Slashdot Mirror
New Mexico Drops out of Microsoft Case
Hiawatha writes: "Looks like
Microsoft has peeled off one of the states." The article is kinda interesting, it talks about how New Mexico's attorney general is all on Microsoft's side now against the remaining states. It's amazing that after years of abusing its power, Microsoft is just gonna walk over this. *sigh*.
This is not based speculation from their actions. It is based on direct evidence of MS executives' intentions.
Did it help you, the consumer, when Microsoft used it's discriminatory pricing to punish vendors who marketed competing products? Did it save you from the confusing situation where multiple products competed for your affection?
I must admit, the whole IE bundling thing is dumb. I think MS was actually making the right decision to include a browser with the OS. But there are other issues that have nothing to do with MS's "freedom to innovate". There's nothing innovative about using your monopoly to stifle competition. That's what this lawsuit is about.
Punishing MS for business tactics that harm consumers and the free market system is not contrary to OSS, America, or anything else other than unbridled capitalism. The US did unbridled capitalism for a while, and it didn't work well. That's why anti-trust laws exist.
if MS had a true monopoly, there would be only one OS on all systems.
By this statement alone, it's obvious that you don't understand what you're talking about. People like you love to throw out this nifty-sounding bullshit and hope that other ignoramouses will buy into it. If you knew a thing about markets, you'd know that you don't have to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly. You'd also know that having a monopoly is not illegal in itself. You'd understand that it comes down to how whether or not they use that monopoly in ways that gives their products a marked advantage over other products which has nothing to do with the quality of the product itself. This goes against the idea of free and open competition that our economy is based on. That's why the government is supposed to step in and right things. In Microsoft's case the government completely screwed its first attempt by believing Microsoft would abide by the spirit of their agreement rather than jumping straight through the first loophole they found. Now they're back for another try and I, for one, will be extremely pissed off if they screw this one up too. I'm sick of seeing Microsoft use their OS monopoly to beat OEMs and competitors into submission. Nor do I want to see them get away with the profit of their actions. Of course the fucked up IP laws in this country only make it easier for them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No...
Linus Torvalds didn't create Linux because of Microsoft.
He created Linux because he wanted something better than Minix, but couldn't afford to go out and buy any of the Commercial Unices of the time.
I can't remember what all was around back then. I recall SCO Unix and there were several SVR4 releases. I don't recall when Unixware and BSDi entered the market...
But in '92 if you wanted Unix on your desktop that mean paying at least $600, but more often close to $3,000 or so if you wanted a C compiler, etc.
This anti-Microsoft thing didn't start happening until much much later, and it wasn't Mr. Torvalds driving it.
There's few of us around who remember this, it seems.
How the fuck is XP "innovation" at all? Let's take the 10 year old NT kernel, bolt on Plug-n-Play (5 years too late), and bolt on a really retarded MS Bob-like inteface. XP is the cheapest new OS in years, excluding marketing costs.
More interesting is that Microsoft used their monopoly to essentially segement the market by downplaying NT for the last 8 years and foisting what was supposed to be a compatibility solution (Win9x) but turned out to be an unreliable pre-modern piece of shit onto 90% of the computing public's desktops.
My guess is that they've realized that the support gravytrain and the upgrade cycle is over. Expect Win XP to hang around for a long time.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The reason that XP is better is precisely because there is competition (of a sort) from Linux and Mac OS X. This is more pronounced in the server arena, though - from all reports W2K is a big improvement over NT4 for server use, precisely because Linux is a very credible threat in the server arena. Also, Microsoft has some impetus to turn out new (not necessarily better) software frequently in order to keep customers on the upgrade trail and ensure consistent cash flow to meet Microsoft's business needs.
True, Microsoft has innovated at times, mostly as a direct result of being spurred by competition. But their usual practice is to innovate a little and then market a lot in order to bury the most recent threat (lately it's Real, leading to Windows Media Player). Once Microsoft switches to its new subscription pricing model, they will have no reason to innovate at all without competition (because they don't have to force an upgrade every few years), and I think you'll see innovation stop in those markets where they have no competition.
If you can't get your really cool software onto new PCs because Microsoft has used its OS monopoly to push MS-apps, then it doesn't matter how hard you've tried. If you've written the most innovative code anywhere, but Microsoft can use its ill-gotten gains to clone your project from scratch faster than you can lock in market share, it doesn't matter how much work you've put into things. For very basic reasons ingrained in our capitalistic system, as well as network effects dictated by the nature of software in general, it's very tough to unseat a reigning monopoly, especially one which has shown itself to be as unprincipled as Microsoft.
You only have to read a quote from a venture capitalist saying that they won't fund businesses that would go up against Microsoft to see how strong and resilient the monopoly really is. VCs understand innovation - they're not afraid of funding projects that are often too innovative and ahead of their time. But they know markets too, and the truth is that in some markets it has been and will continue to be almost impossible to compete with Microsoft on the basis of innovative products or competitive (but profitable) pricing.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I read that comment as "We know that no one can control Microsoft, so at least we'll get on their good side while they're relatively weakened". What a huge loss for the forces of law and order.
I'm amazed that anyone would consider lightening up on Microsoft just because they're trying (not very convincingly) to clean up their act now. Present good deeds don't make up for past misconduct in any other court in the land. The attitude is "Well, they've changed their ways, and it would be too hard to prosecute them any further, so...". Where's the famous American thirst for vengeance that gets fired up whenever some lunatic blows up a building? :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Try scrolling down. The article is longer than a couple of paragraphs.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
From the first draft of the CNET article,
"Originally planned for last week, the announcement was delayed when Madrid and the Microsoft lawyers could not use MSN IM to finalise the sell-out."
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
The New Mexico AG simply doesn't want to have a say in further proceedings. If she can get M$ to pay the State's costs so far and retain the right to share in any eventual settlement extracted by the DoJ and the rest of the States, then it's just a management decision about where to allocate her staff, no matter how she or M$ might spin this. It won't have any affect on the rest of this case.
Remember the important things:
* The Appeals Court found Microsoft in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This won't just go away, no matter what Gates does.
* One of the reasons for vacating the breakup was uncertainty it would be an effective remedy to prevent future Microsoft misdeeds.
* Another Judge could impose a breakup into _more_ pieces (OS Client, OS Server, Browser, Office, and Media); it could happen.
* Conduct remedies could be imposed, with or without breakup; this would burden Microsoft greatly with DoJ oversight procedures.
* The DoJ has to satisfy 18 States, some of which are still "very troubled" (read, pissed off) at Microsoft's recent actions and plans.
* If not finally reversed, the Court's decision will fuel a storm of civil suits in the US alone. AOL Netscape has a solid foundation.
* Europe's antitrust commission hasn't even _started_ in on Microsoft yet, and the US guilty verdict may influence their thinking.
Microsoft is dead, everybody knows this... except them.
Um, lemme see. The single quote from the AG contains, "I am no longer persuaded a breakup remains appropriate or will ultimately be ordered by the courts. It is obvious Microsoft will continue to resist attempts to require this remedy." That doesn't come screaming out of the page at me as "being all on Microsoft's side."
That sounds more like, "they're not going to give up, and they have more money than all 19 states in the suit put together, so we would run out of money first. Let's go do something constructive instead."
Ah, but it's Slashdot. If you're not ranting against the evils of Microsoft, you're all on their side.
(Go ahead, smack me for wanting some journalistic integrity. I've got karma to blow.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
How many states are still involved in the suit?
The only real problem is that the case is going to drag on and on (much like IBM) so any "correctional damage" (aka Justice) might not be effective if everyone could just agree to what the sentence should be.
No! Bad! 99% of the prosecuting states isn't good enough! I demand a full 100%!
Maybe we should see if we can get Judge Patel on this case. Her technical incompetance could be useful. Just call the Microsoft programmers "hackers" (Well, it's gotta be some really hacked up code...) and we've got it in the bag. But then again, she'd probably be happy with a nice big Microsoft "donation", right up next to her RIAA one.
M$ bashing only helps M$++ in the end.
I think that is a great summary of where this case is going, not just on a state level but also on a national level.
The courts will not order a break-up, and Microsoft knows it. They've cleaned up their image enough to get away with what they've done in the past. If anyone wants to get in a slap on the wrist before it's too late, this would be the time to give it to them.
Got Rhinos?
- To think that the console battle has even begun is a delusion! Now we have Sony, Nintendo, Sega and MS. MS will probably find that by the time the XBox is starting to have the sort of titles required to get taken seriously, Sony will have a PS^3 which runs Linux (hey maybe they'll change to Be or QNX or XP hehe) and still runs PS2 games (if not PS1). The Gamers market is going to be a LOT harder for them to get into, too many of it's market will be thinking "I'm not having my console BSOD".
- I remeber NT 3.5
.... it didn't get far! NT4 (Chicago) was meant to solve all this by bringing all the dos users up to the NT codebse... it failed and NT gained a server role for MS but not spectacular numbers (think NT V 9x boxes). Me ... I don't know a single person who runs it (though I know many who ditched it). Win 9x is everywhere ... the latest efforts are getting a very very slow rollout! Of and the 2000 you never montioned, it's struggling to replace NT on servers and is still being left on the shelf for the 9x (or maybe Me) line on the Desktop. MS are successful and sell a lot of products, but their performance is really becoming a lot less spectacular (hence subscriptions are coming).
Bottom line, MS are NOT what they were! They have fragmented their userbase (not fatally, but it is weakening their position). MS's business model is in ensuring that PCs come with Windows and that people buy the upgrades they release until they replace the PC with a new Windows PC. People are staying behind and not upgrading (ignoring the people who do upgrade...illegally). Add to this their attempts to take dangerous decisions (XBox, XP,Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Basically, monopolies are owned for the most part by fairly meglomaniacal types, and so even when it would make economic sense to spin part of it off, they don't want to, or don't think about it, because they like owning an enormous, monopolistic company. The companies get so big that they repress their own industries, and end up not only preventing themselves from making a profit, but also stifle the growth of the industry, cutting into their own revenues too.
This is one of the reasons I was happy that the courts rejected the break up order. I'd rather see Microsoft get beaten down than have them be split into two smaller, more dynamic Baby-softs, that continue to dominate their markets (OS and Office software, respectively) for years to come.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Did most people choose Internet Explorer because it was technically superior or because Microsoft made it integral to the OS and made the OS unstable for other browsers? (BTW, don't tell me about how much more wonderful IE is. Let's talk about its relative merit at the time they began bundling it. I used NS and IE at that time and they were comparable. I actually preferred NS. Lately Netscape/AOL has really dropped the ball, but that isn't strictly relevant.)
The drive behind the antitrust case is exactly that consumers were denied the ability to make choices based on merit. Just because Soviet candidates always received 100% of the vote doesn't mean people actually wanted them in office...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Remember, Micro-Soft was started by Gates and Allen in Albuquerque, NM : the state *had* to pull off the suit to preserve historical decency.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Um... no, it's not. Right, wrong, the Gallup Polls never lie. The average American feels that Microsoft is a company that came out on top through hard work and perserverance (the "American Way (TM)") and that their presence in the industry is an overwhelmingly good thing.
Personally, I'm waiting for the day when Linux developers have to appear before the HUAC.
"It really *is* over, MS is no longer what it used to be, and it is downhill from here."
Let me tell you about this .NET thing that seems to be catching on... I just got a propoganda pamphlet about it today in the mail, in fact...
And to those who say that Microsoft is crumbling; it's image is ruined. Bull. That's not even close to true. Their stock is making an amazing come back after losing nearly two thirds of their stock value. Sales are better than ever; the advertising over their .NET and XP software is everywhere and they haven't even started their campaigns yet. Crumbling ususally isn't associated with a soaring profit line and stock price...
Not saying that this is good [lest I get the hurt of the -1 mod] but I'm just saying that as the lame Backstreet boys say Microsoft "is stronger than yesterday...."
-H. Simpson.
(I really think I just ruined my post by using a quote from a pop boy band)
...microsoft probably agreed to ignore all license violations in the NM govenment offices.