to grow?
It's interesting that you bring up the movie studios, because I see this as a close parallel.
Breakup destroyed the system the studios had of discovering and nurturing talent both off screen and on screen. At the apex of complexity the musical picture is permanently extinct because the technical and financial depth to do them is gone. The technically sophisticated blockbusters of today usually have to be vetted with a financial committee --and it shows.
On the other hand, talent still finds a way to make moves. And we get more access to a huge range of films, including foreign and indie films that run from quirky shoestring budget affairs up to megablockbusters.
As a consumer, I can live either way. Either way, 80% of the films are utter crap, and a few are gems. If I were a movie maker, I'd like it better this way.
I think the same thing is going to happen in software. 80% of software will still be utter crap, but it will be a lot more fun if you aren't a Microsoft lackey.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What Open Source project currently announced or in development do you feel is likely to equal the ease-of-use of Microsoft Windows 2000 (or Millennium Edition) within the next three years?
Microsoft is not a monopoly.
What's your definition of monopoly. When we used to play the board game, we didn't need to play the whole thing out. It became pretty clear at the end, when one guy only had a single property, that the other player had won. You've said you're not a lawyer, so I'm trying to put this in terms you'll understand. If you own all the other deeds in Monopoly and the other player own Baltic Ave, it doesn't matter if he let's you stay at Baltic Ave for free.
Now I'm no lawyer, but these antitrust laws seem to me pretty darned nebulous...
Not being a lawyer is a poor excuse for not understand the law. Read the law and then comment on it.
perhaps I'm wrong and MS does deserve what's tantamount to a death penalty
I'm really tired of hearing this "Death Penalty" reference. This is certainly not the death penalty. Microsoft will not be dying. Instead it will be seperated into two parts. One of which will probably retain the name, and most of the better staff.
How does anyone know it might not have been *better*? No one can accurately predict that the world is a better (or worse) place thanks to MS. But we all know what we like or dislike. :-)
I think the Judicial Branch of the USA just ruled. The Judicial Branch is in no way affiliated with the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive Branch (the other is the Legislative Branch which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate for those that didn't know). I can't believe that Slashdot made such a mistake. Then again, I can...
Brief: jozz.com
Detailed: jozz.com
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
Is anyone else sick of daily updates on this trial when any actual penalties or remedies won't be in effect for another 7 years or so, allowing for the proper appeals?
This is not another boring "Slasher should cover more " posts, it's in the media at large.
Realtime news isn't that important.
Hotnutz.com - Funny
Now you've got two seperate companies, both with powers to rule a certain software type, they both can use evrey dirty trick in the book to get to the "top", and not a single person can say anything neither is a monopoly.
I would have rather have seen them make Microsoft take some responsibility for what their programs do, rather then split them up.
By breaking up Microsoft, you're just going to make them appeal and drag this thing out for 2-4 more years.
I like the plan of forcing them to document the Windows API. You could go as far as a full open source license, but I don't think it would really be nessary. Documenting the APIs might seem somewhat foolish at first (what harm could it really do?), which is exactly what we would hope Microsoft would think, so they thought they were getting off easy. But with fully documented APIs, the WINE project could make a system fully binary compatible with Windows programs, thus removing any nessesity of keeping that sad OS on your hard drive.
With every Windows application on Linux and other alt-OSes, nobody needs Microsoft anymore. A year or so later, almost all the developers figure that they might as well just make programs for Linux first, since everybody is doing that way anyway and it makes things run a little better. They'll port it to Windows if they feel like it, but its not a priority.
For this to work right, you would probably need the DirectX APIs (I wonder how Loki does that?) and any other major add-ons to Windows that I can't think of right now. But no ActiveX and VB Script! Keep those away from the Penguin!
------
Not a typewriter
How about Winsoft and Appsoft?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
How do you prove that something is impossible? By not trying.
You're missing the word tie again. I don't think it is wrong for Microsoft to include every option with Windows. But, when they tie IE into Windows and they tie other apps into the "core-os" so that you can not effectively replace an application with an offering from another company, this breaks anti-trust law because they have a monopoloy with Windows. There is no technical reason, performance, user interface, or otherwise, why Microsoft couldn't include IE with Windows 98 without tying it to Windows. How would they do this? Just like any other application. Don't put the friggin DLL's in the windows system directory. Put them in the application directory. If the application, such as IE, provides "middleware" there is still no reason to tie it to the OS.
Instead of adding the middleware API to the windows API, it should provide a well defined API to applications that sit on-top of the windows API. This would allow other companies to offer alternative middleware products that accomplish the same thing in a different way. Possibly with a different user interface. Possibly using different algorithms which result in greater performance.
Get the point now?
Actually, my understanding is that Microsoft themselves realized the faults in trying to tie applications to the OS, by putting application API files (dll's) in the system directory. They finally realized that this was not a good practice, and in Windows 2000 it's my understanding that this does not happen any more (or it is frowned upon). Keeping the application API files separate allows one to "upgrade" an application without causing catestrophic failure of the core OS (BSOD). Sure, you still have to maintain compatability with the API if the application provides services or is otherwise a middleware product (which was presumably done when applications were tied to the OS). But, it makes it much easier because it kind of forces a well defined separation of the core OS API and the application API.
That separation and well defined interface between the OS and application/middleware APIs allows for greater competition. One could argue that the instability in Windows is a direct result of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions in trying to maintain their Windows monopoly and extend this monopoly into the applications/middleware sector.
How much time before one eats up the other?
Je t'aime Stéphanie
The split wont change a thing.
Yes, but this pane does not run anything that can't be run in a standard browser. It uses standard security settings which for the most part are OK. Even with "secure" ActiveX controls the standard setting is to ask the user if they want to install. I get asked all the time "Do you want to run this Microsoft Corp control?". I'm not saying it's 100% secure, I'm sure there are exploits that haven't been found, I'm just saying there are no current major exploits. Neither mellisa or ILOVEYOU took advantage of the preview pane. In fact, I have yet to see an e-mail virus that could take advantage of that pane.
Yes, if you're an idiot and you set yourself to low security then you could be in trouble, but then you deserve it for screwing with something you know nothing about.
A lot of people fear that preview pane but I have yet to see anything truly evil come from it. I am not a MS fan but I'm tired of hearing people come up with religious claims about the security of their products. If you can demonstrate one virus that uses the preview pane then I'll eat my works. My e-mail address is listed above.
-Zane
This sig is worse than my last.
I'm not so sure there's a valid distinction to be made between the two, for the purposes of this argument, but let's pass on that...
:) AT&T wouldn't see the need for all these datalines. 56K is surely enough for anybody, right? IBM would have most of the computer market under their thumb, and who needs client/server?
:)
The markets are tracked seperately. Microsoft has "server" products and "desktop" products. Try to install Backoffice on NT server and see what happens. Hence, there is a difference in market.
. In any case, Windows is certainly not the only choice a person has for their desktop, so they're not a monopoly in that sense, at least.
A monopoly doesn't mean there isn't ANY choice. It means that there is little, that the switching cost is extremely high, and that a company has virtual control over a market. There are *always* alternatives to any monopoly other than food, water, shelter. You can walk, rather than use the oil/electric monopoly. Use a radio rather than a landlocked phone. Use carrier pidgeons, Write a letter, etc.
The fact that Microsoft is realizing RECORD profits - and that noone else is able to break into that market is a pretty good indication of a monopoly.... Start making money, and notice how fast everybody else starts doing what you are doing.
I think you misunderstand the application of Monopoly/Antitrust law. Its *not* illegal to have a monopoly.
It *is* illegal to *leverage* that into *new* markets. Slightly subjective, granted, but Microsoft's argument is easily compared to a defendant arguing that "assault is subjective" when the victim was beaten within an inch of its life.
It's being applied in a situation where the company in question is only too happy to produce as many copies of their software as anyone will buy... and their great anti-competitive act was to drop their prices to zero! Something's amiss here.
No, its not.
Did they drop the price of their monopoly product? No. Their monopoly product was threatened - and so they entered a new market - with the express intent to damage compitition in that market (which might have affected their monopoly market) - and gave THAT away.
They aren't being punished for having a monopoly -but for keeping competitiors/things that could have upset that - from realizing.
Saying that MS flaunted the laws doesn't answer whether the laws are just.
No, it doesn't. But without those laws, we WOULDN"T BE TYPING HERE!
That is supreme irony.
There is obvious reason for them. Come up with alternatives, please. How do you keep someone dominant from using that dominant position to muscle in on new markets?
Market based economics fail in the real world, sadly. Yes, M$ will lose their monopoly some day. But how much will be stifled to the enrichment of Redmond before that?
Additionally - thinking a law is unjust does not justify flaunting it.
Microsoft's attitude is still "We did nothing wrong". (Funny, considering without those laws, they wouldnt' exist). Not that the laws are wrong, that they did nothing wrong.
They aren't *worried* about the law. They abused it mercilessly... and part of what took so long about this is the states and DoJ really couldn't believe a company would be THIS blatant in flaunting antitrust law.
(Disclaimer: I work at another big company that is admittedly, a monopoly in a certain market. We don't talk like that, and if the FTC and DoJ ask us about our monopoly, we're nice and show them what they want, and show them that we're *competing*, not leveraging).
That's the difference.
Addison
Greets to /.
While I have been taunted by M$ blue screens as much as anyone, and beat my head to pulp against their labyrithine support in vain search for solutions to annoyances that interfere with my work, I have to admit concern - the Gov't is going too far.
Before I am accused of being a Redmond Parrot let me just get to my point. The reason M$ is being broken up is because of a perceived monopoly on OS. If Business A wants to use M$ Office (very reasonable and wise decision! Office is the standard - and we should be very supportive of standards. saying Office is a monopoly is like complaining TCP/IP is a monopoly) then Business A should use Office and that's their right.
The monopoly aspect comes into play because Office only exists on Windows. WINDOWS is the monopoly, right? but what does that really mean?
It means that Windows, in the business world, is nothing more than a $200 extension to Office that just lets you RUN Office. No Windows, no Office. Why arent there any Office apps on Linux? Cause then people could get Linux, not Win32, and then Office would only generate $400 instead of $600 for M$. Why does M$ make Office for Mac? Because M$ owns a stake in Apple and they get their pound of flesh thusly.
But the M$ company as a whole and the dominance of Windows has been a boon in the sense that hardware standards, drivers, etc all have become so prevalent under the unifying platform. And whether we like it or not, M$ is a force for innovation akin to Bell Labs or IBM - the R&D has billions of dollars of investment and is a driving resource for the entire industry.
My proposed solution is an alternative to breakup. Office should be mandated to run on all OS's - Linux, BSD, even BeOS. Microsoft should be able to achieve this fairly easily - after all they have Mac versions and even *nix versions of IE (which is an "integral part" of the OS, right? *ahem*)
Opening up Office allows Linux and other alternative OS'es to enter the business MONOPOLY. But it preserves M$ identity and right to it's OS, which according to *their* logic will win in the marketplace on its merits against Linux et. al (*ahem*). Let's see!
Forcing M$ to "open" its source or APIs is dangerous precedent. While advocates of Open Source seem to believe that its the only model worth doing business under, the reality is Open Source is not and should not be universally mandated. In a free business environment you should have choice as to whether you CHOOSE Open Source or the proprietary route. Breaking up M$ might sound great to those of us breaking our eggs on the pointy end, but to the fox, it doesnt matter which end you break the egg and we all round-end folks look alike.
abde
P.S. let's suggest that they rename the company MordorSoft. I like that analogy better than the Borg :P
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
Chris Johnson wrote:
They demonstrably do not. One of my favorite megacorp vs. megacorp stories is Coca-Cola vs. McDonald's. :)
Apparently, Coke told McDonald's that they would offer their syrup shipment to McD's for free if McD's would stop selling Dr. Pepper. Now, McD's must spend gobs of money on Coke, I would think. But McD's told them to shove off anyway.
Y'all know this just means two devils in'stead of one. An' thas even if "That Company" is somehow unable to get sneaky with the "forgiveness commitee" that seems to like 'em.
-
Starsucks
Isn't it so nice to see the decision written in Corel Word Perfect !!!
// Witty Signature On Backorder
Um. Never mind.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
I imagine the stock market will show the results MUCH sooner.
I'm waiting to see - anybody got any predictions?
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Here's an article from the New York Times that discusses the Justices taking on technically complex cases.
Here's a brief quote:
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Microsoft also will seek an emergency hold on an order requiring that computer makers be given more flexibility in the way it configures the Windows operating system. The company contends that this would let computer makers damage their Windows product and hence create more cost in service calls and harm the product's reputation when it breaks down.
LOL!!
I really liked their Z80 CP/M card for the Apple ][.
ac wrote:
They're clearly not OS elements, since you can buy and even install Windows without them, and you can install competing SQL servers or mail servers on Windows. That makes them applications.
http://totem.fdns.net - totem@nwlink.com
Disney argues on MS' behalf. Who'd have thunk it? "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" is as good a description of Disney's (ab)use of cultural tales - every story gets a happy Republican ending etc - as it is of MS' (ab)use of protocols, standards, and market share.
Data East: "Leaders in Dot Matrix Technology" - Star Wars pinball
Grey (Chris Lusena)
I read the ruling and have been thinking abou this a bit. It seems that the operating system division will be a loser in this break up. I have a gnawing fear that the consumer will be the bigger loser in this mess. The OS will be spun off, barring an overturn in the appeals process. The OS will have a monopoly for the next few years. It will take some time for other OSs to gain the support to take over the desktop any time soon. I do think that MS Office will be ported to Linux. The App business will do it to help the bottom line. BTW, I have little doubt as to which company Mr. Gates will choose to hold stock in, Windows market share will plummet while MS App market share will stay high. It seems that the monopoly power will shift from the OS/App titan that MS is now to the App business that will be created. I cannot find anything in the ruling that would explicitly force Microsoft (the Application business) to publish the formats of MS Office documents. It may be possible to MS to use Office as its new hammer. Yes MS will be forced to document OS and Middle ware APIs. But the interoperability of Office documents is not mentioned. Given the sheer market share of MS Office, no matter how that market share was obtained, it makes sense to port Office to other platforms.
A technology that I wonder about is COM. Despite what some have said, COM is actually a good technology. If you don't think so, ask yourself why so many others duplicate many of the COM mechanisms. I don't think it is mere coincidence that the base interface in Bonobo is a close copy of the IUnknown interface in COM. Microsoft can do good work, it has an army of geeks with great stock option plans. Don't underestimate them. But COM is middleware product that MS has been basing most of its newer products on. My first inclination is that this technology would go to the Application business as it was developed for interapplication development. However, it may not fall under the ruling's definition of middleware which seems to focus on applications as middleware, not the underlying technology. The thing that makes me question my assumption that COM will go to the App side is DirectX. I don't program games, so I can't judge it on its merits or lack thereof. But, DirectX does fit within the description of "software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources", or operating system software as defined by the ruling. This makes DirectX operating system software. Yet, it is based upon COM, which seems to be middleware, but does not fit the definition of middleware as outlined in the ruling. It would be in the Application business' best interest to obtain this technology, as it would be necessary to port their products to different OSs. It just makes me realize what a mess this is going to be. I don't envy MS having to make all of those decisions in 4 months.
I do think that the Application business will support Linux and Unix platforms. There is an opportunity to make money and extend control. It will be a bad day when IIS comes bundled with a distrubution of Linux tailored for it. I don't relish the thought of the Windows Scripting Host being ported to any other operating systems. After all, shouldn't that innovation be available on all operating systems. Why should Windows be alone in being infected with Melissa and ILOVEYOU spin offs? Look to the the Application business selling products that only interoperate with other Application business products. Outlook will still support Exchange Server best. Back Office will be the server of choice for MS applications. We will just see Back Office on many more OSes.
I wonder if this break up will allow for different distributions of Windows? Some third party could take the Windows OS and package the best solutions to make a new Windows distro. Hmmmm.
punishment for breaking the law generally involves some loss of freedom, for some odd reason -- the reasoning has something to do with preventing future occurances of illegal behaviour.
no, the reasoning has something to do with the very religious notion of paying for your past transgressions. the only way you could possibly prevent future occurances of illegal behaviour is of course by incarceration for life, lobotomy or execution. all these are tried and tested methods.
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
Hmmm, never thought about it that way. (Now I remember why I started reading /. in the first place.) It would be nice to see if GNU/Linux/*BSD could topple Redmond/Adobe/BigCorp through use of the GPL, stupidly low pricing, advocacy and hard work. But now, we'll never truly know.
:)
Re: a cogent explanation as to how, if Windows is a monopoly, spinning it off into its own company will stop it from being a monopoly, errrrr
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
Breaking up the company should eliminate a lot of the predator's bite. It suddenly becomes much harder for MS-OS to change their specs every six months with MS-Apps being the only company to stay in synch. I don't think that kind of preferential treatment is legal and it's pretty easy to detect. At the very least, Corel and Netscape and the like would have a fair shot at matching Office and IE in terms of OS integration and overall quality.
Data East: "Leaders in Dot Matrix Technology" - Star Wars pinball
Let's take a closer look and do some analysis:
1) Split up into two companies is based on what the two portions of the company were doing as of Apr 27, 2000. No saying "Hey, Office is part of the OS"
Interpreted literally, this would mean a "Microsoft employees counting the days until they vest their stock and retire" company, and a "Microsoft employees biding their time to pad their resume" company. Those are the two biggest functional splits at MS.
2) The 2 NewCo. may not recombine, enter into Joint Ventures, provide APIs to each other that are not available to other ISVs.. or basically collude.
Big deal, the developers on the never-gonna-ship netdocs project don't even share API's with their PM.
3) The OS company cannot know OEMs for supporting other OS's, OEM's can change the boot up sequence.
Cannot know? Do you mean know in the biblical sense? That would explain why Michael Dell is so submissive and obedient.
4) Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs
In a timely manner is the sticking point. Microsoft's arguement is that they've never delivered anything in a timely manner before, and this would constitute undue hardship.
--Shoeboy
I don't work for microsoft anymore.
(former microserf)
shut up, nick
-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-
Ultimately this will not lead to any positive solution to the problems incurred with this predatory monopoly. They still have the hold over the OS, and will still force small companies out by withholding specs and changing specs constantly.
What the software industry needs is a regulating body for software allow anyone who wants access to those specs. And build applications which suit those needs.
Ultimately the solution to Microsoft is simply to open-source the operating system, and place Microsoft in capacity to build apps, and additional tools for whatever they want. Then they could build tools for FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, etc. and (hopefully) we would get a less bloated version of windows that people/companies could configure for their own use by puchasing what they need, and not have it crash every 2 days because of some bug with (insert stupid app here) is screwing everything up.
Perhaps this would also create a desire for more standardized file formats..
Anyway.. ranting.. sorry.
My 0.02 (well 0.01 since its Canadian)
Oh, don't give me that Ayn Rand crap. Bill Gates is no Hank Rearden or John Galt. He bought DOS for the monetary equivalent of beads and trinkets and has built his empire off of Borg-ing the work of others.
Gotta give Gates props on one thing: he *did* code the first-ever Basic for the first-ever personal computer, the Altair. But that was back in 1976. What has Gates coded lately, huh? Name one thing.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Are you kidding? Get paid to be a constant pain in the ass to corporate executives! Where's my resume....
Bwah ha ha! MS wouldn't know innovation if it bit it on their collective asses. I have never been able to think of something they thought up themselves. Evolutionary changes yes, but then, that's not innovation.
;)
Of course, where were you when Standard Oil was broken up? How about when the movie studios stopped owning all the movie theaters? ATT? IBM nearly coming to tbe brink, giving MS and the rest of the microcomputer industry the room they needed to grow?
Competition keeps companies (slightly more than otherwise) honest. Monopolies like MS have no competition that actually threatens them. They have no reason to be good capitalists. Their only motivation has to be to protect their monopoly. And that hurts everyone - even MS, b/c the economy is harmed.
Ironically, the weather guys are predicting that this afternoon we might get some sunlight here in Seattle (it's overcast today). I wonder if they were speaking metaphorically
-- 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.
When was the last time M$ actually "Innovated"?
Both Gore and Bush have publicly stated that they are against these proceedings. Once they put in their own AG it's all over.
How about "Micro" and "Soft" :)
just my blog and pix
Microsoft will ask for a stay of execution and apeal the rulling. It will be a long time before anything actually starts happening.
-----
If my facts are wrong then tell me. I don't mind.
What good will any of this do? Under this plan, Windows will still be the most popular desktop OS, people will still use Word, and Windows applications will continue to suck. Also, we'll now have the government watching both of these companies and any company started by or employing former high-level Microsoft people, looking for "collusion" and the slightest excuse to micromanage the industry.
And that's after years of appeals, if this isn't overturned.
Basically, this whole investigation was a big, pointless sideshow orchestrated by some publicity-hound people in the DoJ and companies that wanted to get Microsoft.
But yeah...Whoopee.
I know this is a troll, but I'll bite...
---
No longer is innovation lauded, but persecuted.
---
What innovation? We'll laud it when we see it.
Seriously though - please name all of the innovation Microsoft has produced. We'll wait.
---
The unsuccessful are rewarded, and the successful are put to death.
---
If by 'success' you mean shipping buggy bloatware to customers and tying them to closed standards to keep it in place, then I suppose you're right.
Not that Microsoft is in any danger of dying, or that its competitors (the ones that still exist) are taking its place, but...
---
No longer is the consumer important, but just its competitors.
---
That's funny, I could have sworn that I was a consumer...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
I had expected to see a LARGE fine attached to the breakup order.
Now, the breakup of Microsoft will certainly cost the company an immense amount of money as it buys new lodgings for the spinoff company, duplicates support staff, reorganizes, etc. But none of that money will be going to the companies that were harmed by Microsoft's illegal actions. I'd have liked to see them get a few hundred million each.
Kind of disappointing...
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Hah hah!
(Damn I wish I could post an audio snippet of that!)
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Why? Well, if MS wins on appeal, you'll make a fortune when the stock pops up to above $100. And if MS loses the appeal, you'll have stock in two very powerful companies.
I'm serious -- buy MS stock, especially if the daytraders dump it tomorrow.
I have no
Microsoft is still out there; only now we have to put up with two companies. So now instead of having one place to target our frustrations at we have two. Looking at the revenues from 1999, it doesn't really matter much whether or not the company is split. Maybe instead of fracturing Microsoft, everyone should band together and provide and alternative that has the appeal that Windows does/did.
Welcome back competition, we missed you.
Eh...
7) a. After Implementation of the Plan, and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, neither the Operating Systems Business nor the Applications Business, nor any member of their respective Boards of Directors, shall acquire any securities or assets of the other Business; no Covered Shareholder holding securities of either the Operating Systems Business or the Applications Business shall acquire any securities or assets of or shall be an officer, director, or employee of the other Business; and no person who is an officer, director, or employee of the Operating Systems Business or the Applications Business shall be an officer, director, or employee of the other Business.
h. "Covered Shareholder" means a shareholder of Microsoft on the date of entry of this Final Judgment who is a present or former employee, officer or director of Microsoft and who owns directly or beneficially more than 5 percent of the voting stock of the firm.
* smack *
Aww come on maaa... I was having the best dream!
If Microsoft didn't want the judge to be biased towards the DoJ, then why did they go out of their way to piss him off? Lying in court, falsifying evidence, selective memory etc. etc.
apps and os's, huh? Slightly o/t, but it seems I remember something about Microsoft, and those two categories in particular, in this article.
Janet Reno just spoke at a DOJ press conference. Her speech came off very much like an acceptance speech for an award. She thanked quite a few people, I'm suprised that she didn't thank her momma and Elvis while she was at it.
So if the company is broken up, which one served Slashdot with a cease and desist?
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Internet Explorer was a done deal, I suppose. No point in even discussing it.
Java virtual machines? Every major OS has now successfully integrated Java, but now Windows can't? Does that mean I have to run my Java apps within IE, or application providers have to include a VM with their package?
Server software? I'm ambivalent about this. From an engineering standpoint, most server software probably can't be considered part of the OS. But for practical purposes, I think it makes sense to allow that. Especially since putting the server software in the same company as the client software defeats much of the purpose of the ruling.
Developer tools? I'm also ambivalent about this, for the opposite reason: I think compilers should be considered part of the OS, but I can see the danger in that arrangement.
Indexing server software? Does that mean ActiveDirectory, or whatever it's called? I don't know much about server systems, but isn't that basically NT's security system? It would be very dangerous to have security separated from the OS.
Voice recognition software? Oh well, I guess it'll be another few decades before we can talk to our computers. (SR won't become universal if it's not supported by the OS.)
"Client Applications"? No more command-line ftp? How about ping? More seriously, what about Windows file sharing? A server OS isn't worth much if it's not allowed to serve files.
Well, that's enough for now. As I've said before, I think splitting up Microsoft is a good thing in and of itself. (I'm not sure that the government should have that power, though.) But they need to do some more work on the line between the two companies.
MSK
http://usvms-mirror.doogie.org. It also answers to usvms.gpo.gov.
(*The following is not investment advice*)
I bought a few shares of MSFT today hoping there would be a breakup. I'm rather excited to see what the two new companies will produce (and earn) in the future now that they can develop independently of one another. IMO, the applications company is going to be the real winner since they'll have some incentive to port to other platforms.
Over the last few weeks MSFT stock has been revolving around $60 to $70 roughly. So it's sort of bottomed out for now and may even be undervalued. Tomorrow, quite a few people may start buying up lots of shares in hopes of MS-A and MS-B performing well in the future.
The cure for 1984 is 1917.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Ya, the AT&T antitrust proceedings went through three (or four?) presidencies... It'll be a while.
My personal favorite to go against Microsoft is Amiga Inc. which is developing some remarkable software together with the Tao Group !
But then there`s also QNX Neutrino which is more like the traditional OSes but with a solid clean structure. Outsiders like BeOS and MacOS X look less promising but have more potential than the current Microsoft monopoly. And finally Linux won`t become a truly better desktop OS, but it will survive as it`s free and has it`s useful for being a good server or development tool.
What`s view upon for the future?
Seriously, RTFM. The decision states that certain shareholders can't hold stock in both. Which is pretty much Bill G, Paul A, and that cueball guy.
Will in Seattle
Okay, assuming that this actually happens, which company will get to control the hardware division?
It simply would not work to give it to the applications company (for obvious reasons), and giving it to the OS company would be complicated. Let us assume that the OS company gets the hardware, then what if they develop a handheld? Does this mean they can't develop any applications for it?
Or has all of this been thought out in advance by the Justice Department?
If the breakup ever actually happens, which I doubt it will, you can look forward to big changes. Namely, that after the breakup, they're by definition not a monopoly anymore, so anything goes for the two companies, and they don't have to worry about the government sticking its nose in their business anymore.
Of course, a lot of people here think it means that the new apps company will come out with a version of Office for Linux, but that's silly wishful thinking. It's more likely that they'll kill off Office for Macintosh if it's not making much money, as they no longer need to falsely prop up the Mac platform to make it look like they don't have a monopoly. Once that pretense is abandoned, the two companies can be as vicious as they want.
The break up'll prolly never happen, though. At least most of the Slashdotties better hope not. ;)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
CP
This is the real good news in this judgment. Not as good as opening up the source code, but it's a start.
I can still fantasize about Gates waking up with every version of Windows GPLed, though...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Look at point 4!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are being forced to open the API's!? That is a really good thing, I think! (considering that's what windows IS, effectively)
Would this mean Microsoft cannot appeal without 'the prior approval of the Court' since appeal would undermine or interfere with the split.
aed
--
New empires...began ebbing and flowing all over the place like Moon Pies on a hot sidewalk.
..!!in an intastella burst i am back to save the universe!!
Well, this is a repost, since my original post 10 minutes ago has apparantly died somewhere in a bitbucket.
See http://www.xfiles.nildram.co.uk/ms/ for a mirror.
Now we just wait for the appeals to begin.. then hopefully, end.
--
David Taylor
davidt-sd@xfiles.nildram.spam.co.uk
[To e-mail me: s/\.spam//]
nal 11
I would just like to say that I do not like the precendent that the judge is setting. Involuntarily splitting up a software company certainly limits freedom to innovate or create products. However, I think all of this is simply to force Microsoft to open up their APIs, which is a great thing. Hopefully this will make Kerberos play ball too!
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
I wanted them to break up Bill Gates. (Via the four horse method.)
So when do the purjury trials start?
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Isn't that a bit of a paradox?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
This is probably the first time in many years the government has actualy done something pro consumer.
This is great for consumers, because it means the os company will be forced to release API informatino to everyone, if they did not the app company would tank. This will put all software companies on a level playing field, and windows software may begin to not suck after people figure out the right way to write for windows (right now I would say its a black art like voodoo).
Better software is good for users. Now we will be able to get the functionality of Office and all the integration without the crappy microsoftisms.
Tyranny = Government choosing how much power to give the people.
On a lighter note, any news on the planned names for the two companies?
Yup.
Micro
&
Soft
--
+&x
There is only one real solution that would actually HURT Microsoft, and break their 'domination.'
Ban Microsoft from every using the name 'Microsoft' again, in any form or fassion. Microsoft is NOT about good software, or services, or whatever market they have their hands dipped into that week. Microsoft is a name and a marketting empire. Microsoft probably has five times more marketters and lawyers than they do programmers or tech support.
Keep in mind that one of the only pieces of software that Microsoft ever wrote--completely on their own--was Bob. That's right, Bob. Every other piece of software has originated from a collaboration (i.e. MS and IBM for Windows), buying up the software (DOS), buying out the company that makes it (most of the Office suite, I believe), or just stealing it.
Microsoft is about marketting, not innovation.
Now all those MSFT investors will own shares of both MS and FT! Damn, looks like I missed out again...
just my blog and pix
When this is enforced will be determined in the next 90 days as they try to get the court of Appeals to issue a stay of enforcement.
They must convince the court that they are likely to win the appeal in order to get a delay.
If they can't, the breakup happens even though they are appealing it.
AOL/Time-Warner hasn't been approved yet.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Counterclaim-Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ELIOT SPITZER, attorney ) general of the State of ) New York, in his official ) capacity, et al., ) ) Counterclaim-Defendants. ) )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
These cases are before the Court for disposition of the sole matter presently remaining for decision by the trial court, namely, entry of appropriate relief for the violations of the Sherman Act, 1 and 2, and various state laws committed by the defendant Microsoft Corporation as found by Court in accordance with its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Final judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith. No further proceedings will be required.
The Court has been presented by plaintiffs with a proposed form of final judgment that would mandate both conduct modification and structural reorganization by the defendant when fully implemented. Microsoft has responded with a motion for summary rejection of structural reorganization and a request for months of additional time to oppose the relief sought in all other respects. Microsoft claims, in effect, to have been surprised by the "draconian" and "unprecedented" remedy the plaintiffs recommend. What it proposes is yet another round of discovery, to be followed by a second trial - in essence an ex post and de facto bifurcation of the case already considered and rejected by the Court.
Microsoft's profession of surprise is not credible.(1) From the inception of this case Microsoft knew, from well-established Supreme Court precedents dating from the beginning of the last century, that a mandated divestiture was a possibility, if not a probability, in the event of an adverse result at trial. At the conclusion of the trial the Court's Findings of Fact gave clear warning to Microsoft that the result would likely be adverse, yet the Court delayed entry of its Conclusions of Law for five months, and enlisted the services of a distinguished mediator, to assist Microsoft and the plaintiffs in reaching agreement on a remedy of some description that Microsoft knew was inevitable. Even assuming that Microsoft negotiated in utmost good faith in the course of mediation, it had to have in contemplation the prospect that, were mediation to fail, the prevailing plaintiffs would propose to the Court a remedy most to their liking and least likely to be acceptable to Microsoft. Its failure to anticipate and to prepare to meet such an eventuality gives no reason to afford it an opportunity to do so now.
These cases have been before the Court, and have occupied much of its attention, for the past two years, not counting the antecedent proceedings. Following a full trial Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust violations, notwithstanding its protests to this day that it has committed none. The Court is convinced for several reasons that a final - and appealable - judgment should be entered quickly. It has also reluctantly come to the conclusion, for the same reasons, that a structural remedy has become imperative: Microsoft as it is presently organized and led is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law or accede to an order amending its conduct.
First, despite the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Microsoft does not yet concede that any of its business practices violated the Sherman Act. Microsoft officials have recently been quoted publicly to the effect that the company has "done nothing wrong" and that it will be vindicated on appeal. The Court is well aware that there is a substantial body of public opinion, some of it rational, that holds to a similar view. It is time to put that assertion to the test. If true, then an appellate tribunal should be given early opportunity to confirm it as promptly as possible, and to abort any remedial measures before they have become irreversible as a practical matter.
Second, there is credible evidence in the record to suggest that Microsoft, convinced of its innocence, continues to do business as it has in the past, and may yet do to other markets what it has already done in the PC operating system and browser markets. Microsoft has shown no disposition to voluntarily alter its business protocol in any significant respect. Indeed, it has announced its intention to appeal even the imposition of the modest conduct remedies it has itself proposed as an alternative to the non-structural remedies sought by the plaintiffs.
Third, Microsoft has proved untrustworthy in the past. In earlier proceedings in which a preliminary injunction was entered, Microsoft's purported compliance with that injunction while it was on appeal was illusory and its explanation disingenuous. If it responds in similar fashion to an injunctive remedy in this case, the earlier the need for enforcement measures becomes apparent the more effective they are likely to be.
Finally, the Court believes that extended proceedings on the form a remedy should take are unlikely to give any significantly greater assurance that it will be able to identify what might be generally regarded as an optimum remedy. As has been the case with regard to Microsoft's culpability, opinion as to an appropriate remedy is sharply divided. There is little chance that those divergent opinions will be reconciled by anything short of actual experience. The declarations (and the "offers of proof") from numerous potential witnesses now before the Court provide some insight as to how its various provisions might operate, but for the most part they are merely the predictions of purportedly knowledgeable people as to effects which may or may not ensue if the proposed final judgment is entered. In its experience the Court has found testimonial predictions of future events generally less reliable even than testimony as to historical fact, and cross-examination to be of little use in enhancing or detracting from their accuracy.
In addition to its substantive objections, the proposed final judgment is also criticized by Microsoft as being vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs respond that, to the extent it may be lacking in detail, it is purposely so to allow Microsoft itself to propose such detail as will be least disruptive of its business, failing which plaintiffs will ask the Court to supply it as the need appears.
Plaintiffs won the case, and for that reason alone have some entitlement to a remedy of their choice. Moreover, plaintiffs' proposed final judgment is the collective work product of senior antitrust law enforcement officials of the United States Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of 19 states, in conjunction with multiple consultants.(2) These officials are by reason of office obliged and expected to consider - and to act in - the public interest; Microsoft is not. The proposed final judgment is represented to the Court as incorporating provisions employed successfully in the past, and it appears to the Court to address all the principal objectives of relief in such cases, namely, to terminate the unlawful conduct, to prevent its repetition in the future, and to revive competition in the relevant markets. Microsoft's alternative decree is plainly inadequate in all three respects.
The final judgment proposed by plaintiffs is perhaps more radical than might have resulted had mediation been successful and terminated in a consent decree. It is less so than that advocated by four disinterested amici curiae. It is designed, moreover, to take force in stages, so that the effects can be gauged while the appeal progresses and before it has been fully implemented. And, of course, the Court will retain jurisdiction following appeal, and can modify the judgment as necessary in accordance with instructions from an appellate court or to accommodate conditions changed with the passage of time.
It is, therefore, this _____ day of June, 2000,
ORDERED, that the motion of defendant Microsoft Corporation for summary rejection of the plaintiffs' proposed structural reorganization is denied; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant Microsoft Corporation's "position" as to future proceedings on the issue of remedy is rejected; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that plaintiffs' proposed final judgment, as revised in accordance with the proceedings of May 24, 2000 and Microsoft's comments thereon, be entered as a Final Judgment herein.
______________________
Thomas Penfield Jackson
U.S. District Judge
1. Despite their surprise, compounded no doubt by the Court's refusal on May 24th to allow discovery and take testimony on the issue, Microsoft's attorneys were promptly able to tender a 35-page "Offer of Proof," summarizing in detail the testimony 16 witnesses would give to explain why plaintiffs' proposed remedy, in its entirety, is a bad idea. Within a week they added seven more.
2. Two states dissented from the imposition of structural remedies but fully supported the remainder of the relief proposed. The absence of total unanimity merely confirms the collaborative character of the process by which the proposed final judgment was formulated.
www.poak.net
Microsoft has consistenly leveraged its size and its popularity in both its OS and its various document management tools("document" including MPEG-4 video streams, mind you.)
Lets say a breakup is completed. Exactly what prevents this leverage from being executed?
So Microsoft Office gets ported to new platforms...this is new? Microsoft has been willing to port its code to popular alternatives to their Windows OS for quite some time--they're even starting to do a semi-decent job of it on the Mac. After all, why let any other Office vendor take over a market?
Splitting Microsoft will probably have the effect of making somewhat riskier steps(i.e. Media Player for an Operating System that MS/OS is seeking to prevent from gaining market acceptance) more feasable. But overall, I can't imagine either corporate culture changing significantly merely because of a simple division.
The split does not solve problems. At best, the split helps enforce whatever primary remedies Jackson can put into place--and considering the culture of MS is at least partially, "We know what's right, and we're smart enough to get around any loosely worded agreement that prevents us from doing that right", compliance is going to be damn near impossible without some truly intrusive measures.
Splitting the company isn't intrusive. It's just a bureaucratic structure.
My first thought would have to be, no matter how the split occurs, an outside board needs to be able to demand with force of law that any programmatically interesting function that's been left undocumented be remedied. The NT authentication functions, required for remote management, come to mind. This is a good example of Microsoft's technical acumen obscured by their business distrust.
It's funny, some Linux people say Microsoft can't code, can't innovate, can't do anything right. And Microsoft agrees. It must be so depressing to work in an office where your code is presumed to be so bad by your own coworkers that they'd go so far as to revoke Compaq's write to sell Windows just because they couldn't imagine that the product was good enough to eventually dominate a market on its own merits.
We shouldn't be directing our regulatory furor against the coders--honestly, they've done some damn good work over there at Microsoft, and about all they've got for it was ten instances of "innovation" per paragraph, followed by chants of "by any means necessary". Microsoft's business side needs to be muzzled--and the bottom line is, splitting one ravenous horde into two still leaves you with two ravenous hordes.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
So that means that MS cannot update the kernel in such a way as make any API obsolete or perform worse if any Windows apps still use it? How many times has a Linux kernel API been removed or "downgraded" because of a change in the way the kernel works? In these cases, a new API is created, and everyone is told to use the new API instead of the old (I think cli() vs. spin_lock_irqsave() is a good example). It looks like MS can't do this, which means the Win32 API is going to stagnate.
Not that this is a bad thing, IMHO, because I've always thought the Win32 API was too much of a moving target, and anything that makes Windows stagnant is a good thing. :-)
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
This does not bode well for the future of large corporations. I wish people would stop things like this, and I hate Microsoft but I don't want the government to mess around in private enterprise. This is not about goverment intervention in private business, this is simply a case where free enterprise has fallen out of control and the goverment must step in and push things back in line. Microsoft has clearly abused their position and power. They have and will continue to use their monopoly positions in both operating systems and applications to push themselves deeper and lock out any chance of competition. If the government doesn't slap them down who can and will?
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Are they going to breakup the names also and call the two companies..Micro and Soft?
I realize the first post was joking around. ;-)
2) The 2 NewCo. may not recombine, enter into Joint Ventures, provide APIs to each other that are not available to other ISVs.. or basically collude.
Suppose OfficeCo needs a new type of interprocess communication, to better support object embedding (just as an example). How're they supposed to do this without "colluding" with OSCo? Lots of paperwork, laywers, and disclosures, that's how.
This is supposed to make better products at better prices?
Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs
<snort> Has anybody tried getting useful information from the MSDN Knowledge Base? Cramming every available document and function header in there will make matters worse, not better. Especially since, in many cases, the specification consists of "what that piece of code does".
5) Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product
Since when were non-backwards-compatible interfaces in Microsoft products *intentional*? Judge Jackson is attributing conditions to villainy that result simply from stupidity.
6) MS has to create an internal position to monitor antitrust compliance within the company
With the fall of the USSR, the free world's bureaucrats have gotten lazy and out of shape. The MSFT breakup is really a DoD project to mainain a cadre of trained bureaucrats.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
Yes, of course; they shouldn't be punished because they're good at what they do. They should be punished because they've broken the law.
Duh.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
First of all, there's a 2 year of appeals and escalating to the supreme court. Second, at the time the final decision will be made, the Bushor the Gore administration will be in power, and BOTH of these presidential candidates have expressed their sympaties for MS (expecially Bush), so it may even happen that the new DOJ people will drop the case.
Besides, just to show how irrilevant the decision is, the stock market on Nasdaq after hours is howing MSFT up 3/4 to 71 1/4 as I am typing this.
And of course, as someone already noted, it's not the DOJ who decides, but the judge.
Sigged!
That's a laugh.
If anyone wants to get a good chuckle from Microsoft now that this ruling is final, check out their DOJ vs. Freedom To Innovate website. It's a hoot and a hollar if you ask me.
Man, it was a pain just trying to get into slashdot to read about this...all thanks to a million AC's who are busy posting strings of "Micro$oft $ucks."
If the rest of company behaved like the hardware company, they wouldn't be in this mess (and neither would the rest of the computer industry that depends on them).
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
1) Split up into two companies is based on what the two portions of the company were doing as of Apr 27, 2000
..."
We all know they're going to sneak in some code and claim it was already in, due to some product release they had in Test Release, which they shipped to DevNet. Count on it.
3) The OS company cannot know OEMs for supporting other OS's, OEM's can change the boot up sequence.
The OS company will just happen to overhear them at a party. Surprise, surprise. Something like: "Ah do deeclare, them Compaq licenses sure do remind me of a hot summer day in the Redmond swamp. Who will rid me of this OEM? My, but it would be such a shame if they should happen to fall upon misfortune
Also, the boot sequences will just happen to stop working when they do change them. What a coincidence.
6) MS has to create an internal position to monitor antitrust compliance within the company (boy, there's a sucky job...)
I'll volunteer. I don't work for them, but I do own stock and live in Seattle. [yeah, I know, stop griping, so I save 20% of my salary - don't you?]
Will in Seattle
We all knew it was coming, but it's still kind of a shock. This might lead to more platforms running (what used to be) MS apps, but that doesn't affect me. It might lead to more compitions, but I already work for the compition (remember kids... the right free software job pays quite nicely.) This is big news... but somehow I feel that in 10 years, it won't matter so much.
In the meantime, though, wow.
it's green.
So that means that MS cannot update the kernel in such a way as make any API obsolete or perform worse if any Windows apps still use it?
That's one way to read it. In intent, I think it's supposed to discourage changes which are *intended* to disrupt the middleware vendor --- and MS could probably work around it by inviting the middleware vendor in and offering to help them update their software to deal with the API change.
Breaking them up isn't the answer. Just because Microsoft is good at what they do(marketing, not programming) doesn't mean that they should be punished. I saw a suggestion on the last Microsoft story to open source them, or any monopoly, so that the playing field would be leveled.
Click here
Good for cnet's standards, of course. I guess I'll "bookmark" the writers, Ben Heskett and Mike Yamamoto.
Sigged!
Or maybe it's just me...
Capt. Ron
crazy dynamite monkey
The OS group would be at about $17/share, with earnings in the three-quarters of a dollar range.
The Applications group would be about $40/share, with earnings above a dollar per share.
What will be most interesting is to witness the impact this has on other stocks. If the WIndowsOS is only worth $17, then what's BeOS worth? Bugger all... (and this is, perhaps, accurately reflected in its current pricing).
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
anything that isn't part of the court's definition of OS goes to the other company. Anything that is in both comapnies goes to the app co and OS co gets a free license to use the tech indefinitely. That's from this afternoon's ruling.
Cris E
St Paul, MN
I would be interested to see if they can now "Innovate" now that they can't collaborate between their operating system and operations. Now that they can't hide calls in their operating system fo r their applications to use, I will be interested to see if their applications will be as fast. Also, now that their applications will not be solely linked to their operating system, will we be seeing ports to other OSs? Will billy boy start programming for Linux instead of their OS? To increase their marketing base?
JoeLinux
These are My opinions. They will not be Your opinions until the orbital mind control lasers are in place.
As usual the bulk of slashdot posters seem to be missing it. Of *course* splitting Microsoft up is going to be good. You are forgetting you are taking the most powerful software company in the world and making it into two... each no where near as powerful as the previous one.
F /...
Whats going to happen? Each one is going to want to be the "Microsoft" that wins from the breakup. They will do everything needed to become better than the other part... the same that happened with the baby bells.
Eventually you will see the APP group either supporting every operating system there is in the world... or writing their own. Same with the OS group. These are proud people who have suddenly seen their value and lot changed don't think they won't fight to get it back.
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
he should retire, go out on top. Before he proves that without a monopoly... he's a nobody.
1) If you actually think that this ruling will stop Microsoft from abusing their monopoly position, you have another think coming.
It will take several years before this even happens (if?), and by then it will be quite too late.
2) I know, I know, it's been said a million times. But Linux has already pushed a lot of Microsoft's market share out the window (no pun intendid). Apache/PHP vs. IIE/ASP? No Contest. Things like this may not completely succeed, but they'll move a lot faster than the U.S. Gov.
My only worry is that people are stupid and everything will go to pot.
But that's pretty much my worry no matter what.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
The ultimate irony would be for someone to write a new outlook virus that distributes a copy of the court order to each computer before propagating itself. Any script kiddies working on it yet?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
In a stunning decision, judge Grand Pohbah handed down a ruling punishing M$ for their illegal tying of words. Analyst: M$'s strategy is simple: first they embrace a word - say "Innovate." Then they start to extend it, adding "right to" and making it apply to things that previously never fell under the header of "inovate." The resulting "Inovation" is incompatible with anyone else's, but by that point the M$ inovation is a defacto standard, and OSM (Origional Sentance Manufacturers) are tied into the scheme.
"The company said the provisions would force Microsoft to redesign its operating system and open up its source code. What's more, the company said the proposal may force employees out the door because Microsoft workers, may of whom are engineers accustomed to precision in the ascertainment of objectively verifiable facts, wouldn't be able to understand the new rules."
No, I think many may agree with me, the IE does not have as much value as you say...especially over the 2 portions. Remember:AOL is out of the CONTRACT or whatever they had with Microsoft (i dont know what it was, doesnt matter anyway), and now the world's largest ISP's browser (as well as the worst) will be Netscape...this brings usage of IE down dramatically. Damn, I imagine we all expected the overwhelming user response to this, this will EASILY surpass the previous records, and it goes to Emmett, very smooth...
Bincrypt (bincrypt.com) Curiosity killed the monkey.
Today's big new is that Judge Jackson issued his ruling, agreeing with the DoJ on practically every point.
Remember, the case is DoJ vs. MSFT, with federal judge Thomas P. Jackson as the final arbiter. Well, at least Jackson was the final arbiter -- now, it's up to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court (depending on whether the DoJ requests a "fast track" appeal and whether Jackson agrees to it).
- Richie
e.g. directX - this is an obscure interface to ensure that games HAVE to be written for Windows. That's why they give it away for free- its not out of the goodness of their heart- its because it locks games into Windows. hint: what OS do most of your friends have on their PCs? Bet it isn't Linux... "I only use Windows to play games."
'Regardless, the Court of Appeals has historically been more favorable toward Microsoft than Judge Jackson, so I have no doubts Microsoft will WIN their appeal'
Lets just say that if they do it will be the biggest legal upset since OJ Simpson. The case is overwhelming. It would taking a simply amazing screw up on behalf of Judge Jackson for them to get away with it.
"You think Microsoft-Apps will port Office to Linux? Why would they?"
If they think they can make money that way then of course they will- that arm of the company couldn't before because the company overall would have lost money.
There are companies out there installing Linux right now. If the market gets big enough- they will have to. It's the only way they can ensure their continued monopoly for one thing...
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Does anyone else see judge T.P. Jackson as Mickey Mouse in Fantasia?
MS as the broom(s)?
MS' lawyers as the buckets?
The court as the well?
Appeals as the water?
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Breaking them up isn't the answer. Just because Microsoft is good at what they do(marketing, not programming) doesn't mean that they should be punished. I saw a suggestion on the last Microsoft story to open source them, or any monopoly, so that the playing field would be leveled.
-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-
At one point, I had commented that MS should not expect cover from George W. Once Microsoft was convicted even GW would not want to touch the spoiled food. I was mistaken.
Politics are about to decide the outcome. Consider that Bill and his buddies have gotten over there disdain for Washington (D.C. that is). They have billions to spend on lobbying and who cares if they have to report doing it. So many Americans are cynical about government anyway, the expect lobbyists to buy it.
Now Consider:
George W. rules, he will send the DOJ to work on more significant issues concerning the American public. Bill G. is very thankful and shows his respect by paying for the next billion dollar election.
Al G. rules, he will keep the DOJ plugging away because he has inherited this legacy, but does not want to talk about it. Perhaps Bill G. could stop by the next fund raiser so he could explain how unhappy he is with Microsoft.
Congress sees a sudden influx of election capital to spend. Gee, Bill's boys are not bad, they were just confused and misunderstood. What we really need to understand is where the DOJ is spending our money. And we do not want anyone making allegations until we "clean our own house". A nice 16 year audit should do the trick.
Even the politicians who were earlier demanding Microsoft be penalized and strung up (i.e. Orrin Hatch), now wonder if perhaps the DOJ has not been a little over zealous. Maybe we just need to understand them better. So much for providing cover.
I was hoping we would see Jackson take the short route and use Microsoft's own words. Fast track it to the Supreme Court because, as Microsoft has said, this will adversely impact the economy and the US. Seems like an immanent reason to send it past the appeals process and get to a resolution, without the politics.
I was reading the Wall Street Journal and they made a couple interesting comments about sending the appeal right to the Supreme Court. First, the DOJ cannot make this request. It must come from the U.S. Solicitor General. Second the Supreme Court does not have to accept the case at this point.
On another note, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has already overturned a similar ruling by Judge Jackson.
... this time it's not their stock!!!
No one is really going to be free until nerd persecution ends.
Okay, I'll bite:
"Microsoft'sflagship product, Windows, was developed completely in-house."
From "Barbarians Leb by Bill Gates" by Jennifer Edstrom and Marlin Eller:
For example, the group had originally designed their own scroll bar, but it wasn't like the Mac's. With the Windows scroll bar, people got an extra visual representation. The thumb on the right-hand side of the page changed size based on how much of the document they were seeing. With the Mac, the thumb size didn't change. "That's not compatible with the Mac," Gates said. "It's got to be like the Mac." Other features that had been designed into Windows under McGregor were also being questioned. No matter if they were better, if they weren't like the Mac, Gates wanted them taken out. So the scroll bar was changed to match the Mac's.
joel
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
Ouch, 63rd post. That's got to hurt.
-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-
Wake up man, you're wrong.
With a broken up Microsoft, MS(OS) will now be able to come out with a MicrosoftLinux, and add innovation, which will leave the other distributions scrambling. Oh, and wait, who has more trust from the masses? Microsoft or Redhat or Debian or Slackware? What becomes the most popular distro? KDE/GNOME et al. See ya.
Oh, and what about MS(Apps)? Microsoft Office for Linux? Yes. Corel? out of business. KOffice? "Why? We have office!"
I hope the community is not so smug in their view of the judgement.
----------------
Programming, is like sex.
This has the potential to really change things. The one really brilliant piece of the ruling that I have not seen publicized enough is that one company will get Windows, and the other will get all the development tools.
This means that Windows, Inc will finally have to fully document their APIs. The tools to code for Windows will be in the hands of someone else. This means that anyone wanting to port gcc, yacc, or whatever will have the same level of access to the internals that the applications company will have.
It doesn't go as far as forcing them to open up the Office file formats, but this will make tricks like the Kerberos nonsense much harder to pull off.
Outlook is part of Office. Do we really want Outlook for Linux? VBS SUX!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Since the OS company isn't allowed to have a special relationship to the Apps company this is effectively what should happen. The OS company will have to provide the APIs to everyone including the Apps company the same way.
This of course assumes that they won't try to get around this in some sneaky way, this is another reason they are separate companies supposedly this will make the two companies have different and possibly divergent goals.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
2) The 2 NewCo. may not recombine, enter into Joint Ventures, provide APIs to each other that are not available to other ISVs.. or basically collude.
Which brings up an interesting question: what happens to further development on COM/COM+? The technology is *integral* to the functioning of the office products; it's also, in recent years, been repositioned to be essential to the operating system as well.
Under the literal terms of the judgement, the shared IP goes to the office division --- which may make sense legally, but is absurd technologically.
I wonder if this is part of why Visual Studio 7 has been so delayed?
Starting DOJ-OS...
C:/> DIR
Volume in drive C is JANETRULEZ
Volume Serial Number is C0ED-BABE
Directory of C:/
MICROS~1 6.66E666 01-01-80 12:00a Microsoft
C:/> DEL MICROS~1
Corrupt File Microsoft
(A)bort (R)etry (I)gnore (F)ail? R
Error Reading File Microsoft
(A)bort (R)etry (I)gnore (F)ail? I
Unprintable Error In File Microsoft
(A)bort (R)etry (I)gnore (F)ail? F
Error On INT 24
C:/>
---
Some things never change, as much as we would like them to...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
If the breakup does go through, I am willing to bet on these two names for the companies:
1. Microsoft - Applications
2. Windows - OSes
They are going to want to both have a pre-existing name identity.
EC
"...we are moving toward a Web-centric stage and our dear PC will be one of
EverCode
Microsoft is already going to lose. All of us are making sure of that. Why let the government set the rules of this game? Whenever they do, the folks who line their pockets get the rules they want. It's just insanity to let government infringe on the industry that has made this country richer than it ever imagined it could be.
I don't like it. And I'm not convinced that this isn't going to open the door to even more regulation of the computer industry. Government people are never satiated. They start a feeding frenzy and don't stop until they've killed an industry (i.e. railroads in the US) or regulated it to a place where they hold all the cards (i.e. power, airlines, door to door letter mail, etc.).
Is that really where we want our industry to end up? Under the thumb of power hungry bureaucrats with no skill or knowledge except how to claw their way to the top of the Washington dung heap...
It's not where I want us to be.
self interest
According to the ruling, they all go with the "applications" company.
The Operating Systems co, is just operating systems. Everything else goes the other way.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Both Gore and Bush have publicly stated that they are against these proceedings. Once they put in their own AG it's all over.
We've heard this before and it is total BS. There are also 19 state attorney generals who are co-plaintiffs in the case. Even if a new USAG is named, the 19 state AGs would have to agree to any modification. Not that anyone can at this point. The judge has entered a final order. Barring him being overturned on appeal, the proverbial fat lady has sung.
But, even more importantly, this will all be settled before a new AG is named. The SCotUS will hear the appeal in the fall and rubber stamp the decision. Microsoft is going down.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Disclaimer: Those attempting to state opinions on Judge Penfield's ruling without actually having read said document may look like morons.
I'm seeing quite a few people bringing up their usual knee-jerk responses that they've been using for this thing for the last year or so; which is odd since the good judge has acknowleged most of these opinions in his statement.
Seriously, it's written in a minimum of legalspeak, and isn't too long. I think he does a very good job of explaining his decision in a way that most people can understand.
Yes, I am a contractor working at a Microsoft Site. No, I am not a Microsoft employee. The local site happens to have scheduled a Blues Festival to happen next week at one of their Dallas Locations.
<p>
Based on the posted fliers, this appears to be the beginning of an annual tradition. I wonder if it is meant to commemorate anything?
There is a very large difference between "bundled with" and "integrated into".
MS bundled IE with Windows for years and nobody cared. It was when they tried to claim that it was an integral and necessary part of Windows, and punish vendors who promoted any other browser, that this started.
~ I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere.
It's called Star Office and is freely available from Sun. It's got your word processor, spreadsheet, email, calendar/schedular feature, and powerpoint, AND, from what I've heard from other techwriters, it converts MSWord documents without a hitch. -Xatharine
MS wouldn't know innovation if it bit it on their collective asses.
Windows Media Technology is a solid system. WMT is a better live video stream than RealMedia (at least up until RealMedia 8, but I'm still evaluating that recent release).
And I hate to say it, but MFC is one of the better low-end fast-prototyping programming systems I've ever seen.
where were you when Standard Oil was broken up?
Yeah, Standard Oil was terrible - it expanded outputs enormously, innovated continuously, and generally lowered prices for consumers. The price of kerosene dropped from 50 cents per gallon to six cents per gallon from 1860 to 1890. There were 147 competing independent oil refineries when Standard Oil was broken up.
With Microsoft, at least there is the suggestion that there might be some innovation held back. Standard Oil just made oil cheaper and more available.
Most anti-trust decisions were anti-consumer. Such as the American Tobacco Company, broken up despite a decrease in cigarette prices. US Steel dropped steel prices the decade before it was indicted for monopoly activities. Alcoa was indicted for monopolizing the primary ingot aluminum business, despite the fact that there were plenty of scrap aluminum recyclers, and Alcoa reducing the price of aluminum by 90%.
Please read Antitrust Policy: Reform or Repeal for more information.
This means that OS can continue to use COM without restrictions, they just don't own it :) I don't see what the problem is?
COM is a half-finished technology, essentially; who gets to work on future developments, and what kind of licensing scheme works out of it?
... spend tons of money trying to clone Bill Gates ;-)
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
Yep, and the guy who was supposedly in charge of the demo testified repeatedly that it was the same computer. Until Boies pointed out that the icons suddenly changed - at which point he said he wasn't there when the demo was being recorded.
It's not so much that the court pointed out that it wasn't good evidence - the MS employee made *false* claims about the evidence, under oath. You may think it was a mistake; you may think it was a lie. But it was a lot more serious than the court merely saying "it's not very strong evidence".
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Of course, what's really funny is that the CNN link ended up pointing me to the MS web site to read the ruling....where all the subsections are numbered, rather than 1,a,ii....so you can't follow the references. The GPO link has the HTML done correctly.....
nal 11
The point of anti-trust law is not that large successful companies are bad, but that large successful companies can use their size bully their competitors, throw up barriers to entry, stifle innovation, and generally be not very nice.
But none of this happens. I run over 10 operating systems at home. There is no barrier to entry, and no barrier to competition. You may have heard of an operating system known as "Linux" which would not exist if there was a barrier to entry since it was developed with almot no capital.
The ruling recognizes the fact that Microsoft was acting to the detriment of consumers and of market forces. To violate anti-trust law you have to be hurting consumers (killing Dr. Dos, trying to kill Netscape, price fixing, compelling OEMs to exclucively carry their product, forced product bundling, etc.).
The only thing in the findings of fact that the judge said hurt consumers was the fact that Microsoft tried to get rid of technology such as Java. There is no evidence that trying to compete against DR-DOS, Netscape, etc. hurt consumers.
The whole irony of netscape is that netscape themselves were a monopoly before IE. Before IE, Netscape was like 95% of the market, MS enters, and it drops down to 50%, and netscape goes crying to the to police. It sounds more like netscape was trying to kill MS to me.
So driving Dr. Dos into the ground wasn't persecution? Burying DESCView was lauding innovation? Blocking startups from entering the playing field increases innovation? Hell's frozen over as well then?
MS drove DEQSview into the ground because it has a superior product (Windows). This is good for consumers because they get a better product. You want to use a text-based multitasker? You think it is bad for consumers that one company innovates (golly-gee!), creates a graphical multitasker (Windows), and puts the textbased one out of business? I suppose you also think that the introduction of the lightbulb was unfair and a detriment to consumers because all of the candlemakers went out of business.
Other way around. Now technology may (finally) be guided by the marketplace, rather than on the whims of Microsoft.
Nope ... technology is owned by the government now. With this precedent they get to decided what's in the consumer's best interest, the consumers don't get to decide any more.
I may be wrong, but this deal seems to have a time limit on it. After 10 years (or something), MS is free to be reborn as an even bigger monster.
it's green.
Well... I guess this was inevitable considering all the hype around the case. My question is, even if this does go through and Microsoft doesn't appeal (which I'm assuming it will), will this in fact be beneficial for the industry as a whole? I'm not just talking about competition, which the plaintiffs made a key issue in the case; I'm talking in terms of decentralisation of all the industry momentum that was merged into the "old Microsoft".
Does this mean that we will finally see an increase in software quality and a decrease in prices? If this happens, I'd tip my hat to the justice department and the government as a whole.
It will no longer be true that MS is not the biggest fish in the ocean, but instead that MS *is* the ocean, as one of Andrew Schulmann's "Undocumented" books stated.
Hurray!
But it also would help drive the Linux desktop market. And that would be a good thing to get Linux a larger market share and more widespread acceptance.
Strange bedfellows, yes.. but no stranger than the announcement that Perl and Python are going to become part of Visual Studio 7.
Check out Magic Firesheep!
Idiot.
>The unsuccessful are rewarded, and the successful are put to death.
The point of anti-trust law is not that large successful companies are bad, but that large successful companies can use their size bully their competitors, throw up barriers to entry, stifle innovation, and generally be not very nice.
>No longer is the consumer important, but just its competitors.
The ruling recognizes the fact that Microsoft was acting to the detriment of consumers and of market forces. To violate anti-trust law you have to be hurting consumers (killing Dr. Dos, trying to kill Netscape, price fixing, compelling OEMs to exclucively carry their product, forced product bundling, etc.).
>No longer is innovation lauded, but persecuted.
So driving Dr. Dos into the ground wasn't persecution? Burying DESCView was lauding innovation? Blocking startups from entering the playing field increases innovation? Hell's frozen over as well then?
>No longer is technology guided by the marketplace, but on the whims of its competitors.
Other way around. Now technology may (finally) be guided by the marketplace, rather than on the whims of Microsoft.
I feel the need to repeat myself: idiot.
I think it would be safe to say that MicroSoft's flagship product is Windows 2000, and that, like NT, was (as I understand it) derived from VMS and OS/2.
:)
I think it's a great day to be American, especially when that day is the every once in a while the justice system gets it right. Question is, will Bill become Canadian?
just my blog and pix
This very vaguely reminds me of a MAD magazine joke about splitting up the USSR: Instead of one country with enough nukes to destroy the world 70 times, we have 70 countries each able to destroy it once.
Extremely irrelevant.
Regardless of the breakup MS will still carry on with its:
[MS-html] nonsense [/ms-html]
[ms-xml] Complete nonsense [/ms-xml]
Still - better than no action at all.
Who knows where we'll be in one and a half years anyway?
James
So what's to prevent the two new companies from poking holes in their firewalls for each other and sharing information informally?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Oh mygosh people! Don't you see! Its ALL LIES to get you to let down your gaurd! This is just a trick.. like one o'them trojan thingies! While you're out drinkin' your free-beer celebratin' and stuff, MicroSoft will be quietly breakin' up the US Government! Don't let it happen! STAY alert! Mustnt fall asleep. . . Think of the poor lil' chilrens!
-
Starsucks
It will be years and years before this gets enforced.
Not a chance. The breakup is scheduled for 1 year from today. It will happen on time. I predict that this will be appealed directly to the Supreme Court which will rubber stamp the decision this fall. The finding of fact is hugely damaging. The SCotUS will review the finding, but not challange it. The finding of law is equally strong. It will stand on appeal. This case was prepared to be appealed. It will stand because it is all true.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Uhm.. What if they move to Canada now?
Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/14229.conf'
Geocrawler error message.
So now what?
/.'ers.
Unfortunately, I don't understand business politics... but what difference does it make?
Can't the 2 Microsoft companies still cooperate to produce, if they so desired, the exact same (half-assed, market-oriented) products that they have been all along? Does "breaking up a company" even mean the employees have to swap cubicles? I don't see how.
Looking foreward to opinions posted to this article from the more business-savvy
-Mikey
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.61 [en] (Win98; I) [Netscape]">
At least the feds didn't use microsoft when they handed down their ruling! Well, actually half way. Still used Win98, they're half way there.
Do any of you people, hear your congressmans
saying to Bill that he was the most innovator
in the industry of this country !!.
Sorry guys, you are lost.
and Bill would rule, or he is doing that now !!!
Overlord
Yeah, even the idea of a megamonopoly was stolen from standard oil company.
-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-
"No longer is innovation lauded, but persecuted. The unsuccessful are rewarded, and the successful are put to death. Truly a sad, sad day to be an American."
I had that argument with my ex-girlfriend today.(Yes, we still talk. It was a nice breakup.) She claims that Microsoft is being punished for being successful and that they make the best products. They're easy to use. She stipulated that the reason that Microsoft is so successful is because nobody else could do any better. Of course, part of the problem is that 90% of the software she uses is Microsoft. She even had the gall to tell me that Macs are hard to use!
joel
ps-I still love her. I just don't see myself being happy with such a person.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
From page 3, bold added by me.
hehehe... I'd like to see a graph that shows how much is rational...
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
The DOJ made it's decision to ASK for the breakup of MSFT a long, long time ago. TODAY the JUDGE ruled that MSFT must be broken up (pending appeals, of course).
Please, change the embarrassing heading!
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
:( (frown for ya.. hehe..)
Hey I agree the whole Kerberos thing is a crock. As a matter of fact any Microsoft product or technology that reduces cross-platform compatibility where there is already a standard is evil (ActiveX, JScript, DirectX, etc.. to name a few). Unfortunately, Kerberos is just another instance of Microsoft being monopolistic.
I personally make it a point to learn programming languages and techniques which are cross platform.. even if there is a little more legwork. I program all of my webpages to look nice in Netscape. I learned PHP (not VBScript) when I wanted database access tools. Although I use WinNT as my main box at home. I develop with and frequently use another Linux box for all of my other stuff (webpage, database, php, mp3 server, file server, etc...). I am also currently developing Palm Applications at work on a Linux box I setup. I've been dabbling with Linux since '95 (Slackware), but did not get the hardware funds for a dedicated box until '98 (I'm in college). Also, I don't buy any DirectX only games gotta have OpenGL (hear that game devs!). I'll stop there. Thanks to everyone who posted comments to my original article. I have been enlightened to say the least.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
The remedy is going to have an astoundingly large affect on the software industry, and by extension on the nation as a whole. A beneficial effect? Probably, but there are many, many wrinkles to consider. If these aren't to be examined and ironed out during the sentencing phase, then when? Is the Government's plan to be accepted and implemented as is, without any input from the rest of the industry?
Speculative or not, extensive discussion should be mandatory for actions this large, with ramifications this extensive. Jackson's "the Government won, so they don't have to take MS's thoughts into account" position isn't as valid when the case at hand goes beyond simple justice against wrongdoing.
Also, while anti-trust law does allow for the fast-track proceeding, the current Supreme Court still has the right of refusal, and they haven't shown themselves to be very amenable to direct appeals recently. I can't recall any such appeal going to them in the past term, even for equally groundshaking cases like U.S. vs. Morrison (the Virginia rape case).
Microsoft Bob
Ummm, that's about all I can think of.
Oh yeah, the paper clip in Office 2000.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Linux, on the other hand, is not differentiated. You can run Apache on your workstation. I remain unconvinced, but unless you think it important, I'm not inclined to belabor the point. This is a long enough post already. :-)
A monopoly doesn't mean there isn't ANY choice. It means that there is little, that the switching cost is extremely high, and that a company has virtual control over a market.
There is plenty of choice, switching cost for the cool stuff is zero, and I'm not sure the word "market" is even wholly applicable here.
The choice is mostly between something which sucks and something outstanding... I won't say which is which, but Windows isn't the latter. ;-)
Switching from something costly to something free is hardly an argument. Sure, for a large organization it can be very expensive, but that's neither the fault of MS nor Linux, nor of FreeBSD, etc. Asking the DOJ for help because your company can't make the transition, and they'd rather force their present platform vendor to change its ways is absurd.
And even talking about "control over a market" seems very strange in this context, because we're lumping together the supply of both free and non-free items. Let's say Debian winds up on 90% of the computers world-wide (oh, please, God, pleeease!), and nobody buys Debian disks, they just download it. If Windows is installed on the remaining 10%, Microsoft has 100% control over the market for operating systems. I would find it difficult to say, under such a circumstance, however, that MS had a monopoly from which the public needed protected.
Anti-trust legislation isn't about keeping one company from dominating a market, it's about protecting consumers from artificially inflated prices and making sure they have choices. Microsoft can neither raise the price of operating systems generally, nor prevent people from using high-quality alternatives.
There are *always* alternatives to any monopoly other than food, water, shelter. You can walk, rather than use the oil/electric monopoly. Use a radio rather than a landlocked phone. Use carrier pidgeons, Write a letter, etc.
By this analogy, perhaps I could grant that Microsoft has a dangerous monopoly on the supply of carrier pidgeons. :-)
I think you misunderstand the application of Monopoly/Antitrust law. Its *not* illegal to have a monopoly.
I understand this quite well.
It *is* illegal to *leverage* that into *new* markets. Slightly subjective, granted, but Microsoft's argument is easily compared to a defendant arguing that "assault is subjective" when the victim was beaten within an inch of its life.
Here's where I think you fail to understand Monopoly/Antitrust law. Netscape is not the victim. These laws are not put in place to protect Netscape. They are put in place to protect the consumers. And the end users, the alleged victims, certainly have not been beaten within an inch of their lives. In fact, they're better off than they were before... though certainly through no charitable impulse on the part of Microsoft.
Did they drop the price of their monopoly product? No. Their monopoly product was threatened - and so they entered a new market - with the express intent to damage compitition in that market (which might have affected their monopoly market) - and gave THAT away.
What they basically did was to destroy the browser market completely. Now we don't have to pay for Netscape or IE, and the act spawned Mozilla, which is a far greater boon to the people than either of the others. All of which happened without the DOJ's help. Not exactly the sort of thing which makes me feel dependent upon the government for my protection.
They aren't being punished for having a monopoly -but for keeping competitiors/things that could have upset that - from realizing.
Supposedly, they're not being punished at all. Antitrust laws aren't punititve. Supposedly they're being broken up to protect the consumers.
But without those laws, we WOULDN"T BE TYPING HERE! :) AT&T wouldn't see the need for all these datalines. 56K is surely enough for anybody, right?
Without the laws which made Bell a government-mandated monopoly in the first place, an antitrust action wouldn't have been necessary.
IBM would have most of the computer market under their thumb, and who needs client/server?
Are you kidding?? IBM had a market share of 65% at the beginning of the case! The case was dismissed after 13 years because it was totally irrelevant. That's a sad testiment to the nature of big government, not big business.
That is supreme irony. :)
No... the supreme irony is that the US government is almost solely responsible for creating US monopolies.
Market based economics fail in the real world, sadly.
This is the real source of our differences. I don't believe that for one minute. The only alternative I feel I need to provide is freedom.
Additionally - thinking a law is unjust does not justify flaunting it.
Sure it does.
Well, ok, it usually doesn't. I've argued this point here before. But there are, to me, clear examples of laws which need broken. Rosa Parks flaunted a law, and it was a deed well done IMHO. Ditto for the folks who staged The Boston Teaparty. And I would argue that nearly any law of a Fascist or Communist government should be flaunted at any opportunity.
Microsoft's attitude is still "We did nothing wrong". (Funny, considering without those laws, they wouldnt' exist).
Again, I think this is totally untrue. The latter part, I mean.
Not that the laws are wrong, that they did nothing wrong.
I daresay, if you asked them privately, they would certainly tell you they thought the laws were wrong. That's simply not a viable tact to take in court.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
The header says it all.
Not only has he been incredibly tourough and acute. But he seems to be one of the rare judges that still distinguish between the public good and the corporate good.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
M$ isn't getting split simply because they are big. They are getting split because they used their position as a monoploy in illegal ways. They could have remained a big powerful monopoly forever if they simply refrained from illegal tactics. They had plenty of chances to become compliant with the law, yet thumbed their noses at all of them. The basic princples of anti-trust law aren't all that complex. Their team of pedigreed lawyers are perfectly capable of compehending whether a given action is probably in violation. I imagine that the orders from the top were to either 1) ignore the sherman act since it can't possibly apply to a software company (what-ever!) and/or 2) figure out how to get away with as much as possible while still being able to have some sort of technicality based defence (kinda like the kids who fill in random numbers on their math homework and claim that they "did" their homework)
There are other huge monoploies that are not AFAIK not participating in illegal activity. The justice dept. may check up on them once in a awhile but doesn't go after them. Although, I think that threatened monopolies are very tempted to violate anti-trust law, rather than loose market share (*cough* intel *cough*)
I believe that we have the Regan administration to thank for all the media mergers (might be Bush though). FCC regulations were severly weakened in the 1980's allowing for the media merger madness of the last few decades. Unfotunately, these mergers allow for conlicts of interest and fiscal streamlining that seriously degrade the quality of journalism, without violating anti-trust law. The print and TV news has gone from crappy to downright embarrassing in my (short) lifetime and I shudder to think of what it will look like when I'm elderly.
btw, the court can decide to fast-track any apeals directly to the supreme court. whether this will happen hasn't been announced yet. some speculate that it will fast track since M$ will appeal for-e-ver if need be and a speedy resolution would benefit customers, competitors and the economy.
for names i vote for "crap" and "more crap"
- bridgette
This case is so exceptional that it proves its own opposite.
Assume M$ is broken. What do we have? A company that everyone who new something new was predatory a decade ago ( at least since Wordperfect went belly up ) is given its just deserve. But under what circumstances?
1. 10 years delay.
2. A shoot-yourself-in-the-foot defense team.
3. A prosecution leader that is so good the government cannot afford.
4. A very exceptional judge.
Essentially, if you aren't as heinous as M$, and you hire a decent law firm, and you have an average judge, you can get away with enough predatory behaviour to make a pack of wolves blush.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Guess how Thomas Penfeild Jackson got his job...
He was appointed by gool ol' Ronnie "The bombing starts in five minutes...half the worlds's in the grip of an evil empire" Reagan.
Somehow, I doubt that he'd appoint a communist to a federal bench.
john
Imagine all the people...
The Bill is dead.
...and now we have the baby-Bill's. Any bets to see how long it takes before Microsoft East puts out a Linux version of Office? Or for that matter, before Microsoft West includes drivers for Windows that can read ext2fs partitions natively?
Breaking up Microsoft into two companies may not be the perfect way to handle the situation, but I have a feeling that, individually, they might start being more friendly towards Linux/OSS. And that would be a Good Thing(TM).
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I can sort of see that the siblings will have reason to compete, but I can't imagine MS-AP porting anything to another OS, ever. They probably see each other as enemies, but everyone else as much worse enemies.
imho they'll likely try to act like one company (in strategy) as much as possible. Maybe MS-OS can't write secret APIs, but what's to stop them from writing the PaperClip API, that any application can use if it wants to animated a paperclip on the screen. And that API would be open to everyone, just, because of trademark issues, unusable to anyone except MS-AP, etc.
Thus, you can't get the magic cookie that PaperClipAPI returns and you can't use SpellCheck or any other nice fast useful (for word processor) APIs built into the system. It'd be just like now with hidden APIs except that trademark law would prevent the use.
And if they couldn't do that, they'll try something else. And if everything they try involved them being dragged into court for a minimum of six months to force them to change, we'll be in the same stagnant situation we are now, where MS-AP and MS-OS help each other by killing any competition.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Justice Department official said on Wednesday the United States would ask the Supreme Court to directly review the Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - news) ruling in an effort to reach a ``quick and effective resolution'' of the case.
the real at&t mix
Plums Per Liter ? Is this about plum brandy? Does Microsoft make that, too? I'm confused.
i pretty much agree. not much really changed with the breakup of at&t. it just made smaller regional monopolies, who act like any other monopoly and the FCC could really care less. look at DSL and the constant rise in prices and service fees. M$ won't change. The market will have to change it's interests for M$ to change. Unix and other alternatives have to utilized more.
1.
The fact that there is competition does not preclude MS from being a monopoly. You're a monopoly when you do not have to 'keep up with the joneses.' MS doesn't have to improve its products - it can merely require that anyone it does business with use MS software exclusively or not at all. The position of MS in the marketplace gives it the clout to be able to do this 99.44% of the time. That's why they're a monopoly.
And even being a monopoly is considered acceptable, provided that you don't use one monopoly to get another one. But MS did - OSes and content browsers are functionally seperate. Their IE strategy attempted to give IE as much of a monopoly as Windows. This has been illegal for a LONG time and MS knew it. They're not innocents.
2.
Stifling competition is considered to harm consumers. Monopolies aren't capitalists. They don't have to satisfy their customers. They only have to keep their customers from going somewhere else. This just isn't tolerated.
3.
The superiority of a product has nothing to do with the business practices. Windows is not being burned. MS is merely not being allowed to misuse it. If you like it you are still permitted to use it. No one's stopping you.
4.
These are the rules of doing business. MS knew that. No one forced MS to break them - they chose to do so and now they're suffering the consequences. And the govt. has had this (pretty rarely exercised in the big picture) power for a century. Oddly enough it's worked great in telecommunications, microcomputers, entertainment, petrochemicals, transportation, and a number of other fields.
I think you're ignoring the innumerable successes of antitrust because you can't stand the idea that it's possible for a business to harm the society it exists in, and that the society takes precedence.
-- 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.
Part of the problem with this ruling is that a logical-shift-right (er, that's division by two) doesn't make sense for a lot of the company.
:-)
Microsoft Press shouldn't be part of OS nor of Applications. It should stand alone. Likewise for Microsoft Hardware.
Anyway, the long and short of the idea that just struck me is that perhaps a LSR of MSFT is so unusable that it forces the company to break itself up however it best sees fit.
There's still the sticky issue of collusion and product tying, but it's much less likely with a umpteen-split company. Or, rather, less likely to be 'all in the family' instead of with whatever business offers the most money. Heck, the Linux community could kick in a buck each and buy the Apps division's cooperation in releasing Windows-incompatible APIs...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Microsoft has proved untrustworthy in the past.
Think the judge has been reading /.?
-Tommy
"I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
It appears that the internet / applications division will still be able to bastardize internet standards. Why wasn't the proposal altered as Jackson recommended to split MS into 3 companies?
Finally. I was a Borland zealot back in the dos days, but there C compilerer just didn't make it into the 32-bit world. Maybe now we'll get a free online help system instead of having to pay for the damn msdn.
Slashdot is populated by quite a few jackasses.
A new era, indeed. This is great guys. No more Evil Empire! Oh joy
Condition of the breakup.
MS has to create an internal position to monitor both antitrust compliance within the company, and the quantity of hot grits in Bill Gates' pants.
-Krypt0s
This is not the sig you're looking for.
For those who can't do PDF, here's the HTML version. Grab it before it gets slashdotted by the entire world.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Seriously, your tax dollars at work, improving competition.
...]
The last few decades, business wise, have been about companies merging into redicuously large entities, and not just Microsoft, but AOL/Time Warner, ABC/Disney, and others.
I just got my AOL/TW merger docs in the mail last night - I agree, mergers are getting out of hand, as well as the fees for them, the surrender percent of shares of each one, and how much kickback the execs get for the deal. I'm voting against most of these, with few exceptions (e.g. Pfizer).
Secondly, is it true or not true that the appeal will or can be pushed directly to the Supreme Court?
Yes. The DoJ and the judge can both short circuit this to the Supremes once MSFT appeals. I sure hope they do.
[note, I own MSFT, RHAT, AOL, and a lot of other companies interested in this trial, so I'm biased. Not sure how I'm biased, but I'm sure I am. Probably not getting invited to Bill's house any time soon, though
Will in Seattle
Whatever you call it, I just want to stand up in my cube and sing "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" over and over. :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
quick, all you day traders, sell! sell! sell! tomorrow's gonna be hell!
I am, therefore you think.
However, unless you are the CEO of Corel or Red Hat, you can only see the arival of "BalmerSoft GNU/Linux" and "BG-Office for Linux" to be a Good Thing.
Now we will see if open source and/or free software can really compete with closed source empires, based on merits alone.
My guess is that both baby-Bills will be big players in their markets, but not the only players, and might actually have to innovate for a change in order to stay afloat.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
It will be years and years before this gets enforced. The estimates I have heard are around 2 years for this to go through the appeals process. I just skimmed the ruling now, and it appears that Microsoft has a year after the final ruling to comply. I wonder if any lawyers here know if Microsoft still gets that year after the appeals are through, or is it 12 months or whenever the appeals are done, which ever comes last. Either way, expect 2 to 3 years for this break up to occur, if and only if Microsoft loses its appeals.
I think there is a good case to be made that they cannot extend the Kerberos standards without freely disclosing it to other developers. Although not explicit, its implied!
3.b. Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs --
-AND-
3.c. Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product without notifying the supplier of such non-Microsoft
Middleware in writing that Microsoft intends to take such action, Microsoft's reasons for taking the action, and any ways known to Microsoft for the supplier to avoid or reduce interference with, or the degrading of, the performance of the supplier's Middleware.
Instead of one monopoly, this decision creates two of them. You think Microsoft-Apps will port Office to Linux? Why would they? Breaking Windows into a seperate company doesn't make Linux any more profitable as a target platform.
Why would they? As one large monopoly, M$ has a significant interest in not porting applications to alternate operating systems as doing so potentially decreases the demand (read: market lock) for the OS.
By creating "Microsoft-Apps" and forbidding collusion between OS and Apps, Apps just might find that it is very much in their best interest to port applications to a wide variety of OSen.
There have been some talking heads on the TV saying just that.
:-) or how about jackson-sucks.com and bill-rules.com :-)
It seems M$ have exactly 4 months in which to declare if they are appealing. The appeals court then has one month to respond whether it will hear the case, deny it, or pass it directly to the supreme court. I expect the appeal to be filed tomorrow, so we could know in a month when the supreme court will get this.
The talking heads are mostly in agreement, the appeals court will drop this hot potato directly to the supreme court. No sense in allowing it to sit around continuing to harm the world economy. I would expect the supreme court will uphold much of what has come out today, but may redress some of the points like separating java from the OS, which is where it belongs.
But the americans had better vote in a democratic majority congress and democratic president, so that a slightly more liberal supreme court judge can get nominated soon. Hmmmmm, Al Gore is the lesser of two evils, when looked at from this angle.
2 names, now available : Wang, Digital
the AC
wait, are those smileys really necessary today
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Now it'll be interesting whether the case goes directly to the Supreme Court, and generally whether the judgment will stand.
I sure hope it will.
Got me, but first off you'll have to think of is as "platform group" and "apps groups". No so much OS groups. It would be very useful if the public could still get IE for free with Windows, also media player and well.. notepad and friends. OS's these days are expected to have apps. Look at any Linux distro, they don't come in a big box that says "Linux Kernel 2.2.14", they say "Redhat" and "Turbo" and come with lots (and lots and lots) of apps.
If you considered all the software that is "bundled" with most linux distros then you could put Office/BackOffice and Money all in the OS platform.
But that's not going to happen.
There are some groups that don't fit into either whichever way you look at it. MS Press and MS Hardware aren't even software companies, should they be in the OS or applications group? Maybe it would just be easyier to have one company do Win2k, WinMe and WinCE. And another company just does the rest.
But then you're back to. "what software comes with the OS?"
I don't think the government really thought about this, and if they did I don't think they really understood it. The break up is one of the stupid ways to "fix" Microsoft. I like the idea of opening API's, or Open Source.
The ruling is so idiotic that it may be the reason Microsoft wins the appeal (if they do). They will have a good case for "this isn't really possible, you'll need to think of something else".
-Jon
this is my sig.
everyone keeps talking about AOL/Time-Wasnet, but how about AT&T/MediaOne?? the FTC is making them sell off part of their Cable Internet access to keep them under the 30% rule
....There is nothing a Cattle Prod and a foot length of 7/8" satellite coaxial can't fix/
I just don't agree. By your argument you could start selling homemade copies of Windows without getting permission from MS to do that. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I don't think a judge in the land is going to rule that MS can't take action against you for illegal competition.
It's LEGAL competition that I think they aren't allowed to hinder.
-- 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.
It is for the application market. you don't use the same applications on a desktop computer and a server.
MS clearly has not a monopoly on server computer, there are numerous other operating systems, among which the different Unix (including free ones), MacOS X server now, Netware... (the other are more for bigger boxes like OS/400, VMS...)
But in the desktop space MS clearly has a monopoly, they have the most applications, and although there are replacement for most of the most important applications there is also the problem that it is harder to make a typical user switch than a computer expert.
And watch the way they are trying to leverage their desktop monopoly to have a server monopoly, most notably lately with the Kerberos trick.
I daresay, Linux is running quite a few more desktops than BeOS, mature or not.
Quite probably, but right now I think that BeOS would be easier to use for a typical John Windows user than Linux, if only for the greater consistency due to its younger age (they could avoid many pits the Unix folk couldn't and Linux difficultly could due to the Unix heritage).
However I also think this is changing, Linux is getting easier to use and that's good.
In any case, Windows is certainly not the only choice a person has for their desktop,
What other choice is there?
The overpriced Macs with less applications?
The hard to use Linux (for John Doe at least)?
The application lacking, wrongly viewed as niche market BeOS?
The almost defunct Atari (or should I say TOS) and AmigaOS?
Don't seem to be that much choice. What did I leave out? (however the situation is changing, but that doesn't chang ethe fact that right now they still are a monopoly)
so they're not a monopoly in that sense, at least. And as far as I can tell, that's the only sense in which the consumer needs any protection here.
That's not what the Sherman Act seems to say. I heard there were even antitrust suits against companies having as few as 40% of the market.
The problem is not to know whether the choice exist, but to know whether the choice is easy enough to prevent the company having the alleged monopoly to control the market.
Given that the price of computer hardware constantly dropped during the years while the price of Windows stayed about constant and given that MS doesn't have that much duplication costs (mostly OEM's and even that is nothing compared to the cost of duplicating a computer ;)) I think this is quite obvious that they have a monopoly.
And often, I'm told, if you are. Let me rephrase that... this one seems more nebulous than most. :-)
Ok, especially when you can't trust the pieces of evidence (I am particulary thinking about a given video tape).
The more I think and read about it, the more I think they're not. The Sherman Act... we're talking about a document intended to keep a company from limiting the supply of a physical good in order to raise prices.
Not exactly, this just was the most popular implementation of monopolistic practices at the time. The Sherman Act was more done to prevent a company having enough power to control a market to use this power to extend itself in another market.
It's being applied in a situation where the company in question is only too happy to produce as many copies of their software as anyone will buy...
Yeah, tell that to compaq. They want us to buy Windows (correction, to license it), true, but under their condition, and if we won't accept we won't have it. If they can afford to choose whether to sell it to us or not then they have a monopoly; in a competitive market you can't choose, you just try to sell the maximum of stuff at the bigger price you can.
and their great anti-competitive act was to drop their prices to zero! Something's amiss here.
Nope, and its not new either. It's called bait and switch. Make it attractive to buy first "look, it's free" and then when everybody use it and they killed the concurrence (because they have deeper pockets) they can safely raise the prices.
And if IE is part of Windows then it isn't free, the cost is simply hidden in the cost of Windows (which makes Windows slightly cheaper, if the total price is the same).
Yeah, they surely were guilty of all the antics you list. The real question, to me, is more about the power of the US Government than Microsoft's scruple shortage.
So you are saying that the State (including all the system, with the police and the legal system) should have the power to make laws but not to enforce them?
IIRC, the Sherman Act is quite different in that the plaintiff is not someone that has been directly touched by the defendant breaking the law but by the government (which are, in fact, only the representatives of those that are fucked up, the customers), but would you say that, say, you, shouldn't be able to sue Microsoft over IDONTKNOWWHAT? So you should be able to sue because you have been harmed but the government should not be able to protect those he represent?
Unless maybe you suggest that everybody should be able to bring an anti-trust suit? I think that would be worse because instead of dealing with one dangerous entity (the gov) you would have to deal with many (all the big companies).
Saying that MS flaunted the laws doesn't answer whether the laws are just.
Yup, that's right, but that doesn't say that they are unjust either, so your point is totally irrelevant.
What is relevent is "if MS should not be punished even thought they broke the law I shouldn't either be punished when I break the law and copy Windows".
With this characterization I totally disagree. The US Government is not our parent, and we are not its children. We are adults, governed, supposedly, by our own consent.
Its exact, but when you are a grown up you also have more responsability, and if you don't take them the drawback are bigger. This iswhat Bill Gates is learning right now.
Had I children, they would not be secure in their effects against search and seizure on my part. I would not hesitate to ask them self-incriminating questions, and demand answers. They would not be permitted to speak in any fashion they pleased. They are children, and are ruled by their elders, not governed by their elected peers.
Glad not to be your child.
Children don't have as much right as adults, right, but they still have some rights, and they should also gain more over the year when they grow into adults, otherwise they will never learn to be responsible, only to break the rules and try not to be caught (which doesn't mean that the rules shouldnt' be broken either, but you should take your responsability when doing so). But this si another discussion.
There is a growing paternalism in the US Government, which I find most offensive. They're not supposed to be protecting us from ourselves
I agree (drug war anyone).
or deciding who's naughty and scolding them back into the fold.
No, but they should decide, what is naughty. The anti-trust law is an exception in that they change their hat and take the hat of defending those they represent (well, ideally at least), but this is rather an exception.
This, however, is really the fault of the government. They're the ones who put you in jail, and who make and enforce unjust laws. So no, it's still not MS I have cause to fear, IMHO.
Nope, this is your fault. You did vote (or failed to, which is even worse) for those that vote the laws, like it is often said, write your congressman.
I don't include me directly in it because i am not American, not because I think I am better than other people in this respect.
This has come up elsewhere, so I believe I should have been clearer in my diction. No, they don't pick and choose, in the sense that they should never have discretionary power over enforcing laws. The role of the Legislature is to make clear, generally applicable laws. The role of the Executive is to bring charges, uniformly, without favor, against anyone who seems to violate those laws. The role of the Judiciary is to decide whether those laws have indeed been broken.
Then change the constitution so that corruption is made illegal (and not considered legal under the false guise of free speech and called lobbying).
t should never be the case that the Legislature makes laws which are vague, aimed against individuals, or which make the whole population criminal.
I agree, but it is a tradeoff. If the law is too specific it won't last long to the changes of the society and of technology, if it is too general, it is too vague and broad. You have to aim at the middle.
The Executive must not choose to prosecute one fellow but not another, according to their desires. Nor should the courts play favorites, or interpret law to suit their purpose. These things I mean by picking and choosing.
Given that MS already had problem with the DOJ but fucked them and given that I clearly think it is a case of antitrust violation (not to say, rape) I don't think they were chosen to please anyone, not even their competitor. Remember the number of politicians that said that it was bad for the image it gave to America, given the position of MS in the world.
Of course, that doesn't mean either that other companies do not deserve being sued too, there time will come.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
So you did. My mistake. Though actually, that's not necessarily a good thing... appointing the best person for the job, though harder to quantify, is the point.
i am not canadian, but i wish that our government embraced our population more like theirs do.
Oh, I'm sure they'd love to. It's just that people like me keep fighting against being embraced.
higher taxes yes, (though ontario's taxes on business will be 10% lower than all of it's neighbouring states next year)
God knows if their provincial taxes were as high as their national ones, they'd have no money left at all.
as for the infringements of personal liberty for the commom good, how would you classify our government's role in forcing a generation of young men into vietnam?
I'd classify it as "bad". More specifically, "really, really bad".
for the common good?
Neither for the common good, nor for liberty. It was a thing ill done. FWIW, I oppose (at least) peacetime draft.
i hear in canada they have government healthcare that everyone pays into. not perfect but recent studies showed that care there was on par with u.s. healthcare
The latter statement is, to say the least, controversial. At any rate, what I oppose about such a scheme is that (like Social Security here) it's not voluntary. I have no choice about it... if I decide not to put my money into it, the government comes and puts me in jail. Even if I pay, I am bereft of my choices within the health care system. Such a coercive system is offensive to me.
i will ask you very honestly: why do you need a gun? hunting, sport... but why handguns?
I will answer you honestly: whether I need handguns is not the point. I want handguns. I do not need to tell the government why I need something... it is enough that I want it, and am not hurting my neighbors.
I go out of my way (having lived in some pretty crummy places) to live in a rural setting, with little crime. I don't really need to lock my doors... some people even leave their keys in the ignition when they leave their cars. I certainly hope that in any case I would never need to use a handgun for violence against another person.
Why might I feel I needed one? Because my self-defense is my own responsibility... the courts have made it clear that a police officer need not risk his life for mine, and I don't know why I should expect him to anyway. Because I am often far from help... and the same can be said by people in NYC.
Why might I want one? Because I feel a responsibility, as a peaceful person, to participate in making my community more secure. Because I believe that my owning such a weapon might make the government ever-so-slightly less inclined to abuse its power. Because I believe that it symbolizes my dignity as a free person, governed by my own consent. Because I like the noise it makes.
i would be interested, entirely academically-- i'm not trying to bait you, on how you think that the canadian government restricts the personal liberty to an extent that doesn't seem to pay off in the long run.
I'm no expert on Canadian government, so I'm not sure my answer would be worth much. In any case, my answer would go astray of my real point. It's not whether it pays off... that presumes that one's freedom is not itself to be valued, that it is not an end in itself. I'm not interested in being house-slave, even if it's a posh position.
you want low expections? consider campaign finance spending
Consider free speech.
or the dealth penalty-- an abhorrent and illogical tool of the penal system
Abhorrent to you, maybe. And not illogical at all, from my perspective.
why are one out of five school children under-nourished in the richest country in the world?
I'm not familiar with this statistic, but I find it difficult to believe. Anyway, you'd might as well ask why any of them are mal-nourished, when they clearly needn't be. I don't know. I don't know enough about the problem. I do know that in most places you can get an adequate diet for free... I've done it.
why is our voter turn-out so low?
You presume that it should be higher. The point, IMHO, is that government should be irrelevant to most people's lives. But insofar as it's a measure of discontent, I'd say because government has been centralized so far that people don't feel they have any serious influence. They may be right.
why is literacy here so low?
A socialized, monopolistic educational system.
because of the extent of personal liberty over the common good?
Quite the contrary... because of misguided efforts to promote the common good at the expense of personal liberty. Or haven't you noticed that everything the government runs turns bad?
why do we have the highest incarceration rate in the west?
A single, simple cause: The War Against Drugs. Another egregious affront to liberty.
why so many school shootings?
A socialized, one-size fits all federal educational system which isn't much more than a system for warehousing children. Certainly not because kids suddenly have access to guns.
i've never heard of another nation with such lofty morals and incredibly low expectations. "as long as i'm ok, who cares about the rest."
America leads the world in charity. Sure we have responsibilities to others... it's just not the role of government to make sure we fulfill them.
yet they manage, with a dose of the 'common good' to beat us at our own game of being the greatest nation on earth in which to live.
Not for me. For me, Iowa, USA is (as far as I know) the best place in the world to live... though it could assuredly be far better.
I don't mean this in any hostile sense, but why don't you choose to live in Canada? I would, if I were you. You have family there, you share their values, it sounds perfect.
Heck, I don't begrudge Canadians their choices. I don't even think Nebraskans should have to live the way Iowans do... the loss of the freedom to choose is one of the great tragedies of the American drive to centralize government.
But anyway, let me make clear, I am not pleased with the state of America these days. I am not defending our status quo, and many of the problems you cite concern me much. But my vision of what changes are needed is quite different than yours.
sorry for being so argumentative.
Don't be. Thank you for the vigorous debate.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Sing a happy, happy, happy, happy, happy, happy song.
Sing a happy, happy... oh, wait. Wasn't it ESR who said he wanted to see M$ defeated by consumer choice and not by the government?
I have to say I agree. Even though M$ is split into two, they're still the same company (in two pieces) with the same ethos and the same terrible software. All that will happen now is that anyone who ate out of M$-Monolithic's hand before will now have to buy their software from two different companies - and it will be the same software!
What we really need is more public revelations of what M$ is really up to - even more so now with the possibility of inter-corporate plotting - such as the Halloween Memos.
So really, nothing's changed. Sorry to disappoint you.
If Khrushev would be the judge, he would split Microsoft into Microsoft for the industry and Microsoft for the agriculture ;-)
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
This would be a funny case in which MS would indeed have the monopoly of the retail market, but they wouldn't have monopoly power on the OS market because most OS are shipped in another way.
You are right that MS sholdn't be punished in this case, but this is because they don't have monopoly power on it and thus can't abuse it.
Anti-trust legislation isn't about keeping one company from dominating a market, it's about protecting consumers from artificially inflated prices and making sure they have choices.
Anti-trust legislation are indeed not about keeping one company from dominating a market, they are about keeping one company to use such monopoly to have an unfair advantage in another market or to refrain them from using their market power to make it impossible to other to enter the field of this market. Microsoft did both.
Of course this is to keep customers from inflated price, but the way to do so is to prevent them to use their monopoly power.
However this is not about making sure they have choice. If a company has a monopoly but manage to keep simply because they have the best product and the best price and other companies can't outmatch them and they didn't use their monopoly power to keep them at bay (say, sell at a loss) then more power to them, if the customers want choice they have the possibility.
This can seem contradictory but it is not. In one case customers have not choice because a company has enough power to stop the laws of competition, in the other they customers have no choice because up to now noone was able to compete fairly with them. In the latter the company is still forced to continue to improve because if it doesn't the others may catch up and get more market share.
Microsoft can neither raise the price of operating systems generally,
Oh, and what did they do to IBM. Did they not multiply the price of Windows for them because they wanted to develop an alternative to office? And keeping your price the same while it would have dropped in a competitive environment is just as bad.
nor prevent people from using high-quality alternatives.
MS can, at least they try very hard. They do it by making it very hard for Windows and other MS applicaitons to cooperate with other applications/OS's. Why do you think Wine and Samba are such huge projects?
What they basically did was to destroy the browser market completely. Now we don't have to pay for Netscape or IE, and the act spawned Mozilla, which is a far greater boon to the people than either of the others. All of which happened without the DOJ's help. Not exactly the sort of thing which makes me feel dependent upon the government for my protection.
True, but Netscape didn't Open Source Mozilla because they were forced by normal market pressure, but because MS used Windows to monopolise the browser market, thus killing Netscape main revenue stream (which is anticompetitive practice) and deprive the public at large from an alternative and impose their own (which is not good for them, even though it may seem so on the surface).
Are you claiming that since their action did have good consequence the charged should be droped, even though the action itself was bad? I fear that I have to disagree. Look, ok, I cracked Bill Gates account but I gave all the money to charities, helping them build schools in poor countries, so you should not put me in jail guys. Robin Hood may be a great character, but he didn't have any other mean to fight, we have, so let not use it as an excuse ok?
Are you kidding?? IBM had a market share of 65% at the beginning of the case! The case was dismissed after 13 years because it was totally irrelevant. That's a sad testiment to the nature of big government, not big business.
Yup, but this was largely due to the fact that they didn't have as much room to use the same tactics during the 13 years (remember that IBM was already using the FUD method among others), thus making it easier for competitors to...compete (and among them...MS).
Well, ok, it usually doesn't. I've argued this point here before. But there are, to me, clear examples of laws which need broken. Rosa Parks flaunted a law, and it was a deed well done IMHO. Ditto for the folks who staged The Boston Teaparty. And I would argue that nearly any law of a Fascist or Communist government should be flaunted at any opportunity.
I agree with you and you have a good point but it seems to me that the English expression is "civil disobedience". You will have a hard time making me believe that Microsoft were breaking anti-trust laws for the sake of civil disobedience.
I daresay, if you asked them privately, they would certainly tell you they thought the laws were wrong.
Well, I certainly am ill-placed to speak for themselves but apparently, officials and employees (judgin from article and posts from some of them here) seem to believe sincerly that they did nothing wrong. If it is not sincere they should go to Hollywood right now and become actors.
That's simply not a viable tact to take in court.
Right, but I don't think that there tactic in court was any more viable. Apparently Judge Jackson tells me right.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Let's put it this way. I pretty much had to accept Windows(and it's Office apps) because that is what our University uses. I had no choice at the time to purchase a Mac, which I would have liked to do. As for doing everything I want it to do...hardly. I want it to stop crashing ever other freakin day. That would be nice for starters. If I had the money I would be sitting on a Mac right now. As for software support, I don't use microsoft products unless I absolutly have to. I'm a firm supporter of Adobe and Macromedia among other companies who do business on multiple platforms.
-my other sig is your mom
1. As for the first musings, the DoJ has just recently (the last several years), been stepping up its efforts in monitoring large companies and enforcing anti-trust laws, particularly in light of the huge number of recent large mergers. This comes after decades of near silence from the feds following the end of the Standard Oil/industry trusts of the early century. Most of us have only lived in the era where DoJ has played almost no role in this area, as there was little need for a long time. AT&T is the only case most people can think of, and I'm sure many slashdotters couldn't even walk and talk then.
...
As for preventing more mergers, I think big business has gotten used to the gov't staying silent and I recall seeing on CNN a little while
ago about the growing number of abuses that make the crushing of small businesses easier. There are some sectors in which I think the feds need to step in more these days; this is not the best/most cut-and-dry case for that, but I think it's clear that there was significant strong-arming in exclusivity agreements and such going on at MS and something probably needed to be done. True, I don't like the gov't having to step in and meddle, and often mess things up, but big business did prove 100 years ago that it can't be always simply left to itself.
2. There is a clause in the anti-trust laws stating that the gov't _can_ ask for mid-level appeals to be bypassed. (This was written specifically to prevent large businesses with vast resources from stretching multiple trials out to decades.) Who knows whether it will be happening here.
3. NanoSoft
PicoSoft
FemtoSoft
AttoSoft
ZeptoSoft
YoctoSoft
KKN
Crushing Netscape wasn't about HTML. Netscape planned to use their browser as a kind of middleware. By writing your applications as Java applets, you would have been able to run these applications, virtually without change, on any operating system that supported Netscape. The evidence cited in Jackson's original findings of fact (anyone have a reference? I lost mine) suggested that MicroSoft felt that this would threaten their monopoly.
MicroSoft's original response was to attempt to bully Netscape into cripling this middleware functionality. MicroSoft offered to leave Netscape alone if Netscape promised not to threaten their monopoly this way. Otherwise, MS threatened to crush them. Netscape refused to comply with this demand, so MS proceded to carry out their threat.
The browser war wasn't about controlling HTML. On the contrary, Microsoft's attempts to pollute the HTML standards were a further attempt to undermine Netscape's market share by creating artificial incompatibilities. MS even went as far as compensating outside organizations for putting things on their website that would make their sites more difficult to browse effectively with netscape.
Go find the original findings of fact. The document is long, but it is well worth the read.
(Again, does anyone have a reference to it? Perhaps serveral would be better to help aliviate the SlashDot Effect.)
Adrian
Just wanted to spill a little on what Billy had to say about the break-up. First off, he says that it isn't right to break-up a company because its products are so popular. Popular?!? The only reason I use Windows is because they they have a monopoly in PC land. I can't wait until Linux gets up to speed on the desktop and has a few more apps running on it. Next he says that they will continue to focus on making new products...hold on. I think Microsoft should shift out of 4th gear and try to bring their current products up to par. How many bugs did Win2000 ship with? I'll end with the one about the government not being specific as to what they mean by Internet Explorer. Ok...It's your product, I think you know what it is. Sorry, I just needed to get that off my chest. I didn't mean to ramble on.
-my other sig is your mom
On a lighter note, any news on the planned names for the two companies? I was thinking Micros~1 and Micros~2. -- The success of Win 9x does not surprise me. Many people wouldn't know a decent OS if it bit them on the -- OW! HEY! Where'd that fscking *penguin* come from?
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
I dont like Microsoft. Go Government. Wait a sec, I don't like the the government either. Go...ahh, just go.
--
+&x
A line has to be drawn somwhere, and it's not clear where (Dreamcast support features are mandatory in all upgrades to WinNT anyone?). Can Bill simply sidestep this probelm by claiming each update is 'a new OS' and so doesn't have carry over any API compatibility?
- Andy R.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Yes, but changes to the Linux API have always been open to developers, as opposed to shifty, secret changes to the Windows API, implemented specifically to screw !Microsoft developers.
--
"And is the Tao in the DOS for a personal computer?"
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Listen to this:
"Plaintiffs won the case, and for that reason alone have some entitlement to a remedy of their choice."
In other words: "Listen up, you weeny techies. YOU LOST!"
"These officials are by reason of office obliged and expected to consider - and to act in - the public interest; Microsoft is not."
I.e. "You really expect me to believe that breaking you up would harm the consumer? It would harm your monopoly, bitch-weasels."
It really seems like Gates has been able to coast this long by being smart and nasty; but The Honorable PJ is bitch-slapping him, finally. Gates is someone who never learned to play nice. Now he's having to learn that you can't bully Lady Liberty.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
I don't know if this will really change anything. I mean, if there're two Microsoft companies, what will stop them from just doing what they were doing before, only now have two companies to cause competition on the market. This will in effect be almost the same, if not worse, won't it?
as per the court order. So this means that the applications group will have to use the same API's and tools that the rest of us use. Proprietary extensions will be hard to do, because the application group will not be able to leverage them. Of course, with MS's trustworthiness, there probably will be all sorts of behind the doors collusion going on.
b. After Implementation of the Plan and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business shall be prohibited from:
i. merging or otherwise recombining, or entering into any joint venture with one another;
ii. entering into any Agreement with one another under which one of the Businesses develops, sells, licenses for sale or distribution, or distributes products or services (other than the technologies referred to in the following sentence) developed, sold, licensed, or distributed by the other Business;
iii. providing to the other any APIs, Technical Information, Communications Interfaces, or technical information that is not simultaneously published, disclosed, or made readily available to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs; and
iv. licensing, selling or otherwise providing to the other Business any product or service on terms more favorable than those available to any similarly situated third party.
Section 2.b.ii shall not prohibit the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business from licensing technologies (other than Middleware Products) to each other for use in each others' products or services provided that such technology (i) is not and has not been separately sold, licensed, or offered as a product, and (ii) is licensed on terms that are otherwise consistent with this Final Judgment.
... hi bingo
DIE!! Fucking finally!! DIE!!!
My favorite bit was from just before this quote:
IOW, "I can't believe that you weren't prepared for the government to ask for a breakup, and if you weren't it's your own fault anyway."
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The idea of a third company with IE made some sense to me...that would be kind of analogous to AOL, if it was paired up with MSN (And they could put microsoft's share of MSNBC in there with it).
- The timeframe etc. is exactly as proposed; the after-hours Microsoft "let's do this the MS way" document seems to have been totally ignored.
- The OS Business will be required to release (in a Timely Manner) the APIs that it would give to it's employees. Not an Open OS, but manditory API release.
- The resulting companies are forbidden from so much as a joint venture for the life of the Final Decision. No sneaky starting daughter spin-offs.
- Managers in either company are forbidden from owning stock in the other. Good idea; in the short term it prevents dirty money produciton from the breakup. In the long term in keeps Gates or whoever from buying enough stock to control both companies and starting a third parent. You might even think Jackson had done this before...
- One trip to the Supreme Court and we can get going already. Part of Microsoft's plan seems to have been to be snotty enough that Jackson will beat them around and they can go to a higher court with a bloody nose. I think Jackson's been pretty controlled so far, and I'd hope that the Supreme Court tells MS to sit and spin.
All in all, I just want to see how it all turns out. I know it's too much to hope that the Evil Empire will wither and die, although I'm not sure what else they have available to them.Ushers will eat latecomers.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
...to see the reaction from the 14,000-odd attendees (and this isn't including the MSFT staff) at MS Tech-Ed 2000 going on in Orlando this week. I'll just have to wait and get the scoop when my dad gets home.
Anyone there who cares to report?
I read through that ruling, and other than the obvious sentiment that the government feels threatened and pissed off by microsoft, they fail to account for the good of the consumer.
funny, i thought that was the point of anti trust.
-------------------------------------------------
Some other thoughts:
2.b.iii of the judgement looks like it'll kill off embrace and extend. No more MS-Kerberos type games.
3.b.iii An OEM can look at the Source (In a restricted enviornment) for the sole purpose of interoperability. Cool.
4.b I'd like to Volunteer for the job of Compliance Coordinator. We can work out a suitably exhorbitant salary later. I'm perfectly suited for the job and would coordinate compliance with the ferocity of a rabid pit bull.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
selling: 1 100mile square piece of land..Located in redmond wa..willing to trade for land in canada
They have a year from today if they don't appeal. But, they will. If they still lose their appeals, they will have exactly 1 year to do the splitup.
:P
This has got to be a bad day for Bill Gates
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
Why? Because you would prefer it that way?
Sorry, in this country, you have to prove that a corporation has broken the law before you can do something like that (well, in theory). Microsoft has been convicted of a very specific action: using dominance in the OS market to put the smackdown on competing applications. This justifies separating the operating system business out from the rest of the company.
Saying, "microsoft broke anti-trust law, so it's a free for all" is the same thing as saying "he got busted for smoking a joint, let's seize his house." Or almost the same, because the second actually happens. If you don't like big companies, don't do business with them.
It's not intended to be a breakup into two equal parts. Microsoft is being ordered to divest itself of the OS division. Presumably, certification would go with this (the certs are more closely tied to the OS than the Apps). Read the decision, it's short.
Of course, I would definitely prefer to see the DOJ broken up, maybe into a "harrassing business" division, and a "shooting members of undesirable religions" division. But the decision is entirely reasonable. *IF* Microsoft is going to be broken up (i.e. dump operating systems), the decision is a well designed way to do that.
--Kevin
Right. Unfortunately, the government's case had nothing (really) to do with this. As the internet takes precedence, those services will be MS's prime property. Putting them together with the applications section, you're basically waiting for another monopoly to happen, IMHO.
The two companies are going to keep on doing the same things they always have, and they're going to continue to rub each other's backs for mutual advantage.
What advantage is this supposed to remove? Opening the APIs? This hasn't been an issue for some time now. The MS APIs are probably the best-documented in the industry.
Me, I'm looking forward to the frustrated whining of the anti-MS zealots as they try to figure out what ELSE to blame after MS completely fails to start dying after the splitup.
I said it's losing ground compared to other operating systems. I didn't say that it has ceased to make make them money; I indicated that it will cease to make to make them money.
numb
First of all the whole "ignorant fuckhead" was entirely unnecessary. But what do you expect from an AC? Altough you're comments were a bit on the inflamatory side the the NCR deal was educational. I wouldn't call myself ignorant because I didn't know this, but certainly not as knowledgeable as yourself (the all knowing... I'm sure). I think in the future you should follow the courteous trend that others have displayed in this thread. We are a community and I like those who help make it better in a constructive way.
Anyway, with my precedent argument I'm just saying that a company who makes OSes should be allowed to make applications as well thats all. In the event that some other company that makes OSes becomes dominant I hope that this splitting of apps and OSes is not applied to them as well. Yeah, its a stretch that that would happen because this only happened to MS because of their blatant abuse of power, but you never know. Thats all I'm trying to say here. I should mention that I fully support the public disclosure of all APIs in a timely fashion. I guess the split just makes sure this will happen.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
yay!
But should the M$ symbol here at slashdot change? Say, use just the robotic bits for the Applications, and use the remaining BillG bits for the OS? Or maby, since they're gonna be appealing this thing for a while. just put a noose loosely around BillG of Borg's neck, to show that M$ is standing on the stool, just waiting for it to be kicked out from under them...
Calmacil
I can't seem to face up to the facts, I'm tense and nervous and I can't relax... --Talking Heads
You are right that MS sholdn't be punished in this case, but this is because they don't have monopoly power on it and thus can't abuse it.
So you agree that there are two markets to speak of here. I'll follow your lead and call one the "retail market"; the other I'll call the "installation market" (since in a sense they're both OS markets).
Now you agree that absolute control over the retail market, measured in sales, is insufficient for being a monopoly. Neither, of course, can domination of the installation market be sufficient for having a monopoly... otherwise, in the example, Debain would be a monopoly.
It would appear that to be a monopolist, one must dominate in both markets. Great. For the moment, let's call Microsoft a monopoly. Now in your words:
If a company has a monopoly but manage to keep simply because they have the best product and the best price
(or, of course, because people choose them for their own reasons...)
and other companies can't outmatch them and they didn't use their monopoly power to keep them at bay (say, sell at a loss) then more power to them, if the customers want choice they have the possibility.
Now explain to me how Microsoft can use their monopoly power to sustain their domination of the installation market (and thus their monopoly). Any end user who wants Debian can install it on his PC, free of charge. If enough of them chose to do so, Microsoft would have no monopoly. What power has Microsoft to stop the laws of competition in the installation market?
Microsoft can neither raise the price of operating systems generally,
Oh, and what did they do to IBM. Did they not multiply the price of Windows for them because they wanted to develop an alternative to office? And keeping your price the same while it would have dropped in a competitive environment is just as bad.
They raised the price of Windows, not of operating systems generally. As well they can do; they own Windows. The same way McDonald's can charge $100 a Big Mac if it pleases them... because while only they can sell Big Macs, they don't have a monopoly on hamburgers. If their price goes up too much, people will begin eating Whoppers, even if they don't think they're as tasty.
That's competition. Companies frequently do increase their prices in competitive environments, if they think they'll profit by it. And it's no different with Operating Systems. High quality alternatives are available. If Microsoft's price goes higher than the market will bear, people will switch.
nor prevent people from using high-quality alternatives.
MS can,
I, and many other Slashdotters, are living proof they can't.
at least they try very hard.
Sure. No law against being obnoxious.
They do it by making it very hard for Windows and other MS applicaitons to cooperate with other applications/OS's. Why do you think Wine and Samba are such huge projects?
I don't like what Microsoft does. But they're entitled to change their protocols and data formats every day, as far as I am (or the law is) concerned. It certainly hasn't kept me from using Linux.
Are you claiming that since their action did have good consequence the charged should be droped, even though the action itself was bad?
Of course not. I'm claiming that the free market produced a better result than timely government interference would have... as is almost always the case. The laws are bad.
Are you kidding?? IBM had a market share of 65% at the beginning of the case! The case was dismissed after 13 years because it was totally irrelevant. That's a sad testiment to the nature of big government, not big business.
Yup, but this was largely due to the fact that they didn't have as much room to use the same tactics during the 13 years (remember that IBM was already using the FUD method among others), thus making it easier for competitors to...compete (and among them...MS).
a) In what world is 65% of a market a monopoly?
b) FUD is not, nor should it ever be, illegal
c) Personal Computers, with standardized, interchangable parts, changed the market, and there was nothing IBM could have done to stop that. The DOJ's imposed upon the taxpayers' wallets and IBM's freedom, without producing anything.
You will have a hard time making me believe that Microsoft were breaking anti-trust laws for the sake of civil disobedience.
I don't mean to; Microsoft is neither idealistic nor, IMHO, admirable. But their motives aren't at issue. MS is, I believe, breaking an unjust law, which is why the comparision is appropriate. I chose very sympathetic examples merely to make my point, not to flatter MS.
Well, I certainly am ill-placed to speak for themselves but apparently, officials and employees (judgin from article and posts from some of them here) seem to believe sincerly that they did nothing wrong.
They know they broke laws (of course... thus the coverup); they don't believe they did anything wrong. Big difference.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I've seen lots of people talking about whether or not Judge Jackson can make the Supreme Court take the case directly. The answer is: No one but the Supreme Court Justices can make the court take a case.
BUT! Due to the anti-trust laws Judge Jackson and the DOJ _can_ force the case to skip the Appellate courts.
This means: The Appellate courts will never even see the case as I'm sure the DoJ and Judge Jackson will send it directly to the SC. Then the SC can hear it or not.
If they choose not to hear it, that's it, game over MS looses, there are no further appeals, there is no running back to the appellate If they choose to hear it then they can completely overturn everything... The SC has to ability to completely overturn any existing precedents, no matter how long they've been around.
However they is a very big thing called "Judicial Restraint" vs. "Judicial Activisim" (Not to be confused with Liberal vs. Conservative, it is possible to be an activist Conservative, [Of which Clarence Thomas is one]) The current court is close to even of the Activism vs. Restraint issue but currently leans towards Restraint.
Meaning: The SC is very unlikely to throw out any precedents or rule any part of the anti-trust laws Unconstitutional.
No matter what Judge Jackson's Decision very likely will stand.
P.S. Even if Gore or Bush threw out the entire DoJ, nothing can be done from this point on by the Executive Branch of these great United States of America, it is entirely in the hands of the Judicial Branch, which is historically well insulated from political pressure.
I bought two computers with proprietary vendor-supplied program managers running on top of Windows 95 (a Compaq and HP). Both times, the program manager supplied was useless, providing no added value or differentiation between computer makers. At the time, it was a royal pain in the ass to figure out how to disable them. As much as I hate to side with Microsoft, they should at least include the requirement that any "altered boot-up sequences" may be disabled at the end user's choice by using the Add/Remove Programs Control Panel.
Sent from my iPhone
Assuming that the breakup ever happens (yeah, right), any guesses which company Bill Gates will go with?
Which is not to say I like Microsoft... I certainly don't. But if you love freedom, you have to be prepared to speak out for your enemies.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. It might have been closer to a monopoly when it assaulted Netscape, but it's obviously not so now. Linux (okay, okay, GNU/Linux), is prospering happily alongside Windows, and the movement has spawned its own little industry. And it's free, for crying out loud, in every sense. I, for one, don't doubt for a moment that Linux would trounce Windows on its own merits, given more time. Besides, there are other fine, though less popular, alternatives.
Instead, we're to see the US Government step in. Now I'm no lawyer, but these antitrust laws seem to me pretty darned nebulous... and if a law is vague enough, it's as good as allowing ex post facto prosecution. Sure Microsoft is scuzzy. That's what makes this action so popular... but are we sacrificing an important principle which would protect us later? I'm surprised to find so many Slashdotters hailing government for meddling with technology, using all those oft-maligned outdated laws, simply because this time it suits their purposes.
I don't know. I surely don't understand the nuances of this case very well, so perhaps I'm wrong and MS does deserve what's tantamount to a death penalty.
But what fear have I of Microsoft? They cannot arrest me or take my property. A government which picks and chooses who is a criminal is another story.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Micro
&
Soft
Bill's Greatest Personal Attributes?
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
I know if I was 'Conservative' I'd be asking some hard questions along the lines of 'just how much total contempt for our country and our country's legal system can I tolerate?'. It seems very reasonable to expect an attitude, from the arch-conservatives, of "Microsoft, I totally oppose the Sherman Act etc etc- but you are a _dick_, to hell with you people. I'm supposed to hold still while you fake evidence and don't even understand that you're on trial? While you try to screw over the government and cut funding for the DoJ? Oh, now you're going to _bribe_ me, that makes it soooo much better, sheesh! Don't you people understand you are acting with the arrogance and exact behavior and attitude of Mafiosi?"
Honestly, if you are going to think about the realities of the case you simply _must_ allow the government people, perhaps even the Presidential candidates, to be human- and to have _some_ sense of self-preservation. Publically aligning with a gang of renegade criminals is just not that great PR-wise. It doesn't look great on a resume.
People should not have been surprised when the judge had a clue and a brain and used both. People should not be surprised if the case goes before an archconservative appeals court- which can't be bought- and which upholds the decision, because unlike the 'separate IE' order, THIS time the foundation is in place.
Microsoft's utter hubris and stupidity in thinking they can fight, buy or intimidate _anything_, is going to hurt them bigtime through this process. Hell, these people are the same ones who _disbanded_ the Mac IE team and assigned them to WebTV (which sounds OS-ish, come to think of it!) They appear to be pursuing a scorched earth strategy- a "Let us have our way or we ALL die!" strategy. The tragedy is that things have gone far enough- and all they're doing now in their frantic attempts to make the breakup seem like a disaster for the economy and IT and the world- is making that the reality.
And the comedy of this is- they caused nearly as much damage and destruction by operating in good faith with their dumb notions of making computers so easy that people don't have to learn ANYTHING in order to use them. That approach is what gave us the email virus- which was once a _myth_. It gave us Bob and Clippy- and there are still community college courses for 'how to use a word processor'- they failed, and in the attempt made 90% of the world horribly vulnerable and impeded by hassle and stupidity.
So- the scorched earth won't actually be all that different...
Secondly, is it true or not true that the appeal will or can be pushed directly to the Supreme Court?
On a lighter note, any news on the planned names for the two companies?
Visit
He's not setting precedence. There is plenty of precedent where people/corporations who break the law, in business or otherwise get some of the "freedom to innovate" taken away.
Just like a convict can't purchase a firearm...
If MS is truly spilt up will the agreements that
employees signed (i.e. Can't work on other operating systems for 5 years) still be vaild?
AdFuel
This is the coolest day since Star Wars came out.
-brain
Microsoft'sflagship product, Windows, was developed completely in-house. Windows NT, while derived from VMS, has mostly Windows add-on's (i.e. it is completely recognizable as VMS). Microsoft's Internet Explorer, while very early versions were derived from NCSA Mosaic, newer versions are completely unrecongizable as that and contain almost totally new code. Microsoft's Office products were completely developed in-house.
Let's take a look a Microsoft's competitors.
Sun's flagship product was derived mainly from AT&T and Berkeley (and many other companies, including Microsoft!) It hasn't changed enough from the original source to be considered non-derived.
Red Hat writes less than 2% of the code in their flag ship product. Ditto for all other distributions.
Corel never developed a word processor (e.g. Word Perfect). They merely bought one. They write less than 2% of the code in their Linux distribution.
HP, IBM, and DEC all ship operating systems which are also based on AT&T/Berkeley.
It appears to me that Microsoft is doing much more of their own work than their competitors. How can you claim they just bought it? Why are you not complaining about their competitiors which do much less innovation?
Seems to me like Microsofts illegal activities could easily be dealt with in a less invasive manner. I believe the courts should choose the least disruptive course that will accomplish the goal. The problems we have here are several:
1) They are not only trying to solve the problem of illegal activities, but they are trying to weaken the company from doing legal business as well. The government simply feels they are too big and want them smaller. Having Microsoft obey the law is not enough for the government. This is where I start to strongly disagree with the government. The fact is that Microsoft is where they are primarily because they make pretty good or great products, and they market them well. They won the browser war because their product was better by all accounts. Similarly with their Office Suite. I will grant that they engaged in some questionable behavior that gave them a slight advantage, but I really don't think the end result would have been different had they played a bit more fairly. I really hate to see the government punishing success...why don't we just turn Windows over to the government to run?
2) The plantiffs in this case are not at all interested in what is fair or what is in the publics interest. To them, the bigger the penalty, the bigger the success. This is all about ego for people like Klien. It's a trophy to put on their wall to say that they broke up one of the largest companies in the world. It seems clear to me that there were countless other less invasive and more meaningful measures the government could have taken and didn't. It was all about having that trophy IMO...shameful really.
3) The judge was predisposed to dislike Microsoft before the trial began. Judges hate getting overturned on appeal and was no doubt reeling from being overturned on his previous decision. Clearly this whole matter should have been moved to a different venue to be fair. The government didn't have to do squat in this case, all they had to do was show up, they had the judge in their pocket. The judges predisposition was evident on several occasions along the way.
To conclude, I suspect the appeals court will order the judge to find a less invasive remedy to the relatively minor infractions that have occurred.
Until the appeals process is over, there's not going to be any real action on this ruling. Microsoft is notorious(?) for loosing in the lower court, only to appeal to higher courts, and then prevail, long after the media explosure is past.
So, don't go celebrating in the streets just yet, there still a lot more to do here.
I submitted a story about this a long time ago, but have since lost the link. Anyways, here it goes:
The University of Victoria snubbed Bill Gates from either giving them lots of money or from giving him an honourary degree because the higher-ups in the faculty decided that they didn't like the business practices of Microsoft, and felt that MS hindered competition, etc. Take it as you will.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
It's an earthquake! The world will now fall to ruin!! No, wait, it's actually a new Outlook virus on the loose. Well, what else did you expect from the Judge? M$ will still plead innocence.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
Just look at Mac OS X's "Carbon" API - a subset of the Mac OS API that works under a true multi-threaded, etc OS. If Apple didn't define the Carbon API, Mac OS X would not be possible, because some of these older Mac OS APIs are just not compatible with OS X.
I sure hope MS doesn't read this comment and use it in their appeal. Message to all Microsoft employees: I think you suck, and I'm looking forward to your company breaking apart!
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
provided M$'s appeals don't work, how tightly will it be policed. will the seperate companies act alone, or still be guided by m$'s former market dominance ?
Microsoft is now know as Micro and Soft.
Split in two? Where did that idea come from? Is this guy out of his mind?
I never saw this one coming...
[/sarcasm]
===
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
This is what Bill Gates means is disasterous, though. When everybody gets to learn about the getAllPasswordsFromRemoteMachineWithNoNeedForAuthe ntication() call...
Who Wants To Date A Norwegian?
This OS, while powerful, and something I have enjoyed using, is not free software (GNU definition) and is not full-featured. It does not fit my definition of a quality OS, so it is not, in my opinion if not yours, a real OS. You may disagree, but those are my criteria.
it's green.
Is it possible to buy fan T-shirts anywhere?
Well Microsoft Office and Outlook and IE all bundled together seems like an obvious idea, especially if they work seamlessly togther.
Dear Father Linus,
Please, oh Mighty and Forgiving one,
Father Linus and RMS, the radiant Son.
Do not allow Microsoft to show us,
within their source, the hocus
and pocus that makes Windows run,
For that would surely be no fun,
I ask this day for you to blind me
should the above come true, I plea.
Amen.
Inspired by the tales of the lives of MS Project Leads after finishing NT 4 (suicides, divorces, etc.) Or so I heard. But it could just be Hemos whispering in my ear.
hmm...
the real shiftaling has user number 5134
Karma: -43 and DROPPING!!!
I am quite sure about Word, because I used to work at Microsoft and I did some work on Word 97. MacWord was definitely built out of the same sources as WinWord.
I am also quite sure about Excel. A friend of mine in the Excel group told me once about how Excel had been set up to build three versions out of the same sources. (Win, Mac, OS/2... at one time, Microsoft really thought OS/2 would succeed.)
As I said, I only know for sure about Word and Excel, but I can't believe that the rest of Office is different.
When MacWord 6 shipped, Microsoft took flak because it was so much bigger and slower than before. The slowness was partially because of the increased size, and partially because they did an incomplete job of performance tuning. The features they felt were most-used were well-tuned, but some magazine articles railed at how much slower the Word Count feature in particular had become. As a result of this bad publicity, Microsoft did some more tuning, and things got a bit better. I'm certain that Microsoft was remembering the MacWord 6 fiasco when they were promising "not a port".
By the way, despite the firestorm of bad publicity, MacWord 6 was a success. Many people complained about it, but the big corporate customers bought lots. 100% file compatability with WinWord 6, and near-total feature compatability, were more important to them that maximum performance, and the Macs got faster anyway.
I haven't worked at Microsoft since 1996, so I'm not current with what's going on there now, but I'll bet cash they didn't fork the code base after I left. New, Mac-specific features I believe. Some Mac-only developers I believe. But separate code projects, with each feature coded twice? No.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Sure, just so long as you aren't going to complain when your competitors come along and ask the government to gut you.
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
Er, I said that they never _bought_ any technology, not that they never borrowedany ideas. All of the code in this case was developed in house.
Additionally, the Windows scroll bar is now proportional and is NOT like the Mac's so this point is entirely irrelevant to idea borrowing, unless you are using Windows 3.1.
If stealing ideas was illegal, Linux would be outlawed. It is much more blatant a ripoff of a commercial product (Unix, and it even steals a lot from Windows, c.f. Wine and even KDE) than Windows is of any product. Strange that nobody picks on Red Hat for (a) shipping a product without writing almost any of the code (b) not even buying the code (like Microsoft does) and (c) using code which itself is a ripoff of commercial products. If you are judging on percentage of original ideas/code Red Hat is considerably more evil than Microsoft.
How about MICROS~1 and MICROS~2 :)
Catchy, no?
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
- Andy R.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Look at the bright side Billy, you can now get that Man of The Year thing you've always wanted =D.
Bincrypt (bincrypt.com) Curiosity killed the monkey.
Yorker... it shows a street with two large
office buildings, one on each side of the
street. The sign outside the building on the
left says "Micro", and the sign outside the
building on the right says "Soft".
It's too bad that the Gov't needed to be so
heavy-handed in this, and I suppose it
remains to be seen whether breaking up
Microsoft will actually benefit consumers.
Now, as Jay Leno commented, Bill Gates is no
longer the richest guy in the world... he's
now the two richest guys in the world.
Amazing magic tricks
Hope this doesn't mean they'll drop support for Microsoft Soccer: As real as it gets
The big question is what will happen to their internet services? What will happen to their hardware? These things are neither 'applications' nor 'operating systems.'
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
.. that ordered the split. The DoJ has been calling for it for ages. It's the Judge who ruled ordering it. They're different, hard as it is to tell.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I'll probably read the final thingy in more dtail later, but it doesn't seem to go far enough. It splits MS into OS and Apps companies, and restricts the OS company from doing IE development. But, I would have rather it made the OS company fully document OS APIs. I guess it's something, though.
With extreme difficulty.
The DirectX suite is an unmitigated disaster. DirectDraw and DirectSound are somewhat non-sucky, but the rest of it is absolute excrement.
DirectPlay doesn't actually work, and never did (read Unix Network Programming by Stevens and write your own UDP packet handling; it's easy). With the exception of force-feedback joysticks, DirectInput doesn't provide anything you can't get from Windows event messages. OpenGL does everything Direct3D claims to do and more, does it better and faster, and does it in one-third the application code. All of DirectX is based on Microsoft's COM which is a slug by design.
This is not to say that Linux is any speed freak in such matters (so far), but trying to create a DirectX compatibility layer is not going to buy you anything except an ulcer.
DirectX is a complete loss from top to bottom. There are a half-dozen or so interesting ideas in DirectX worth exploring, but there's plenty of room for better ideas and APIs. Go develop them, and leave DirectX to die in well-deserved obscurity.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Guess I forgot to append a witty sig line to get myself some instant credibility.
You miss the point of logins. Logins allow us to read the other stuff you've written to see if you are at least consistant in pretending to be a JD. ACs are cowards becuase they won't stand behind their words. The have a default credibility of exactly zero.
the definition of what constitutes monopoly power, as opposed to whether MS meets that definition, is a legal question, not a factual one.
Of course. But no one seriously doubts that Microsoft has monopoly power in at least two markets.
If this is raised on appeal DOJ will have a tough time proving how MS fits within what has traditionally been understood to constitute monopoly power.
Well, maybe you really are a JD. You casually slip attention away from the real question to a phony one. Traditional monopoly analysis provides a framework for applying the law to the economic realities. This hasn't been done before in theis market, so what traditionally been understood to constitute market power is not at issue. Does Microsoft's conduct violate antitrust law is the issue. The fact of their monopoly is undeniable.
As for what the relevant marketplace is, this is often reviewed by the appellate court because answering it requires a special understanding of the law which is not readily imparted to a jury, which is why I say that it is actually a question of law.
Defining the correct market is crucial to a proper antitrust analysis. PC Operating Systems is a huge market and handily qualifies. Read the Finding of Fact. This case didn't go before a jury. The judge made these decisions.
I am also certain that the Supreme Court will decide for itself what its own precident is, especially since innovation is a complete bar to a claim of anticompetitive behavior.
Yes, the Supreme Court *will* decide the application of it's precedent, not the Appeals Court which violated the SC's interpretation by substituting a presumption of innovation for an analysis of the effects of a company's actions on the market.
Furthermore, "innovation" is not a magic incantation that makes antitrust problems go away. The meat of the government's case is this: Windows and Internet Exporer were two seperate products. IE was losing in the marketplace. Microsoft bundled the products together both utilizing it's monopoly powers over the market in order to defend it's monopoly. The notivation behind the action comes out clearly in the record. It is a clear antitrust violation. The court has ruled as such. Microsoft astroturfers need to come to grips with it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
w00000t! HOF Emmett.
:p
OPN/#slashdot
divide and conquer
-If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
A reasonable and educated person might very well claim that this is not at all ironic- it's the expected result. Monopolies in general tend not to be innovative- they focus on protecting their monopoly and sucking up buyers' cash rather than developing better products. Microsoft's hardware division actually has to compete with other companies for business, so it has to provide products that are good enough to convince people to buy them instead of the competetion.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
This case is concluded; as a result, the findings of fact (Microsoft is a monopoly) and the findings of law (Microsoft violated the Sherman Act) are now legal precedent. In particular, the findings of fact are almost impossible to overturn; to negate them, a higher court would have to find no reasonable person would have deduced these facts from the testimony. (Source: prior Slashdot postings).
Avoiding this is the one thing Microsoft could have gained by a settlement.
Bad news: this is prime fodder for ambulance chasers.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
from microsoft.com:
Microsoft Confident That Judicial System Will Overturn District Court Ruling
Microsoft will appeal, seek a stay of the District Court ruling, and maintain its focus on technology and customers as the appeal proceeds. Read the court's final judgment, Bill Gates' response, and other news related to the ongoing legal case. Check back for updates.
They don't give up, do they?
-baeta
This is late enough that nobody will read it... but...
I agree that MS online properties don't have the presence necessary to unfairly promote other Microsoft ventures.
I was suggesting that Microsoft has in the past, and will now be able to continue, to use their dominance in certain apps (Office, IE) to give preferred placement to Microsoft's online properties -- whether they're successful or not, it's still an unfair trade practice to use dominance in one market to give unfair advantage to your product in another market.
Two good examples of MS already doing this are: Outlook's automatic setup of new Hotmail accounts, and MSN being the default startpage in IE (side note: in my work copy of IE, MSN was the startpage, and the box in preferences was ghosted, preventing changes -- I had to go to the registry to change it).
"The Court is well aware that there is a substantial body of public opinion, some of it rational, that holds to a similar view.
God, I love this judge! Whatta card!
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
"Justice Department Decides.."?? The DOJ decided weeks ago -- the US Court decided today. The court system is part of the judicial branch, the Justice Department is part of the executive branch.
Microsoft investors face split decision
The gist is that they'd put their money on the applications company and let the operating system company shrivel up. Wasn't Windows 2000 supposed to be a great platform?
Think if Microsoft decided all of a sudden to just shut down. No more Microsoft products. The linux zealots would start cheering, but would be pissed when they lose their job the next day. We would slip into a fat depression or severe recession. Hehe, if I were Bill I would do it just to spite the government... Sort of a "you fuck me over, I'll fuck you over." Hey, Microsoft could even blackmail the government...
Bill Gates said today of his estranged operating systems unit, " I never liked the bitch and I was only in it for the sex. All my friends told me to dump the tramp years ago, I look forward to playing the field again."
HA-ha
Some highlights:
From the Final Judgement
1) Split up into two companies is based on what the two portions of the company were doing as of Apr 27, 2000. No saying "Hey, Office is part of the OS"
2) The 2 NewCo. may not recombine, enter into Joint Ventures, provide APIs to each other that are not available to other ISVs.. or basically collude.
3) The OS company cannot know OEMs for supporting other OS's, OEM's can change the boot up sequence.
4) Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs
5) Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product
6) MS has to create an internal position to monitor antitrust compliance within the company (boy, there's a sucky job...)
Very interesting stuff.... nothing too surprising though...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
The Real fun part of this is that the Judge gave Microsoft the hard part of deciding what goes where. MS just has to follow the general OS vs Apps guideline. If Jackson doesn't like what they've done he just starts ruling arbitraily. This way MS can't say (well they can but everyone will wonder what they are smoking) that they were forced to put a specific department someplace where it doesn't belong. It was MS's choice to put it where ever they wanted.
Too late. He peaked a long time ago. The question is how long before people start viewing him like the pitcher that's lost his stuff but can't bring himself to leave the game. Who wants to start the pool?
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
One thing I never understood is why MS cared so much about Netscape. What difference did it make to them if some of their users installed Navigator used it to surf the web? I think MS could easily have created IE and integrated it into Windows if they had only left Netscape alone and let OEMs pre-install Navigator. MS could have continued to use IE for their own purposes (e.g. the online "HTML" help), and continued to evolve the browser to something the user would want to use.
Did MS really think they could control the HTML standard if Netscape were crushed?!?!
BTW, the original subject for my comment was "Yes!!!!!!!!!" but for some reason Slashdot thought I had ASCII art and aborted my post. Someone needs to tell the editors that the subject line is too small to hold ASCII art.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
...can be found here
Carousel is a lie!
Which states "b. Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft
shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media
Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical
Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable -
i. Microsoft applications to interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software
installed on the same Personal Computer, or
ii. a Microsoft Middleware Product to interoperate with Windows Operating
System software (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System)
installed on the same Personal Computer, or
iii. any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including but not limited to
server Operating Systems and operating systems for handheld devices) to
interoperate with a Windows Operating System (or Middleware distributed
with such Operating System) installed on a Personal Computer.
To facilitate compliance, and monitoring of compliance, with the foregoing, Microsoft
shall create a secure facility where qualified representatives of OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs
shall be permitted to study, interrogate and interact with relevant and necessary portions
of the source code and any related documentation of Microsoft Platform Software for
the sole purpose of enabling their products to interoperate effectively with Microsoft
Platform Software (including exercising any of the options in section 3.a.iii).
c. Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any action that it
knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft
Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product without
notifying the supplier of such non-Microsoft Middleware in writing that Microsoft"
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
Scott
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
it should have been split into at least three companies. msft has their fingers in _many_ pies here:
1. apps (office, ie, money, blah)
2. operating systems
3. media/service (msn et al)
4. hardware
5. certification
...and so on. two companies is not enough to get a fair division of all their arms. where will hardware go? operating systems or apps? won't that allow that company to tie their software to the hardware?
anyone have a quick rundown of what goes where with the split?
--
Choice parts of this included forbidding MS to coerce VARs, and I liked section iii -- ``Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or otherwise, including but not limited to granting or withholding consideration) an OEM from modifying the boot sequence, startup folder, internet connection wizard, desktop, preferences, favorites, start page, first screen, or other aspect of a Windows Operating System Product (and goes on for specific things they can't do).''
This, in my opinion, may hurt MS more than the actual breakup. Forcing them to act fairly (and there's a compliance board they have to set up to assure this) may be the best thing that the Justice Dept could have done, even better than breaking them up.
Also, one of the nice things is that MS will have to disclose all their OS API's that other companies use -- no internal things that cause MS Apps to break! And my guess is that the development environments will be considered applications, so that means that all the libraries and such that MS uses will have to have an available API with the underlying OS -- meaning a better chance at obtaining compatability with things like WINE.
In short, I think the ruling is good -- least of all for the breakup. And my guess is that most of it won't be turned over on appeal.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
"This company has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. If the problem persists, contact your vendor or appeal to a higher court."
Conceptually, there is no difference between something like telnetd and a web server. They are both applications. They both make use of stream TCP/IP sockets. They both provide remote access to features for outside users. The only tangible difference that would put telnetd into the 'os' category and IIS into the "application" category is 1 - telnetd has traditionally always been there, and 2 - telnetd is smaller and simpler.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Sadly, I agree that IE is at this point a better browser than Netscape at this point. Mozilla could change all that - we'll see.
But this isn't innovation. Innovation is creating something completely new, or a drastically different version of an existing concept. IE is, no matter how good or bad it may be, nothing more than an implementation of an existing concept.
The invention of the GUI is an innovation. The Windows 95 GUI is not. The development of the mouse is an innovation. The newest Logitech model out there is not. Cavemen creating fire is innovation. Your average BIC lighter is not.
See where I'm going with this? No matter what you think of their products - good or bad - Microsoft rarely if ever actually innovates. They usually wait until someone else does something and either comes out with a knockoff, or buys out the company. They are nothing more than implementers.
My problem is how they do it. It's one thing to be unoriginal, it's quite another to be unoriginal and predatory. I wouldn't mind Microsoft being so boring if they didn't smash other more innovative companies on a regular basis.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
An addendum -
Before someone says it, yes I know that Linux and open-source software in general doesn't tend to innovate - preferring to reimplement existing things instead. The difference is, in such a culture you are able to innovate without a ten ton gorilla on your back.
Maybe once the open-source community reimplements everything that is missing on their platform, some exciting stuff may appear. This may be starting to happen already, even...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
If there's one thing that xbill should teach us, it's that the more "Baby Bills" you have, the worse life gets, no matter how small and harmless-looking they are.
As I said - MS is capable of making evolutionary improvements. But they didn't develop streaming video or audio. AFAIK (I've never looked into it in depth) CU-CME and Real were the innovators in that regards. I did not say that all MS products were lousy. I loved Word 4 for the Mac, and I like a lot of things about IE. Neither of those products either are innovations.
WRT Standard Oil, sure monopolies can be good for consumers in the short run. ATT wired much (though hardly all) of the country.
MS could give everyone in the US a hundred dollars.
However, without incentives to further compete, monopolies will cause whole markets to stagnate - improvements will come only when the monopoly wants them to come. Please enlighten us as to why Bell didn't have Caller ID, commonplace cellphones, cheap-as-dirt pagers, *69, etc. but did find the time to sue people who put hard covers on their phone books.
Having a healthy economy with lots of churn and no guarantees that you're going to succeed is good for consumers. Cheap stuff is not worth having markets dominated by a few big players. It's penny foolish but pound wise.
-- 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.
Will this affect competition any? I don't think so... All it will do is piss people off (who don't know computers) that they know have to download or even buy a browser because one doesn't come with there operating system. Because the way I look at it... Microsoft wouldn't dare include Netscape with there operating system.
This also brings attention on how the breakup works... Do both companies belong under the "Microsoft umbrella" or are they two completely different entities?
Either way the government should be really careful... Canada isn't that far from Readmond... Moving might not seem that bad of an option anymore if breakup is the eventual outcome, and think of all the money that the U.S. would be loosing in tax revenue...
my dime and a nickel...
Be mindful of the future,
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
MS makes some great keyboards and mice. Where will these go?
You are probably right. I had one ear on the news while typing that, and who knows how accurate talking heads are. Poking around a dozen various news sites on the web shows a dozen different opinions what will happen. Add to that 235 different opinions here on /. and its clear nobody knows much of anything.
:-)
I'm just going to ignore the whole thing and go sleep now. Then I'm going to get up in the morning and ignore the whole thing some more. Wake me when they throw gates and balmer into prison
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
"...the appeals court will drop this hot potato directly to the supreme court."
The process of determining where the Microsoft appeal will be heard doesn't work this way.
First, appellate courts never "pass the buck" - instead, they rule, and it is always up to the losing party to appeal further.
In Federal antitrust law (and only for major cases having significant potential economic impact), the trial judge has the option of applying for direct review by the Supreme Court, if and only if one of the parties requests this.
In this case, it is expected that the plaintiffs will so request, and the Judge will so apply.
Microsoft certainly won't, because they're hoping for a win on appeal from their good friends in the same Federal appellate court that reversed Judge Jackson previously.
Ok, now we have two companies.. One is for OS, the the other is for everything else (hard/software, X-box, etc..) So how does this help any, ok, now I don't have the neat "IE4" layout that is the only reason that I installed it, I don't own any Office products, mostly because they are +$200.. all my "Office" products are from Corel WP Suite 8... sure it's old, but it gets the job done... I borrowed my copy of Windows 98 6 weeks ago, and that was from a copied CD...
I may get killed tonight by some of you, but things wouldn't be the way they are if it wasn't for Microsoft.. A few days ago, Slashdot reported that Linux now had ATA/100 support and that Linux had beaten "evil Microsoft" at adopting a standard. Do we know that Microsoft hadn't been working on it? and if they do have it, they have to package it so *EVERYONE* can install it correctly on their machines..
Windows was/is built for the "Lowest Common User" in mind, that means that they can't be the first ones to support something, because they have to "stupidfy" it.. Do you think that the only things you can change about TCP/IP are in the Properties box under Networks.. if that is all there is to it there wouldn't be a 300+ page book about it...
So now we are going to have more problems from all this, because now, things aren't going to work the way they use to..
I don't know why people who want to use Linux, use Linux, and stop brothering us who want a simple OS just to surf, game, and read Slashdot on..
We all know that BGINAL!! But does he read the conclusion of law at all? In his comments today following the judge rulling, he said, "Two years ago I said that we would vigorously defend a principle that is critical to both consumers and the future of the high-tech industry -- the right of every company to innovate and improve its products. Today we move forward to protect this principle and maintain our commitment to innovation." - Microsoft
Yes, that is right and fine with all but your company broke the antitrust law, man! Bill Gates thinks Microsoft has a very strong case in the appeal court. Is he going to tell the appeal court that Microsoft did not break the law or Microsoft broke the law but the remedy is not right?
Nothing as far as I can tell.. These two peices of microsoft are still collections of already seperate peices. A representative from Microsoft once told me, "Microsoft is a colloction of aquired and modified companies under one big bank account". So, that means we have made a superficial cut in the "big bank account". Will this cut still be able to overfund new projects with the revenue and lack of development of other projects? Yes, it's not like they are running on credit.
Question: Can the paradigm of breaking up a monopoly even be used properly any more? I believe we will have to think of better ways to increase competition besides smacking down a corporation. How about companies with a larger share of the market having to give a proportional amount of money to competing companies. That could get complicated, but so was this multi-million doller trial, eh?
-Effendi
-Effendi
There's a helluva difference in installing an *application* as part of a default OS install, and insisting (as M$ did...) that IE was an *integral* *part* of the OS..
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Windows and Office each hold monopoly positions for their products? Do we not now have two companies, each with a monopoly in their realm?
I suppose that if the OS & App companies can't collude, then that opens things up for competitors in both fields, eventually... but I liked RMS's suggestions better than this.
---
I never knew MS had a sense of humor
Bincrypt (bincrypt.com) Curiosity killed the monkey.
IE and Office for Linux will come out?
If they appear on the shelved in less than 3-6 months after the breakup is official, you know that MS has been actively prepping ports for those products during the whole trial process.
I hope though, that the Justice Dept continues tight monitoring even after the breakup - each of these companies still has the potential to develop into a new monopoly. Old practices are going to die hard.
Check out Magic Firesheep!
The actual break up will not happen until 2002, at this point Microsoft has 4 months to release a break up plan.
In regards to how the company will be ran, I am clueless, all I know is that Bill Gates will most likely (unless something else happens along the path) be a much richer man (having stock in 2 companies can do so).
I don't think there is much more to it, we will have to wait 4 months [again] and see what the plan will be.
Bincrypt (bincrypt.com) Curiosity killed the monkey.
In the case of anti-trust enforcement, only structural or behavioral modifications are allowed the court. Behavioral constraints have been ignored by MS, so now we're trying the structural changes. The judge says in his memo, the outcome of a breakup cannot be predicted.
Aside from recovering court cost, the judge can't even impose a fine.
Smell the smoke from all around
(well, ignoring the appeal process)
without the Windows cash cow to fall back on, MS-Apps will be less interested in gambling by investing signifigant development time in a non-mainstream platform.
Actually, MS-Office is their real cash-cow.
Windows is mainly used as a sledgehammer to keep OEMs and ISVs in line.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
great? yeah...it is...now there's two monopolies!
Now instead of Windows informally getting application features (like IE, Office integration, etc.), we'll be inundated with large amounts of "Microsoft Windows, Inc. has partnered with Microsoft, Inc. to leverage interoperability technology, blah blah" press releases. Yay.
Short term: It won't be better, just different.
Long term: Can GNU/Linux, or another 'alternative' OS make more gains into the PC/Workstation arena?
</AssumeSplitActuallyHappens>
The OS provides access to the hardware, that's all. Hardware drivers are the only function of an OS, everything else is libraries and applications.
Ping is not a part of any OS that I know of, even Windows! It's a separate program, calling the network driver libraries, which in turn call the device drivers in the OS.
The desktop should not be considered part of the OS. It is what we call a "graphical shell", a sort of visual layer that sits in front of the OS.
Ah stuffit, I didn't come to slashdot to argue, not on a wonderful day like today! Let's all break out the champagne!
[pop] [fizzzzzz] Whahey! Yahoo! [the exclamation not the company]
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Microsoft is dead for giving away free things. Will Linux be next?
Don't know if this has been discussed in the comments yet, I'm too lazy to read them all, but I believe the ruling is unfair.
Well, not the whole ruling, but a part of it. Basically this is my understanding of a part. Microsoft can not share information with itself, unless it shares it with the world. Since Microsoft will be two companies now then I believe they should be treated like two companies. All other companies in the US can share information with each other without having to make that information public. Just because Microsoft has the money of a few countries doesn't mean anything. Throw all their power and money aside and you still have a company trying to turn a profit just like any other company.
For an example, say Valve and Interplay hooked up. They could share all their information without having to give any information to another company, including Microsoft. "Trade secrets" I guess. Anyway, if Microsoft wanted to hook up with Valve and share source codes with them, Microsoft would then have to offer those same source codes to the public (i.e., Interplay, id, Microprose, some dork in Idaho programming missle plans for blowing up Cuba). Also, when divisions of Interplay, which act as individual companies basically get together on a game they don't have to offer their source codes to the public. However, if the software division of Microsoft wanted to borrow some codes from the OS division of Microsoft (two different companies actually) they couldn't. The OS division would have to either open source the codes or sell a copy to the software division.
I can NOT see how this is fair to Microsoft as a company. If I am wrong then so be it, whatever, just let me know.
-----------
Jøkey/xero
xerotek
-----------
Jøkey/xero
xerotek
No, you're wrong. Significant parts of the remedy take effect exactly 90 days from now. Make no mistake about it: In 90 days they're putting the handcuffs on Microsoft and marching them off to jail. From the remedies:
This Final Judgment shall take effect 90 days after the date on which it is entered;
3. Provisions In Effect Until Full Implementation of the Plan of Divestiture. The provisions in this section 3 shall remain in effect until the earlier of three years after the Implementation of the Plan or the expiration of the term of this Final Judgment...
Ban on Adverse Actions for Supporting Competing Products. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action adversely affecting any OEM Uniform Terms for Windows Operating System
Products Licensed to Covered OEM. Microsoft shall license Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions and shall not employ market development allowances or discounts...
OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration. Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or otherwise, including but not limited to granting or withholding consideration) an OEM from modifying the boot sequence...
Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs...
Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware...
Developer Relations. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action affecting any ISV or IHV Ban on Exclusive Dealing. Microsoft shall not enter into or enforce any Agreement in which a third party agrees, or is offered or granted consideration...
Ban on Contractual Tying. Microsoft shall not condition the granting of a Windows Operating System Product license...
Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System...
Agreements Limiting Competition. Microsoft shall not offer, agree to provide, or provide any consideration to any actual or potential Platform Software competitor in exchange for such competitor's agreeing to refrain...
Continued Licensing of Predecessor Version. Microsoft shall, when it makes a major Windows Operating System Product release...
:-)
So, what I'm saying is: go ahead and pop the cork... Microsoft is going into the slammer, it's for real. We're got 90 days to figure out the best ways to exploit the new leverage the good judge is giving us. What's on the top of my mind is how the ban on contractual tying could be used to counter Microsoft's slimy dealings on ASF. Can we find the terms of their file format patent license to be a contractual tie? (bet you we can) And get it thrown back in their face immediately. Boy, wouldn't that be sweet? And at the same time give the DCMA and UCITA, with their oppressive new restrictions on reverse engineering etc., a swift kick in the nuts. Same goes for their attempt to pollute Kerberos, though I truly that one is being handled well through other means. But Microsoft really has some strong attacks going on the legal, intellectual property and patent fronts (just as Halloween II recommended) and up to now things haven't been going all that well for the rebel alliance.
This ruling gives us lots of groovy new ways to hit Microsoft where it hurts, starting right now. The next chapter in this sorry saga is going to be mostly fun for the barbarians
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Actually I've heard Free Cell was a critical test app for the original versions Windows NT. I wonder if the OS company can use testing as an excuse to grab more applications?
>bite the hand that feeds you. Neither our vastly powerful yet very
>cheap PCs nor your beloved Linux nor anything else you value in
>computing would exist
You're right. We'ld be using more powerful generations of the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga instead, Microsoft Astroturfer......
acoustix wrote:
No, it's not. Red Hat doesn't own Netscape. They probably pay a licensing fee to distribute it with their, uh, distribution.
Microsoft bundling IE with Windows is a little like Ford bundling Ford tires with Ford cars, if 95% of the roads in the US were compatible only with Ford cars (and you drive at your own risk in anything else). It's a captive consumer audience.
acoustix also wrote:
Now that's a good point. I don't think Windows will slip that much. The Windows company will make many of the same licensing deals with VARs just as before, but it will have a little less leverage now to be such a bully.
I think the OS division will wither away, unless they use their cash hoard to buy up apps.
Micros**t is stupid to appeal this judgement. They still have the EU breathing down their neck vis-a-vis monopoly abuse. If they win on appeal, the Europeans will kick their ass.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
"Hmmm... Well, you can go with Microsoft products if you really want to bet your job on it, but they probably won't even exist as the same company in a couple years."
"Are you sure you can count on continued support for this product after the break-up?"
"You should really consider going with a company that has a more stable future, otherwise you could be really screwed."
"MS-SQL on NT? Are you sure you want to gamble on a single vendor like Microsoft? With Oracle on UNIX, you have several OS vendors to choose from. Also, NT and SQL will be split apart in a year or two! Who will inherit your support contract?"
We can all hoist them on their own pitard. This will be hilarious. :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The article says that the DOJ decided to break up Microsoft today. That is wrong. The DOJ decided some number of weeks ago that they wanted to break up MS. Today a federal judge ordered that MS be broken up. The difference is kind of important.
The Judge wasn't origionally very fond of the 2 company idea because, realizing that there will be little or no reason for the companies to compete, that it would only distinguish them as two companies monopolizing their respective markets. Anyone know how they plan to actually help the industry with this rash but meaningless punishment?
All of this started just because Microsoft bundled their Internet Explorer with their OS. Hmm... Doesn't Red Hat Linux ship with Netscape installed??? Is that the same thing??? I use both Red Hat and microsoft products and I'd have to say that this break up will not only hurt the economy but also hurt the computer industry. I mean how many flavors of operating systems do we really want out there? Its bad enough try to get companies to support 3 or 4 OSes, but what happens when there are more? I'm afraid that because of this things are going to become even MORE incompatible. Just something to think about.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
So does anyone have any idea how something like this would be implemented? Maybe any interesting articles on how AT&T was dismantled?
e x p e c t d e l a y . c o m
Now, the breakup of Microsoft will certainly cost the company an immense amount of money as it buys new lodgings for the spinoff company, duplicates support staff, reorganizes, etc. But none of that money will be going to the companies that were harmed by Microsoft's illegal actions. I'd have liked to see them get a few hundred million each.
Any company that feels it was harmed by Microsoft's business practices can sue them for damages. Given the evidence, they may well win.
Microsoft will likely be beset by several hundred rather large house flies in the next few years.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Don't break out the booze for the party just yet... I can already smell a lawyer yelling "Appeal!!"
Not everyone deserves a 320i
Better yet, would a port of all of M$'s products be enough, or are you people going to insist that they release the source under the GPL and give everything away for free?
Flamebaiter: One who tells an unpleasant truth.
Should have broken up the M$ monopoly long ago. Happy days are here again. The scary thing about Bill Gates and Mr Ballmer is that they persist in claiming to have "done nothing wrong." A little remorse would go along way. But these guys are out of touch with reality. Power corrupts. Monopoly power corrupts absolutly. Cheers, smithdog
I think the real harm (or punishment) to Microsoft has already been done. The appeal process will take more than a year, and by then the issue will probably be irrelevant since MS would have adapted for whatever decision they predict will happen. what they've lost in public perception (including wallstreet) is enough for real competition to start emerging. look at how linux has grown since the trial started, and while i think linux's success was self earned, at least a portion of its recent popularity goes to the fact that there's the perception in people's mind that the king is about to lose the throne and have started looking elsewhere. I know this is hard to admit, but if we fail to see this we'll also fail to benefit from the oportunity. This is all AFAIK, IMHO and IANAL...
========================
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
At least partially. I think. I would not rule it out; and they planted the story originally.
Yeah...the empire has fallen!
I do not understand why everyone is so excited. Microsoft will win on appeal anyway. The appeals court will rule that either Judge Jackson isn't computer literate and therefore not qualified to make this decision. Yes, it's ironic that a decision supported by hard-core computer nerds loses to the Microsoft point and clickies because the Judge doesn't know anything. But that's life I guess
---
So, about the headline for this story. I'm I the only person who noticed the glaring error? "Justice Department Decides to Break Up Microsoft" NONONONONO! That's not how it works.The *courts* get to make those decisions. "Court Decides to Break Up Microsoft" is what it should say. It's somehow disturbing that this basic fact was so easily missed.
---------
No, Microsoft is in bigtime stall-mode. They'll submit the appeal in exactly four months.
I think there is a very good case that the Supremes will simply let the whole thing stand, without comment. They'd almost certainly do that instead of nitpicking second-guesses of Jackson's opinion. They'll only hear the case (which will take a hell of a lot of their time, remember) if they think there is a chance that they'll substantially disagree with Jackson.
The cake is a pie
MS Operating Systems is still allowed to bundle all of these tools into their operating system. Only now they will have to pay MS Applications the same amount as any other OS vendor.
I wouldn't call rush a 4 year drag of the case through the courts. It should have probably done one or two years ago.
Cheers
-c
Say you have a sliced wrist that is bleeding profusely. It would be like cutting your other wrist to keep the one from bleeding as much...
Timetable:
Not later than four months after entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall submit to the Court and the Plaintiffs a proposed plan of divestiture. The Plaintiffs shall submit any objections to the proposed plan of divestiture to the Court within 60 days of receipt of the plan, and Microsoft shall submit its response within 30 days of receipt of the plaintiffs' objections.
Four Months plus (probably) one month (as much as) sixty days plus 30 days...
Call it six to seven months.
Which puts it after the new gov't is in power.
Everyone vote liberal this time around... There's a slaying of the behemoth on the line.
Also of interest:
1.d Until Implementation of the Plan, Microsoft shall:
iii.take no action that undermines, frustrates, interferes with, or makes more difficult the divestiture required by this Final Judgment without the prior approval of the Court;
Guess that precludes NGW...
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
IE's good on Mac
Netscape 6 still looks bad
Opera reinstalled.
Anyone else find it disconcerting that we left it up to lawyers to decide Microsoft's fate rather people that actually know something about the computer industry or even just business in general. I guess Microsoft will soon be singing 'O Canada ...' in the not-too-distant-future...
Seems like a huge mistake was made in not breaking-off MS's online ventures. MS is obviously staking alot on MSN, MSN-mobile, MSNBC, etc...
If these properties are in the same company as applications, why WON'T they continue to give their sites preferential treatment in built-in channel lists, etc...
First, a nitpick: it wasn't the DoJ that decided to break up Microsoft, it was the Court. :)
Quoting from Judge Jackson's opinion:
Basically the Court is saying, "You guys are lying, cheating, and acting like nothing has changed, and saying that you can get away with it on appeal. You know what? Go ahead and appeal. I'm getting the knives out."
It gets better: Microsoft offered a bunch of witnesses to testify to the 'detrimental effects' of a possible breakup. To which the Court replied:
Basically saying, "your witnesses are BS and you're just delaying the inevitable."
I love this judge.
You can find the text of the ruling here, btw.
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
Microsoft breaks up... Ok fine, oh wait, shit, they had the best PC Gaming Platform in existance... Hmm, well since they break up all their products will go to shit, and Linux has it's chance, where's the games? Oh wait... The OS still sucks for games...
netcraft.com says:
usvms.gpo.gov is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP2 on Compaq Tru64 UNIX
How will this change things? M$ will still have the OS monopoly and the Apps monopoly. They still need eash other to make a package, and people are still going to buy it whether it's together or not. WOuldn't it have been more appropriate to split them into two complete, mini-M$'s than this way. That would really foster competition.
A real friend stabs you in the front. ~Oscar Wilde
Even if by some stretch of the imagination you believe that the government has a place dictating matters in the software industry, this decision does NOTHING to address the real issues of the case. This is a "show decision", that's all.
Instead of one monopoly, this decision creates two of them. You think Microsoft-Apps will port Office to Linux? Why would they? Breaking Windows into a seperate company doesn't make Linux any more profitable as a target platform.
If anything (believe it or not), this decision might even make an eventual Linux port of Office LESS likely, because without the Windows cash cow to fall back on, MS-Apps will be less interested in gambling by investing signifigant development time in a non-mainstream platform.
Regardless, the Court of Appeals has historically been more favorable toward Microsoft than Judge Jackson, so I have no doubts Microsoft will WIN their appeal... especially with all the potential for oversight they can point to. The judge seemed almost TOO willing to rush the case through as fast as possible. A decision like breaking up a company shouldn't be rushed.
NO CARRIER
I've been waiting all afternoon for news of the final decision. You beat out www.cnn.com by minutes. Kudos, Slashdot. Now, is anyone at all surprised???? Shannon
A comment overheard in a corn field `If you have better ideas, lets hear them. I am all ears.'
One effect of the breakup would be the creation of two monopolies where there was one. I'm not saying I support M$. Gods no! Bill Gates deserves to walk the street giving handjobs for cash. (Shades of South Park!)
What I'm saying is that there will be one monopoly for the applications and one monopoly for the operating system. The monopoly that controls the M$ Office will have a virtual monopoly with the Office. M$ Office has probably 90+ percent market share where office productivity applications are concerned.
Anyone up for M$ vs. DOJ, Round II?
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Well, the Samba team should be happy. The thing that they have *always* needed is access to the APis. That will happen before any appeal. As a side-effect, it should let us see the Kerberos 'extensions'.
But this ruling (if implemented) will reduce Microsoft to an irrelevance very quickly.
First, the OS group will lose their 'Unique selling point' - 'If you want to run Office, you have to run Windows'. That goes. As soon as the apps company releases Office for another platform (which will be soon). Then the OS has to compete on a level playing field, and without the apps, they can't. At the very least they would have to be cheap.
Secondly, the Apps company will want to move the 'Back Office' apps (IIS, SQL Server, Message Queue) to stable server platforms. And that means UNIX. This will happen *very* fast. This will kill Windows2000 server, and the Windows2000 Datacenter team can go home now.
Thirdly, The remaining good engineers will leave. A lot have already gone. OK, maybe they'll stay. But they will want *big* pay rises, because they won't believe in the share options any more. I know I'd be 'considering my options'.
The OS group will be left nursing a large number (Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinCE, Win2K, WinBleurgh etc) of operating systems to support. For the forseeable future. They will have no 'killer app', because they can't bundle Office. Oh, whoops. That means they might have to (gasp) compete - and that will be a new experience for Microsoft executives.
And they can kiss goodbye to NGWS (Next Generation Windows Services). This will actually be the first big casualty, because developing it will probably defy the non-'structural' remedies, which come into force before any appeal. So they've blown all that money already. If I were a minority shareholder I might consider whether the directors were acting properly when they decided to spend that money. And there are a huge number of minority shareholders.
Which brings me to my final point. This ruling opens the way to a *lot* of other lawsuits. Including some very nasty class actions. In fact, the pork barrel is so full the problem will be preventing coronary heart disease in the lawyers.
Thomas Penfield Jackson, We Salute You.
There's a rather credible (if somewhat paranoid) argument that by getting the judge pissed off at them, MS damaged *his* credibility, and thereby increased their chances of winning on appeal.
Its kind of amazing that everybody has an opinion, and the first guy to state the obvious got a score:5 for saying that Microsoft is going to appeal. I find it interesting that a lot of self-named "geeks" and "nerds" support this breakup, most of which are "going with the crowd." Without Microsoft, there would BE nothing like what we have today. Some may think of it as a necessary evil, but I think of it as a company made by some guys who worked their asses off and it payed off. Everyone seems to say M$ etc., but i'm amazed at what these people don't know. Ignorance is not a pretty thing. For those of you wondering, you're not looking at a Microsoft employee, but a teenager's view in the situation. I hate Microsoft products as much you do, and i supported the idea of breaking it up at the start. But then someone asked me the question: "why do you support it?" and I came up with all sorts of geek answers. It took me a while to get it, but he's right. I am just going with crowd. The posts i see say something sad. It says that a teenager is able to see the story in an entirely different point of view than lots of adults. But different points of view is why slashdot was created anyways.....
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
If Microsoft didn't want the judge to be biased towards the DoJ, then why did they go out of their way to piss him off?
:o)
Two reasons:
Microsoft's Arrogance,
and Microsoft's Arrogance.
Now, I realize that's really only one reason, but it's such a big one, that I thought it was worth mentioning twice.
MS stock is currently around, oh, 60-70% of where it might be without the antitrust situation. Considering the company's market capitalization, that's one hell of an impact.
I think everyone knows it will be a couple of years before MS has to actually comply with anything. However what has happened that matters is a very formal, very public, very credible statement by the court that MS is managed and controlled by a collection of lying, ruthless, untrustworthy scoundrels.
The other thing that's real is Linux, KDE, Gnome and the rapidly increasing credibility of alternative computing solutions, especially on the desktop. We're not there yet, but another 1-2 years and it will be a whole new ball game. When the investment community wakes up to that realization, the shit will be hitting the fan in earnest.
Linux has also been deemed to be a monopoly OS. Linus Torvalds is no longer allowed to have any communication with Alan Cox. Mozilla must be developed by another company other than Redhat. Enlightenment must not interoperate with KDE.
Is Solitare considered a seperate application? I think M$ has a strong argument for Solitare being a crucial part of the OS... Definitely the most popular "utility" in the history of Windows :0)
"I always wanted to be a procrastinator,
Whoa, now.
The only technical things that are clearly defined, are the specific existing known product names and project codenames.
There is no entry in the list for "Internet browser," a term which Microsoft has steadfastly (and fairly reasonably) said they require, in order to know what their new boundaries would be.
For example, given the definition of "Middleware," it is hard to tell exactly what CAN be included in operating systems in the future. Is the "Windows Explorer" (not Internet Explorer) a Default Middleware product? You can use Norton Desktop or other OEM-produced item to avoid using it, but with no local file browsing at all, what use is the OS to the average person? Is the command line component CMD.EXE/COMMAND.COM (et al), a Middleware product?
Looking at Windows today (or any other Operating System), what fits the definition of Middleware? Everything above the kernel, and even some parts OF the kernel, could be construed as Middleware. The fact that Microsoft has, in the past, ported the majority of the Win16 API to the Macintosh (Windows on Mac), strengthens this argument.
If I were a devious Microsoft, I'd turn the Operating Systems Business into a company that produced,
Everything else would be a part of the Applications Business, charged with developing such Middleware as,
All that the Operating Systems Business would have to do is develop interfaceless devices such as XBox, and headless/rack servers.
What do you want to install today?
[
I think once this plays out the open-source community could wind up with an interesting new ally.
Consider how in the late 70's to early 80's IBM was considered to be the the posterboy for evil, big companies. Today, IBM is part of "our team" in making the world safe for choice.
MS-OS is eventually going to be divoriced from MS-APPS. MS-OS will likely continue with as many of it's current practices as it can without falling on DOJ's radar again. MS-APPS will be the outsider. An outsider with rights to all code written before the split-up. Such intersting posibilities...
Ultimately I think MS-APPS could (give them 10 years) become what IBM is today.
There is absolutely no reason why the Applications part of the business can't buy Be Incorporated and essentially recombine the "Windows Monopoly" under another name. Besides, the BeOS is modern, stable, forward-thinking, and crash-resistant, which can't be described by Windows. Since Bill G, Paul A, etc. have to choose sides, they will certain choose the Apps side and then beat Windows at their own game. Now, of course, the new Apps Company would have an OS that works, and that is what most people want or care about.
This post should be kept longer on the first page and with a border aroung it (as a framed picture). It already has lots of comments.
Also a Poll on the theme would go very well along with it.
Cheers.
6. Effective Date, Term, Retention of Jurisdiction, Modification.
b. Except as provided in section 2.e, the provisions of this Final Judgment apply to Microsoft as defined in section 7.o of this Final Judgment.
7. Definitions.
o. "Manager" means a Microsoft employee who is responsible for the direct or indirect supervision of more than 100 other employees.
The provisions include:
- Requiring Microsoft to license Windows to PC makers under uniform prices and terms according to a schedule accessible to the government and those PC makers;
Comment: "PC makers: always ask the fiscal ticket when you go to Bill's shop"
- Barring Microsoft from interfering with the way PC makers set up start-up screens, the Windows desktop, preferences, and Internet connection wizards;
Comment: "The popular rock group DOORS in fact had problems with their startup screen. Bill shouted to Jim - 'Windows is the name, Windows! Windows! Got it?' "
- Requiring the company to disclose technical information about its operating systems to independent hardware and software companies so that those companies can design products that are compatible with Windows;
Comment: "I don't want their tech info. I can write programs running perfectly without MS and without windows. No bugs allowed."
- Prohibiting Microsoft from degrading the performance of "middleware" made by other companies. Middleware is software that operates between an operating system and another type of software application;
Comment: "Tech Support On-line? Hey, my email management program is, uhm, in some way *degraded* in performance by, uhm, the operating system called, uhm, windows. Any advice? Hm? Huh-huh, so I'd better to uninstall... ah the OS itself, uhm, hey thanks!"
- And restricting the company from binding middleware products, such as a Web browser, to its Windows operating system unless access to that middleware can be removed by PC makers or end-users.
Comment: "Look mama! I got a new PC with Internet Explorer!! Windows? No, at the shop they told me that Microsoft told them "EITHER Windows OR Internet Explorer" They have been very clear. But I can remove IE and buy Windows. And when I want IE again I can uninstall Windows, get it back to the shop..."
Final comment: "MS has split in two? So now there are TWO COMPANIES? OH MY GOD!! One was not enough?!?!"
Greetings.
The Justice Department called for the Microsoft breakup weeks ago. The big news today is that an entirely separate branch of our Government, the Judiciary, has ruled that the breakup is mandated. Your headline is a terrible misstatement, an offense to American civics students.
While the Justice department is clearly a political animal, the judiciary is somewhat (at least one step) insulated from all that.
I for one am really (favorably) impressed at how the independent judiciary has come to grips with the real issues here. The issue is not whether a lower price on Microsoft stock will 'hurt' their shareholders, it's whether Microsoft broke the law.
For a professed non-computer user, Judge Jackson has done one heck of a job, and in an incredibly timely manner. Kudos.
It will be business as usual while they appeal and drag things out. More things will be embraced and extended. Meanwhile MS is building a new headquarters in Sealand.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!