Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses Delay Appeal
cheesethegreat was the first to submit that Microsoft has lost their appeal to delay their case by requesting a review with the Supreme Court. We mentioned the appeal a few weeks ago. The link doesn't say much more than that the appeals court denied the delay.
why, thanks! coming from an amoeba (or are you a paramecium? chloroplast? mitochondrion?) like yourself, I take that as a compliment...
I have trouble understanding how so many people can abandon the principles that made the USA great. Free trade is central to freedom. Without it, we have no basis for private property, and no incentive to work. Adam Smith proved the importance of a free market, and every step our nation has taken towards maintaining that market for the US and the world has resulted in massively increased wealth.
Unfortunately, even as deregulation brings us ever closer to true freedom from government oppression, there are people who still think conspiracy in restraint of trade is justified. They seem to think american consumers aren't smart enough to chose the best web browser and need litigation in order to make the choice.
The MS trial is an unjustified attack on freedom, not only for MS, but for Americans in general.
Now remebmber Bill Gates is a clever ...he will squirm out of this. I think
"However, the court affirmed Judge Jackson's conclusions that Microsoft does have a monopoly in the market for computer operating systems and maintained that monopoly power by anticompetitive means which violated U.S. antitrust laws." Oh, I guess Linux and OSX aren't considered competiting operating systems?
You are correct: the resources to create a desktop O.S. are out there. Otherwise Linux, Open/Net/FreeBSd and others wouldn't be here.
A monopoly is not bad or illegal until a company *abuses* that monopoly. IMO, Microsoft has. If you don't believe so, please inform Be and any other now nameless O.S. companies that have been applied any pressure to not deliver.
Also, Microsoft *abuses* their monopoly by leveraging that monopoly into their other products. Whoever controls the Operating System usually can control *what* can actually run on it and *how* those applications run, including but not limited to that application's performance. Microsoft has pressured OEM's to *not* load software onto the computers that the OEM sells. How? By leveraging the monopoly of their desktop Operating System.
And what are they doing with XP? Integrated MSN Messenger, Media Player and other applications. While doing that, they *again* pressure OEM's not to include competitor products, even though they say, "it's what the consumer wants". *THAT* abuses their monopoly. I *will not* have a company tell me what I do or do not want.
So what? They don't control anything but the x86 Desktop market... Of course, they'll *never* try to leverage their desktop Operating System onto other chips (Itanium, Alpha, Mips).. No, they would never do that. They are like the Borg: take a planet(x86), then move on to the next one and conquer it(Itanium). It must be nipped in the bud.
The government has every right to interfere when a company *abuses* their position in the market place. I'm glad everyone doesn't follow the libertarian point of view of "no government interference"... the economy would die in short.
Though I appreciate your opinion, I whole-heartily disagree with it. That's what makes countries like the US good, IMO.
Allow Gates to hold controlling intrest in no more than one of these companies for a period of 2 years. That oughta do it. Did I leave anything out?
Yeah.
Ballmer, Alchin, Mundie, and no doubt others are every bit as evil, and exert even more control over Microsoft's illegal activities.
The problem is, if Bill can only hold one of the baby-Microsofts, then the others might behave legally and play nice.
But if you put one each of the above named evil directors in control of each baby-Microsoft, then competition will be ensured. Each MS will then compete with the others to see who can top the other's acts of evil, spite, greed, control, extortion, control, etc. Additionally, we as consumers would enjoy the advantages of the baby Microsofts being able to act in concert with each other because of the old-boy network of the guys in charge of each piece.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
That sounds like a punishments against Intel instead of a punishment against Microsoft. Certainly doesn't benefit consumers, as it would effectively kill the 'white box' market for PCs.
Congratulations on seriously suggesting that we reinvent the wonderful 70s era of minicomputer lock-in. IBM and Compaq thank you from the bottom of their hearts.
...you say that like it's a bad thing! After all it'll keep slashdot supplied with stories
Everywhere here is saying "split them. make Ballmer prez of one, and Allchin prez of the other, etc" Who the hell said anything about competition? Face it, if you break them apart, you have absolutely no guarantee that they won't cooperate.
We dance to all the wrong songs.
--Refused.
and you, sir, sound like a total fruit.
posts like this make me wish slashcode had a spell checker module.
I've already written one. No need to thank me.
The federal court can't wait to bend over backward and give Microsoft more latitude to continue to abuse their monopoly ...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Presumably, by the time a new trial-court judge is chosen and a new trial is scheduled, the Supremes will have a chance to either take up or turn dwon the appeal.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
... released anyway. If MS were to be broken up beforehand, would they throw away all the code to XP? ...
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
You can get the Microsoft research stuff here.
Yes, I'm a karma wh0re, before you ask.
"Faith is the last resort of a desperate man" - Me
that post was stunningly brilliant and unassailable...
Monopoly isn't synonomous with "100% market share."
Remember, you shouldn't always believe board game rules pamphlets.
I call the hat!
According to the law, you don't have to have 100% market share in order to have a monopoly. You must simply have a large enough share of the market that you can engage in anti-competitive manipulation without fear of losing your market share in the near term. I'd say that MS comfortably passes that test. If they decided to double their prices tomorrow, the vast majority of users would bend over and take it because they need Windows to maintain compatibility.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
One advantage the UNIX community has is that diversity over the years has forced developers to plan for portability from the ground up. Portability does create more work for the developers, but the software is better for it. It's one of those things that people can look back on and be thankful for as they now can use maintainable and widely useful software.
If Windows software developers are forced to rethink their designs to keep things working after a split in MS, so be it. It will be tough, undoubtedly, but the benefits will be: less reliance on the Registry, fewer files installed under C:/Windows, less code depending on specific "features" (bugs) in the OS, and on and on.
Windows really has an in-bred quality to it. The monopoly has allowed really bad software features to survive and become dominant as would occur with genes in an inbred human family. It just isn't in the best intrest of our future (who wants kids with 11 toes and blue skin? Unfortunately, Windows already has 15 toes, goat fur, and two heads!).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Don't break up the company, instead try this:
... but this will.
1. fire all the top level executives and all mid-level legal department heads (wholesale) - require that MSFT replace them from a list of people who work in other software firms but have not worked for MSFT (they pick from the short list)
2. require all specs and interfaces be fully documented and available to all other US and Canadian firms. Every new code release, have an independent auditor scan new code to make sure no unpublished code interfaces are used. Until it's golden and good, it won't go out.
3. Replace the current board of directors with one where no board member may hold more than 0.1 percent of MSFT shares and recieves no more than $50,000 in options, priced at date of grant stock price.
4. Put Bill Gates in a dunk tank in Westlake Mall in Seattle, with cream pies (non-toxic) and dunk balls for free, to all comers, for 8 hours a day, 2 days a week, for a six week period. The dunk tank should be heated if the outside temp drops below 70 F or 18 C and towels provided. Prison means nothing to him
5. Require community service by all managers and execs remaining of 8 hours of coding per week for 8 weeks for Open Source code on a recognized project. Peer review is sufficient punishment.
6. Require an FTC agent be present at all times for a five year period (exception - when going to bedroom with spouse or significant other) for all executive of VP and above. Any chargable offenses to be charged on execution of said offenses. All monitors and PDA screens to be visible to said agents at all times.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
All we got to do to squash XP is get a large sledgehammer. And make suer that all the XP boxes are sitting on top of the brand spanking new super powerful speaker magnets upgrade display case. what's that I hear? .........
XP is Vaporware MUahahahaha
make an advanced and extremely gory FPS thats only available on Linux, and Joe Sixpack will have the newest copy of Redhat (or any other Distro) with 2 hours of the announcement.
I don't see why this would be the case; the releases of Marathon and Marathon 2 certainly didn't help Apple's market share any...
--
"'quines' quines" quines "quines"
And the result of all this R&D is ... Clippy!!!
yeah, they can always have thier opening statment last 5 weeks :)
I don't think you can filibuster outside of Congress. Still, it would be amusing to have Bill Gates ranting and trying to stay awake like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
Yes... but in order to actually open the bundle and see the contents you have to agree to the EULA which requires you to find in favor of MS for all criminal and civil cases.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
PS - When I started this post, there were no posts. Since I tried to actually put some (admittedly not a huge amount) care into what I was saying, I guess this wont be a "First Post". I tried, though...
This is perhaps the saddest display I've ever seen here, including the penis bird guy. I can do nothing but lower my head in shame for the rest of us.
Indeed, I was mistaken.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Exactly. The government should lead the people by example, not by force.
Other things that I feel should be done are.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
The server market is just not significant. Very few people run their own servers, and companies don't upgrade their servers/routers/firewalls that often. The cash-flow, per unit time, is very small, even though servers (per se) cost a great deal.
The embedded market is also a limited one. Many embedded systems are embedded precicely because replacing the hardware or software would be prohibitive. As such, there's just no money in it. It's less a well, and more a puddle.
Whilst it is true that anybody "can" write a desktop OS for the PC architecture, in order to be competitive, you MUST have OEMs who support it and software houses who develop for it. Many a good system has died, because it was useless to the users. But OEMs are under intense pressure (and have been placed under contracts later ruled illegal) to ONLY supply Microsoft products. Software houses, such as Netscape, SpyGlass, etc, have either been pushed out of business, bought out completely, or had their products stolen. (Microsoft has been found guilty of software theft, in the past, most notably with the disk compression system in DOS 6.0.) Under those conditions, no competitor can thrive, or even survive.
Microsoft pretty much owns TV-based Internet access, via WebTV. And that means that it has a very strong grasp on Internet-aware appliances, once those develop. After all, that is what WebTV essentially is.
As for the market deciding -- it no longer has the power to. For the market to decide to switch away from Microsoft, EVERY SINGLE COMPANY, organization, household, etc, that uses Microsoft products would have to change at the same time, in the same direction, to an alternative that already supports the current Microsoft standard. Failure to do so would mean total chaos. Documents, spreadsheets, databases, etc, would be unreadable. Networks would stop working. Printers would stop printing. In short, civilization is as hooked on Microsoft as any heroin addict is on their drug. Microsoft-specific protocols, such as SMB and NetBEUI, and Microsoft-specific file formats, permeate everything. Any attempt to go "Cold Turkey" would be every bit as lethal as it would be for that addict.
THIS, in my humble(?) opinion, is the great threat Microsoft pose. Their products are just products. The label isn't important. And money, for corporations, is just play-stuff, anyway. The numbers mean nothing more than the numbers on a pinball machine.
BUT the addiction factor. Now, that CANNOT be escaped. Microsoft can tell the market exactly what to do, and the market will respond. The price of failure would be too great.
IMHO, this trial's focus on the Sherman Anti-Trust laws is all fine and well. But the real issues that keep getting mentioned are those addictive ones. Has Microsoft made withdrawl just too dangerous for anyone to contemplate?
If the answer is yes, then the Government damn well better "interfere". A Government exists to prevent dictatorial power-blocs from forming, where that dictator has created conditions such that refusing to be dictated to carries a penalty sufficiently high that your average person will comply.
I dislike the "libertarian" notion of removing "Big Government", alone. It creates a power vaccuum. Such a vaccuum created the monstrosity we know as Microsoft. Power vaccuums are BAD. Even if the power that was in them was "bad", the space left behind when that power is gone is MUCH worse.
TRUE Libertarianism would have to include limiting ALL entities, not just the Government. Otherwise, you replace an elected evil that has legal limits with an unelected one that has no limits at all.
I don't want to live in William Gibson's Neuromancer nightmare, or the sickness of Max Headroom. You might, and that's your choice, but frankly the thought of corporations becoming the latter-day Feudal Lords and Barrons is terrifying to me. You really, truly don't want to back-slide into a Feudal society. You just don't. If you aren't sure why, look through some English history books, some time. Specifically, look up events such as "The Peasents Revolt", the massacres perpetrated by King William and King Rufus, the endless horrors of the Tower of London, and the numerous regional wars (such as the Wars of the Roses).
If companies such as AOL and Microsoft are not subject to law, what's to stop them from buying up a bunch of mobile rocket launchers, and wiping out all who oppose them?
Am I going too far? Maybe not. In the end, what is the difference between destroying a competitor through intimidation, deceit, and industrial espionage, or destroying them with a short-range ballistic missile? The missile would probably work out cheaper, have a much higher chance of success over a shorter time-span, and be much more influential in how other companies act in future.
If the corporate wars have no bounds, then sooner or later, it's going to expand beyond mere price wars, verbal threats and forged video tapes.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
CNN has a PDF of the court decision here
This isn't exactly a surprise. The Supremes would really have to find something way wrong procedurally to override a *unanimous* Circuit Court opinion on a limited procedural question.
The common-law tradition is, in some strange way, like the open-source development process -- it tends to favor "working code". There is a strong bias in the system against mucking with what lower courts have done, and this is done only when the lower court does something that seems to be way out of line. You can see this in what the Circuit Court did to the trial decision -- it found that Judge Jackson was out of line in how he determined the remedy, but didn't throw out the findings of fact (and tossed it back to a different judge for the penalty phase).
I think that the fact that the Circuit Court's "en banc" decision was *unanimous* cut a lot of mustard with the Supreme Court.
PS - When I started this post, there were no posts. Since I tried to actually put some (admittedly not a huge amount) care into what I was saying, I guess this wont be a "First Post". I tried, though...
This page accidentally left blank
the contraction of "that is" is "that's". are you're glad that there are so many experts out here?
I didn't do it, and if I did, you can't prove it. Bart Simpson
Female Prison Rape in NY
No my Solitaire software company can sue MS for forcing people to use their Solitaire instead of mine. Wooopeee!!!
It has for me, actually it never really had any appeal. I am forced to use it at work. Bleh.
pronoblem
The best solution the problem of Microsoft's monopoly is this:
Rule that the "you can't sue us" clause in their licenses is null and void.
That's it; no other intervention is necessary from the government.
hahaha.
As I was reading the page I was scrolling and my eyes played tricks on me and I read the title as: Microsoft Loses Taco since CmdrTaco's name is right next to it.
Got a good laugh. It would be a funny story.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Recently in the news is how the $20+ billion in fines paid by tobacco companies have had little or no impact on smoking, as much of the money was appropriated for other purposes, such as balancing state budgets, etc. Teen smoking is still viewed as a problem, despite the cost (which includes a large amount in tax) of ~$3.50 per pack (for the cheappies.)
Soaking Microsoft for billions will clobber the stock value, short term, hurting investors more than a breakup likely would, and the machine that created the lucre would remain intact.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
When I first looked at the headline I read "Microsoft loses daily appeal"
:p
Seems like that one would work too
----
Bryan Samis
http://www.thesamis.net
That would be a solution, if it was workable. However it is not.
A) All federal agencies make their decisions seperately. The justice department can't make the decision for the other departments.
B) All have programs and procedures for Microsoft Products that lock them in.
C) No clear competitor exists to replace all government programs.
D) Even if successful, this won't affect Microsoft's dominance in home PCs, where you can't even buy a mainstream computer without MS software bundled (even Apple has some bundled!). Let alone convince people against it.
It's like asking the government to fund a competitor to Bell Telephone when they owned vitually all the phones in the US. Not workable.
-Ben
Maybe Microsoft shouldn't let their "partners" do whatever they want with the desktop. Maybe they should simply force the entire OS info full retail where users will get a computer from [insert crappy computer supplier here] with nothing but a blank hard drive. Then noone can blame Microsoft for not being fair...and just blame them for not being friendly.
I imagine the stockholders would force them to compete. If one of the three can make more money by fiercely competing with the other two, and doesn't, they would be threatened with those wonderful stockholder lawsuits we've seen lately. Each MS would be beholden to stockholders who would demand fierce competition.
That's the theory anyway. Of course, to hedge the bet, the DOJ probably ought to have some sort of legal remebdy to stop collusion.
I gotta get a tight tension on...
that Windows code will be clean from wait() and sleep() calls from now on???
Aha! You've discovered the plan of our Microsoft Masters! When the great XP is launched, our Judge-O-Trons will begin the process of recalling it, driving thousands of Lusers to CompUSA in hopes of getting a copy of the "dangerous and highly illegal" XP! It'll be more popular than Napster!
I gotta get a tight tension on...
Imagine this: Some random large company suddenly finds that they have 100x the cash on hand of any of any company that makes profitable product 'X', which is almost completely unrelated to their original core business. Product 'X' has great promise in the marketspace, so thinking long term they decide to blow all that extra cash to make a virtualy identacal product 'X'. Not only do they give their product 'X' away for 'free', they force everyone to have one by gluing it to the side of their already succesfult product that everyone *needs* to buy, so that it is completely pointless to purchase a product 'X' from anyone else. The other product 'X' companies' demise is guaranteed. Sure, this might seem harmless, and you might think it should be perfectly legal, hell they have the money they should be able to spend it how they want, right? What if you later found out that their motives were to put all the other companies that make product 'X' out of business so that they could then vastly overcharge you for product 'X' once you have nowhere else to go. They could then more then double that original cash pile, and then find some other lucrative product, glue that on too, and start the cycle over again.
This can't be allowed for many reasons. First the consumers of product 'X' are harmed. They loose choice, and demand no longer has any effect on price. Also there is no incentive to improve or maintain the quality of product 'X'. Marketplace innovation is stifled. Secondly, there is no incentive for new companies to go into business to create other new innovative products if there is any chance that this random large company could glue an identical product onto theirs. Innovation is further stifled, the business marketplace and economy suffers, and the consumer gets fewer new innovative products. It's unfortunate that something so subjective like fairness has to be enforced, but to some extent the system has to enforce fairness as a form of self preservation. Plus it's the freedom of individuals that matters, not the freedom of companies, right? You need to enforce a level of "fairness" on competition between companies to guarantee the freedoms of individuals.
I saw a pro-Microsoft post on here a couple years ago and it got modded up a point!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Here is a better article on the New York Times.
Not a good solution.
I think the best solution is to force them to publish ALL their API's. No more edge, no more false competition.
Too bad the court case wasn't about how they exploit the extra knowledge they have of their own systems. The case was about how they made sleazy deals with resellers and integrated IE into windows to make sure netscape went down the drain.
Yet nother crippling bombshell hit the eleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *SD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For ll practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
*BSD is dying
Funny. Funny. Funny.
It just took a sec to remember how we got our latest president, then I fell out of my chair.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
This should not delay XP and that would be harmful to consumers.
What needs to happen with this is that equilibrium needs to be restored in the computer marketplace through restraints put on Microsoft limiting how they can limit customers: Namely that hardware vendors that integrate the Windows operating system have every right to modify the desktop, add/remove programs, or develop relationships with other companies for cross-promotion. In Dell starts shipping computers with desktops full of third-party tools, and they replaced IE with Mosaic and removed notepad, then so be it: Let reviewers hash them out and sell the benefits versus detriments to the massive number of vendors which we as consumers get to choose from. Personally, while I don't like Java myself, I think it would be great if vendors preinstall the newest Java Runtime Environment for their customers.
Is this a good thing?
Perhaps it will delay XP, but is the prosecutor ready to hunt M$ down?
And, more importantly: isn't this a move that could be called a procedure fault, enabeling MS to drop the outcome and ask for a full redo?
still, can't say but "yeah!"
I was worried that Amendment VI was in danger... 4.5 years is much better than 5 years.
What if proporietary formats were outlawed all together, and companies had to provide specs for any new formats they create? This would have the same effect but for every one. People who need software for a certain task, could choose ewhatever software from whoever makes it, and still be able to share the files with people who use different software.
Open up the door for competition. People aren't using Office cause they like it! They use it cause they have to! Let the software creators create better software, and let the users choose what suits their needs!
Excellent idea. I say we call them Micros~1, Micros~2, and Micros~3.
Actually, AC starts at 0. So:
- AC post posted Score: 0
- AC post moderated -1 Offtopic
- AC post moderated +1 Funny
Bingo, Score: 0, Funny
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
They do R&D? What's that, in Redmond Speak? Reconnoiter & Dominate?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Yes! For the love of god, it does matter!
This is not explicitly true. While the clueless computer newbies perpetuate the proprietary file formats explosion by typing every 3 line memo/note in Word. It is the choice by MicroShaft et. al. to make these proprietary formats that causes the problem in the first place.
Question: Why didn't Microsoft propose an open standard for documents and put it in the public domain? Note I'm not talking about the source code just the document format.
Why? because it is not in their business interests to do so.
consumer's choice like hell.
There have been several suggested remedies, like splitting Microsoft into N pieces, nuke the Redmond Campus, conduct remedies, etc.
But instead, quite simple:
To begin:
All COTS software used by the US government will exchange data in fully documented, non royalty encumbered formats. Only special-order software may use proprietary or secret formats, and special order software may not be used where the function exists in COTS equivalents.
All wired and wireless protocols used by the US government for public exchange of information will be fully documented and non royalty bearing. Exchange of secret data will be fully documented and non royalty bearing, but that information will be classified to the same secrecy level as the data, and also subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Microsoft Windows has achieved "utility" status in the PC marketplace. To that end:
All terms of all contracts regarding sales and licensing of Windows will be available for public scrutiny.
Contracts for sales and licensing may not contain terms that exclude competitors and potential comptitors, such as per-system or exclusive usage.
Simple, but effective. (IMHO)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It worked with the Linux kernel..
A Microsoft employee was found walking down the streets of Bethesda, Maryland. More information to come.
So XP will release on time?
Here's the synopsis of the article - The article doesn't say much more than the link doesn't say much more than that the appeals court denied the delay.
I think the people above me are having sex - or they're sleeping restlessly and agreeing with each other a lot.
How come slashdot only supports open source, and if you support windows, you are modded down as flambait? You know and I know it, so you can mod me down now...
Because they are entirely different things, stupid. AT&T had a monopoly on all the local phone systems. The Baby Bells had control of their individual territories and therefore the ability to make money without killing each other.
Two companies with the same intellectual property with no recurring cost would not be able to survive. There is no market differentiation as there was in the case of the Baby Bells. Instead, each company is trying to sell the same product to the same consumer. And now that all the code has already been written, what do you think the marginal cost of printing the CDs would be? In fact, if the price of Windows in such a situation did NOT come down to about $5, you would have a very strong case of oligopolistic collusion between the companies to unfairly raise prices.
Mmmm.. Donuts
fine, they've released XP. honestly, from all i've heard, it's a superior OS to previous windows releases. so, that means that millions of home users of windows may have slightly less blue screen filled days.
now, they really are facing the reality they will be broken up for unfair monopoly practices. that is great, and I will be the first to throw a party in honor of the day this happens. Even if it does though, windows will still be the dominating home OS... so if they can improve it, great. XP would probably be released anyway, if MS was broken up beforehand - where they going to toss all the code?
this just means we may have to suffer through 1 more release of inferior product tie-ins (ie4, ms messenger...) and internet wizards holding our hand all the way to an msn lifetime subscription...
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
I hope that if there are any splits, they split into 2 competing OS companies, 2 competing office application companies, 2 competing internet companies, etc.
A split to a single os company and a single application company, etc probably won't help, right?
That only works when there is fair competition in the marketplace. Remember, there is a difference between having a monopoly position in the marketplace based on a good product, and using that monopoly position to force other companies to conform to your standards. The courts decided M$ WAS bullying other companies around unfairly, and therefore decided to take away some of their monopoly powers.
Unfortunately, since M$ has now been forced to stop bullying around its competitors, it's taken to bullying around its own customers.
I thought they already had the trial, and were simply awaiting a decision on remedies?
I don't think it's supposed to take very long.
It's possible I could be wrong here...
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
For a 13 year old.
Do all of the soundbytes used in this post and all of your financial/business knowledge come from Fox "Dance Party" News?
1. Make it illegal for them to require their product placement over that of others on the desktop.
IT IS ILLEGAL!!!!
2. Place no restriction or penalty on the cost of windows for companies that sell computers with other operating systems.
So, Microsoft can charge as much as they want for Windows to a PC company if that PC company offers other OSes? Yeah, that's probably not what you meant, but it is what you said.
However, if I understand what was meant by the preceding statement, this practice of "Microsot Taxing" is also illegal.
3. Create and monitor window wholesale costs so that it is sold to resellers of similar volume at the same price. This should not be public information, but monitored by an independant board appointed by the court.
I'm no expert, but I think it'd be quite hard to make this information private. Especially since most of the PC companies are public and must provide their financial information to examiners and auditors.
4. Require that any software installed by a competitor be allowed to become the first choice for operating on the media (I think this already occurs)
Yes, this does already occur, but when it takes one click to use the MS version, but 3 screens and 5 plus clicks to use the alternative... See Kodak.
5. Allow for removal of non-required components via the Windows Software Add/Remove. This means you can one click access away for IE, WMedia, or anything else.
Define "required". Isn't that the essence of the browser tying part of the case. MS says it's a required part of the OS, they were proven wrong. A 3 year court case for each item MS adds seems impractical.
6. Require Microsoft to show a good-faith effort in correcting incompatibilities caused by a software update on their part with a competitors product. Perhaps have an outside board judge the effort.
Do you think MS will start shoiwng good faith now?
MS: Oops, we did it again. We'll have a patch for that Quicktime problem in a few weeks. Meanwhile, you can use Windows Media player.
Regardless, who chooses board members? How many members? What disciplines should members have? Who pays their salaries? What happens when these boards and MS disagree, another court case? Has this ever been the remedy for an antitrust case? Don't call one person's ideas stupid when yours aren't any better.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
who says that they can't work together as an industry group? then every windows will work the same, then one company drops windows, the next drops office the next drops them all and picks up win32/64 API, file formats, etc. and sells them to the first two. this allows them to keep everything the same as it was before. the loophole is to big and the danger is to big, I don't want to have all other competing techs blown away by baby MSs competeing.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Won't someone please think of the plight of Microsoft? They're so helpless and vulnerable, this antitrust case would really be a mean thing to do, America! *shakes head* Sorry. Sarcasm lobe got stuck in the "on" position.
Severl liberetarian /. readers (like myslef) have said time and time again "so what if MS has a monopoly. It's not the gov'ts job to interfere." Which is true. But there's another point to make. This so-called monopoly is pretty damn limited.
In the findings of fact, it says that MS has a monopoly on desktop-level operating systems for the x86 architecture. So freaking what? They dont have any influence anymore on powerpc. or spark. or whatever. They don't have a monopoly (yet) on server OSes. They don't have the embedded market wrapped up (even though they're trying). They don't make the omst popular pvr (tivo). They dominate one, limiting aspect of the computing industry.
To be a monopoly, they've got to have such extensive control that other distributors are effectively cut off from supplying a competing product. Well guess what? ANYONE is free to write a desktop os for x86. The resources are there, and available. All thats standing in the way is consumer demand and the market's desire to relative uniformity and compatibility. If the market loses interest in MS, MS loses its hold. the market is still in power, not the company. This isn't like oil or the phone lines - microsoft doesn't have all the raw mateirals locked up. There is a freaking difference.
End rant.
BTW - I'm no MS troll. I can't stand most MS products (earlier versions of word and to an extent win2k aside) and find its business practices offensive (just not illegal).
Bill Gates Loses Sex Appeal
"Just tell em Large Marge sent ya." -Large Marge, (the Ghost)
Melikes your prayer. I'm gonna email it to a bunch of friends, unkay? :)
A delay would have put this trial off by what, a couple of weeks?
Maybe longer. But the important point is that they are trying to put it off in order to prevent justice. If they can get XP into the market place before a new remedy is pronounced, it gives them a big advantage.
This will be a 3-year long trial, while Microsoft calls in experts
This is what Microsoft wants, not what is good. It is good that the court isn't going to let MS stall this out forever.
Microsoft...., trying to protect the money that they fought so hard to earn
trying to protect the money they fought so hard to extort from us. Everyone is so happy to pay higher prices for lower quality.
We're never going to see a just resolution to this
Sure we could. Nuke the MS campus.
so what does it matter if they aren't delayed a few weeks?
Because MS might be able to rush XP out the door to further remove competition and prevent innovation.
--
Our father who art in Redmond,
Microsoft be thy name.
Thy monopoly come, thy chokehold be complete,
throughout the earth as it is in the US.
Give us this day, our daily license renewal.
And forgive us our bug reports,
as we forgive our system crashes.
And lead us not into competition,
but deliver us from innovation.
For thine is the control, and the power,
and the greed forever.
Amen.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Here is my opinion on the whole microsoft breakup.
:-)
M$/2 = Jackson's Ruling
M$/3 = Supreme Court Ruling
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
Yes it is like the phone lines. Ever try to get a Linux driver out of a winmodem maker (Lucent LT drivers for linux 2.2 notwithstanding)? The "raw materials" in this case are the peripherals.
that is the FREEDOM of the hardware manufacturer. If they want to close the source of their specs, or not release a driver for linux, that's LIFE. I wish people would stop bitching about it, it will get you nowhere.
Wrong. You need documentation on the hardware interfaces, and many peripheral manufacturers have a policy of keeping hardware interfaces a trade secret
ever hear of something called REVERSE-ENGNINEERING? People do it all the time.
let's say linux became the dominating server operating system on the market. Manufacturers started to only write drivers for linux. Should the government force it into the public domain? It would be unfair practices for commericalized closed source OS's. Even IF windows gets destroyed tomorrow, linux is NOT a mature enough OS to take its place.
and comparing microsoft to the AT&T monopoly is like comparing apples and oranges. AT&T became the dominating company because they bought out all others. Microsoft, on the other hand, was the best, and most popular. This argument really isn't about control, or "freedom". It's about capitalism. Most zealouts would rather have things "free". Beer and speech.
What we need to re-establish competition is not a breakup but an opening of the file formats MS uses in its products. If KOffice, StarOffice, AbiWord, WordPerfect, etc. could take a Word doc and seemlessly import/export it between the other applications I would then have a true choice of what program I wished to use or deploy in a company. I could make a decision based on price and features instead of being locked into one choice of app and OS because I must have the ability to read MS's format.
At the moment, the cost is way too high to change office suites because successfully migrating the documents is a tedious and time consuming process. Lower that barrier and companies could explore alternative solutions.
Opening the formats would also speed up the time that competitors could create filters for those formats.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
just in case you haven't heard, the killer app for 'joe sixpack' (i hate that phrase, but just keeping with your original words) is AOL (with possibly MSN in the mix).
most dumbasses i know on the internet want to a. get email b. search for 'nude pics of britney spears' or c. chat with (what they believe are) 17 years old girls.
most windows users don't have a gory fps on their computer (although i'm sure anyone who gets royalties from quake would be just thrilled if this were the case).
so even though i disagree with you on how to convert average users to linux, i agree that any coder on any project should try to think originally, write killer code, and take pride in their work - whether open source or not.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
where they going to toss all the code?
Good point...their idea of a bit bucket regurgitates stuff if you want it back.
What's this Submit thingy do?
The Simpsons equivalent of that movie with Mel Gibson is the best. A Senator gets impaled with a flag :).
Having a monopoly isn't (usually) illegal, it's the illegal maintenance of it that is, er, illegal.
Well let's be picky all the way - 99% of people use the x86 architecture **indirectly** or directly. Now, are you happy?
Splitting off Office isn't going to do anything as there isn't much competition for Office (except WP, but that battle was lost long ago).
They should split off the OS from everything else. Then, MS-software would have to compete to be on the MS desktop, just like everyone else.
lawyers or r&d ???
Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You - ONLY HARDER!
Many Slashdotters seem to have missed the point of what this case was about. This case isn't about Microsoft Office, or Microsoft just being too big, or Microsoft not innovating, or their products sucking...
This is about bundling. Windows XP bundles replacements the top software of the past year, in an attempt to kill it. CD burners, audio players w/ plug-ins, audio/video codecs, web browsers. This is why they have monopoly power. See where realaudio, winamp, EZ CD Creator, DIVX, Netscape/Mozilla are in 3 years when everybody has XP. Why bother to buy/download those products?
Splitting MS into Office & Windows doesn't resolve it. The their apps, tools, utilities, and development software must be split apart.
Right now users are getting a lot of stuff included for free.
___NOTHING___ Microsoft "gives away" is free (well, unless you're a pirate. Oy matie! [would that be a Jewish pirate?]), and it upsets me to hear that being said or perceived. Every single widget or fancy that Microsoft builds to wipe some company out of business COSTS CONSUMERS. Windows Me, which is a minor facelift of Windows 98SE, which was a minor facelift of Windows 98, which was a minor facelift of Windows 95, costs $180 new or $90 as an upgrade, despite the overwhelming majority of the technology being paid for many times previously (and despite the presumed efficiency of numbers), but Microsoft needs to continue to rake in the dough to put all of those other companies out of business with the "free" IE, the "free" Media Player, the "free" Netmeeting, etc. The problem is that even if the user does opt to buy and install 3rd party software, most of it doesn't exist because Microsoft has abused their monopoly position and pushed companies in many other software fields out of business as they provide their services "for free", and the customer is already paying for the "free" software that Microsoft is providing. Even if you don't buy or use Microsoft software, Microsoft also subsidizes their monopoly with the Office suite, so think about the costs that countless businesses you do deal with are paying to subsidize putting Netscape et. all out of business.
Microsoft is not like any other software company out there: They control the desktop space, they have enormous money, and they have shown a willingness to abuse their monopoly will little regard for perceptions or legalities. Comparing Microsoft with a car company, of which you can choose between Ford, Honda, GM (many brands), Toyota, Hyundai, etc. etc. etc. (and of each of those you have countless models to choose from) is pure folly.
Let me give a better analogy: Say your telephone company, of which there is only one and there is no real competition (sure there's a couple of other companies with a micro portion of the saturation, but if you sign up with them you can only call customers on their network, and because all your friends and neighbours use the monopoly you stick with it...the old chicken/egg, and it's the concept of a monopoly to begin with), decides that they feel threatened by the local newspaper (maybe the newspaper has supported competing phone companies, or they've talked about legislation) so they start providing a "free" newspaper to all of the cities residents versus the outrageous $1 a day of the competitor, and, oh yeah, coincidentally they have to raise rates 20% because of "increased costs". NOTHING that ANY business "gives" away is free, and whether you realize it or not you are paying for it. The outrage comes if you are being forced to pay for it because of an abused monopoly position, and that is why the situation is as it is right now.
The question is, how long would it take M$ to make the position ineffectual? Possible solutions?
What's this Submit thingy do?
Another good question is how much scope the corporations have to _act_ as police themselves: for instance, unexpectedly raiding companies and looking for pirated (sic) software (gee, who is acting more like a pirate there?) and, if any is found, turning the victims over to the 'real' police. If the raiders get the capacity to cuff the victims themselves, they _are_ police to all extents and purposes, just a sort of 'feudal' police with their own agendas.
Man, between the illiteracy and the illogic of your post you just gave me the worst headache I've had in weeks.
I wish people would stop bitching about it, it will get you nowhere.
EXCEPT IT HAS. What do you think convinced all the manufacturers who have released their specs to do so?
And I wish you'd stop bitching about other people bitching, but I know I'm not going to get that wish from a whiny little troll like you.
ever hear of something called REVERSE-ENGNINEERING? People do it all the time.
Ever heard of something called SLAP SUITS? People go bankrupt over them all the time.
AT&T became the dominating company because they bought out all others. Microsoft, on the other hand, was the best, and most popular.
Heh
Heehee
Hahahaha
BWAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!
Ow... Ow... My head...
1. How many companies has Microsoft bought up so far?
2. Best? Their products, across the board, have only become reasonably stable or useful compared to their competitors in the last 5 years or so. You could pave US 1 with the boxes of vastly superior competitors who they've killed with unethical marketing, astroturfing, predatory pricing, FUD, and various other obnoxious tactics. That's how they got their monopoly, not by releasing "the best products." *snicker*
3. What the fuck difference does it make? Microsoft have been ruled by the court of appeals to be a criminal organization. Deal with it.
This argument really isn't about control, or "freedom"
No shit. It's about how Microsoft broke the law, and what their punishment should be. So you can leave your broken-record whining generalizations elsewhere.
It's about capitalism.
Do you have any idea how stupid red-baiting makes you look to anyone who has a clue about politics or economics?
That was uncalled-for.
1. Force a uniform pricing the MS charges OEM's. They price need not be mandated, but no matter who the OEM, MS should charge the same price as it does to other OEMs.
2. The source code to Windows is licensed, not the binaries.
3. The OEM's should be allowed to take that source and do anything it wants with it. Don't want IE? Remove it. Don't think Hailstorm is the future direction of your company? Remove it. Want to integrate Quicktime or Real into the OS? GO right ahead.
Given the opportunity OEMs would LOVE to be able to ship branded computers. FInally a HP computer will be different from a Compaq computer. This will also allow OEM's to get developers, not MS and eventually move away from Windows to their own API set.
Will a fractured market confuse consumers? No. Look at the Unix market. Each Unix has proprietary features, but it also remains possible for developers to write cross compatible source. I suspect the same would happen to the WinTel PC market. Another way to look at it...Is anyone confused by the game console market? Of course not!
Burn Hollywood Burn
I think I speak for the entire population of the world when I say that we are all breathlessly awaiting that eventuality! gosh!
Then again, it's not like MS needs anything more from their lawyers than a screaching monkey. It's not like anyone there has taken any legal advice. All their lawyers have been able to do is spew more PR bull about "innovation" and ham sandwiches and what not. Go, monkey go!
Some companies have whole anti-trust divisions that they listen to.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Because the key problem is the fact that to foster "innovation", Microsoft claims that it's vitally important that they be able to bundle any application into their operating system, especially applications that compete with other companies' apps (who don't have the advantage of being able to get their apps on the desktops of all PC's in the universe, virtually for free, bundled with the OS).
By splitting it into three identical companies and giving them the same code base, you'll have three companies doing this, and not one. So the old Micros~1 had all the PC's in the universe, but the new Micros~[123] each has 1/3 pc the PCs in the universe. It's still a barrier to competition if you aren't a Microsoft.
And who says the user base gets divided into thirds, anyway? What if Microsoft puts the best third of their developers and marketing people in Micros~2? Within five years, most of the user base will gravitate toward that one, and we have the same problem.
Separating the OS development group from the Apps group, and putting strict rules on how the OS group can partner with Apps developers (perhaps even forcing MS to spin off the OS development into a not-for-profit research corporation or a consortium funded by the Apps Writers, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that idea) is the only way to insure that all MS Apps development is done on a level playing field.
Chief Justice Renquist was quoted as saying, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that delaying tactics are going on here!"
When I first read this heading, I thought to myself "When has Microsoft's delays been appealing?"
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
So eliminate the whim. If you can require the company to disclose its APIs (and protocols and file formats -- mustn't forget those) then you can restrict them from releasing any product using changed APIs for some period of time following the public disclosure of the new APIs.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
But consider what it would take for you to move from a MS operating system to a competitor...
.txt files? My eudora email files? My PSD/GIF/JPG/PNG files? I've been using MS OS's for 12 years and I could move all of my files over to a MAC and potentially Linux with no problem at all. It's the consumer's choice to use proprietary file formats (read: vendor lock-in), not Microsoft's.
* You've paid $$$ for lots of MS-only software: will it all run?
Which was a choice we all made (remember, MAC's used to have more software availble for them then PC's).
* If not, how will you read/edit all your existing files?
What existing files? My XML or HTML files? My
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
>However, 99.9% of the human population uses the
>x86 architecture, in a desktop-type mode.
You are incorrect. You couldn't even say that
99.9% of the human popluation is familiar with the concept of refrigeration, or has seen a telephone. 99.9% of the human population would
not even be able to parse the meaning of the Roman/Arabic characters "X86".
They might, on the other hand, recognize Mickey Mouse, and might be able to associate the colors
red, white and blue with a particular idiom: Hilfiger.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
As a company under fire for being anti-competitive and proven to be a monopoly, its amazing how they can pull moves such as disabling java by default, removing netscape plugin capability, and disabling Quicktime support in its latest browser upgrade. read this article for info: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010816. html
Sound waves should be free!
If this is still in the courts 6 months and a day from now, do we all get to pimpslap you?
Dan Gillmor wrote a good article about how ms is using xp to foist windows media player & msn messanger on us while killing java and further limiting consumer choice.
"Windows XP isn't just an upgrade of the operating system. It's the linchpin of Microsoft's scarily plausible strategy to control the Internet just as it now controls desktop computing -- and to put itself at the center of all manner of future commerce and communications. It's wrong to allow this unrepentant monopolist to ignore the law and keep on its predatory path."
We have the best government that money can buy.
Why am I so instantly reminded of the "political officer" in Hunt for Red October, you know, the one that gets killed in the first 15 minutes?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
I mean c'mon, you whipe your ass with $100 bills, just pay your dues and continue pumping out your fine software. *sarcasm please don't castrate me for saying that*
that is just bad, insted of just one MS there will be multiple MSs that could do the exact same thing that they did before, thistime however, there will be a "Standards" group to ensure that each company is on the same page, then watch, one comapny drops one thing like the OS the other drops whatever the first took up full time and the last will create libraries, file formats and APIs for the first 2, how does this help anything?
.NET on thier own terms.
the baby bell worked because they were constrained by regions, MS would not be since they sell a product not a service that depends on phone lines and cables.
the best thing to do is to open the file formats and APIs, then foce MS to document any and all changes well so anyone can use them, also, forcing MS cese its browser design and to uncomingel it from the OS would be a plus to the web as it would hinder MSs ability to deploy
with software companies you need to weeken them not split them.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Gates has been the driving force, make no mistake there. Ballmer, Alchin, Mundie, et al may be a pack of devious little weasels, like this guy, but Gates still steers the company. If you get a chance to hear him speak, take it, he's a wonderful speaker and has even gained some charisma, but weigh the what he says and read between the lines. He likes what he's doing and means to keep doing it and liking it. When he doesn't like it, there has been instances of him throwing temper tantrums.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
From way above:
Microsoft spends more than $5.3 Billion on R&D per year.
And now we know where it goes - Flying Lawyer Monkeys. Or maybe it goes to research into a different advanced type of lawyer?
Feel the fear and do it anyway.
"Allow Gates to hold controlling intrest in no more than one of these companies for a period of 2 years."
This wouldn't do much use. The Gates approach to doing business is already heavily entrenched in the Microsoft culture. Gates could drop off the earth any minute now and I doubt it would have much impact on the way Microsoft does business.
Unless, of course, a new leader that actually had charisma popped up. That would be deadly.
c.
Log in or piss off.
Microsoft will find a way to delay this until the end of the world.
Well then GEE! I guess thats worth mentioning.
Indeed, it made full-circle, and ended up in almost the identical situation where we were decades ago.
Well, I won't waste time on ackthpt's penalty phase. He's guilty of, um, having too much money. This is very anticompetitive, especially given all the poor folks around. In my arrogant opinion, I'd like to see:
That oughta do it. Did I leave anything out? Looting and killing is very profitable in the short term, and will punish him for all the junk posts he's made to Slashdot.
ORDERED that the motion be denied. In order to obtain a stay of the mandate pending its petition for certiorari, Microsoft must show that the "petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay." See Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(A); see also D.C. Cir. Rule 41(a)(2) (movant for stay of mandate must provide "facts showing good cause for the relief sought"). For the reasons stated in the appellees' response to the motion for stay, it appears that Microsoft has misconstrued our opinion, particularly with respect to what would have been required to justify vacating the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as a remedy for the violation of 28 U.S.C. 455(a). We need not decide, however, whether Microsoft's objections constitute a "substantial question" likely to lead to Supreme Court review, because Microsoft has failed to demonstrate any substantial harm that would result from the reactivation of proceedings in the district court during the limited pendency of the certiorari petition. See Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974); Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power Commission, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958).
The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate seven days from the date of this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b).
(PDF here.)
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Split off the Office software company
Share O/S source amoung no less than two new companies (Competition should make Windows _way_ better! Look what it does for Linux distros ;-)
Split MSN/NBC into a seperate company
Allow Gates to hold controlling intrest in no more than one of these companies for a period of 2 years.
That oughta do it. Did I leave anything out? IMHO each of these pieces would be immensely strong and profitable short term, how they fare among the rise of the competition they've cheated nearly to death (Word Perfect, Lotus, Netscape, Novell, etc.) should provide great products.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They never had any as far as I'm concerned.
[Gates, petting furless cat] Or, shall we say, one billllion dollars! [bites pinky]
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
What the hell is a player hater?
Sorry, I don't speak jive.
Now that Linux is Dead....we can begin the final transitions to make sure that no more competitors can enter this field...for it is written One operating system shall bind them all
Why not just force them to spin out the Windows ME code base into a new company. That way Windows XP and Windows ME would compete head to head in the consumer and business OS market. The windows 95/98/ME code base is what they used crush competitors and Microsoft doesn't want to support that code base anyways.
:)
This way there would only be 2 MS's to hate.
A delay would have put this trial off by what, a couple of weeks? Wonderful. This trial, and mark my words, will last longer than the O.J. debacle. This will be a 3-year long trial, while Microsoft calls in experts, and the DoJ calls in rebuttal experts, on and on ad absurdium.
We're never going to see a just resolution to this, so what does it matter if they aren't delayed a few weeks?
I just noticed that CNN has the headline "Delay Denied" for this article on Xbox manufacturing delays in the SCI-TECH section, in addition to the current main headline "Court Denies Microsoft Delay" on the front page.
Now if they wanted, they could use one headline for both articles -- think of the savings in, um... well... headlines.
- will
benefit. If there's one thing that the dot.com bubble has demonstrated, it's that long-standing economic laws continue to pretty much hold up---- "Annoying me just makes it easier to understand the voices"
Microsoft has decimated any center of power that has challenged it. Organizations that challenge it either end up irrelevant, or part of the "borg".
The United States government will probably end up with no different a fate. Microsoft, given how much the economy is tied to its performance as a company, must realize that it has enough power to challenge the United States. Given the type of control Microsoft has through all of its investments and interests, it can single-handedly send the US and global economy into a tail-spin.
This is typical of how Microsoft tries to evade the authority of the US government (from one of the Microsoft appeals):
"Given the large number of countries in which Microsoft does business, including the more than 75 countries in which it has subsidiaries, any plan of divestiture may require Microsoft to seek approval from certain foreign governments. Obtaining such approvals could be a time-consuming process. The proposed change is designed to protect Microsoft from being forced to violate any laws in any jurisdiction by virtue of effectuating the divestiture sought by the government."
Microsoft is basically saying, we're too big, with too many interests all over the world, to be touched by you. We'll get our way, simply because we have a much better hand. We have a monopoly of authority over a virtual land, aka Windows, that gives us much more power given its greater scope and recognition, than your monopoly over physical land, aka the USA. By our extending our authority and power throughout the entire world, we are now untouchable.
Microsoft is making a break for it. It's chosen its time to challenge the US, and it appears to be working very well. Even if it was a joke, it was particularly telling when British Colombia offered Microsoft a new home if the US didn't want it, esentially saying, we'll take you, monopoly and all, because we know how much it will contribute to our economy. The US government will have to submit to dealing with Microsoft on Microsoft's terms, or risk having Microsoft turn another territory, such as a place like India or Canada, or wherever, into an economic powerhouse.
Microsoft's whole Passport thing is so "in your face" to the US government that it's practically hysterical. While the US government is trying to discipline it's child, it's child is essentially saying "fuck you". They're starting a new passport system that will compete with that of the United States for the primary association and identification of the people in the territory. If Microsoft's Passport becomes very successful with businesses all around the country, it could seriously challenge or make irrelevant the US Passport System.
The US government will have to relegate itself to second behind the authority of Microsoft or risk becoming irrelevant.
Actually, splitting up the company is a very simple and pragmatic way of solving the problem. Consider what the problem is: Microsoft has a monopoly on PC operating systems and they're illegally using that to expand their monopoly to other kinds of software by bundling that software with Windows. There are basically three things that you could consider doing to remedy the problem:
IOW, far from being the most intrusive and legally costly strategy for dealing with Microsoft, splitting the company in two as the government proposed is likely to be the least intrusive. It cuts to the very heart of their illegal actions and should be effective in stopping it from happening again in the future. Seems reasonable to me.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Reading your message made me start to think about why open-source and/or free software has not made more inroads than it has...
Star Office is about the best example I can think of at this point. If the os or free commmunity want people to begin using their software it must be baby steps for the end user. Myself, I am comfortable hacking my way through my PC. The rest of the users in my office couldn't do it. Why not focus some attention on software for Windows? I know this sounds like blasphemy, however, if you can get users to get used to the application on Windows then the switch to Linux/something else on the desktop would be significantly easier if the interface was the same for the application. The problem is people are being asked to give up *everything* they already know, OS, Apps, and more to make the change to Linux. If there was a Windows-based office suite for starters (Star Office... maybe?) that could compete with MS Office in terms of usability and compatibility without rocking the boat in terms of interface, I could deploy it to my users and have them accept. Then when it comes time to replace their PC I can consider Linux because they are familiar with the application and we've taken one step already.
That was the dork lobe. HTH.
...is that a public image will be made. Free-As-In-Speech stuff will be seen as useful for public, non-secret stuff only.
Businesses naturally want to keep secrets, so the PHBs will continue to use the non-FAIS resources, and that sixteen-year-girl who doesn't want her diary read will use M$-word with proprietary encryption.
(Indeed, people would come to think of "open-source encryption" as an oxymoron.)
What's this Submit thingy do?
You split microsoft and you have accomphlished nothing they haven't considered doing on their own. You split the OS and only consumers will get hurt. Just what they need, does it work on OSA or OSB? Which ever of the two gets the name Windows will win anyway.
Office would continue to stomp everyone else into the ground, because its OFFICE. Everyone would know its "really Ms"
MSN/NBC is not a threat to anyone except to those who hate MS for no logical reasons.
Bill Gates isn't the threat either, but a small mind works wonders when it can focus on ONE PERSON to blame.
Sorry, but they won't give rise to competition. Netscape died because its buggy and could not even follow stanadards. WordPerfect, sorry guys, it deserved death. Novell, for the same thing people bitch as Ms for - you could not run on Novell without their certification.
So get real, I'll lose karma over this, but I really don't care. How in the hell this original stupid post made it to a 4 is beyond me. It offers nothing but the standard "Stoke the Linux faithful" by feeding them the bs you expect a politician to feed welfare slaves.
Instead of smartassed no-thought solutions why not come up with something effective. Ms got this way because of their marketing, it must be curtailed in the future on pcs, networks, and the internet to prevent them from doing so again. Office and Windows were merely what was being marketed.
1. Make it illegal for them to require their product placement over that of others on the desktop. Only operating system required icons can be required, and for windows that usually means system and trashcan. However any thing added to the desktop by a vendor should clearly state it is not supported by MS. I would also go as far to say they should have the right to have the name Windows and their Microsoft logo displayed on ANY startup screen.
2. Place no restriction or penalty on the cost of windows for companies that sell computers with other operating systems.
3. Create and monitor window wholesale costs so that it is sold to resellers of similar volume at the same price. This should not be public information, but monitored by an independant board appointed by the court.
4. Require that any software installed by a competitor be allowed to become the first choice for operating on the media (I think this already occurs)
5. Allow for removal of non-required components via the Windows Software Add/Remove. This means you can one click access away for IE, WMedia, or anything else.
6. Require Microsoft to show a good-faith effort in correcting incompatibilities caused by a software update on their part with a competitors product. Perhaps have an outside board judge the effort.
In the case of the solutions provided above, the court would appoint or see to the appointment of any monitoring agency. Microsoft would be required to pain a reasonable fee to maintain funding of this board for the duration the court sets forth.
Those are better solutions, do not take solutions which only serve to help those who have lots of Ms stock (any split would be amazing to them), and hurt consumers by introducing confusion in the market place.
Remember, any financial penalty is coming out of John Q. Public's pocket anyway.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
#include
The DoJ will ask the district court to issue a preliminary injunction against XP. That is, the injunction to be issued *before* the trial actually begins. The judge will do it if 1) he has strong reason to believe that he will arrive to the same conclusion after the trial and 2) DoJ can demonstrate irreparable harm if injunction is delayed. In this case, it's easy: 1) MS continues to use exact same monopolistic practices they were sued for, and 2) if injunction is not issued immediately, XP will be released and it will be too late. So yeah, DoJ has a good chance of stopping XP release.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
The justice system got it right, for once. I can't wait to see what happens next.
I wait with breathless anticipation.
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
What about three competing "full" Microsofts? I agree product-line splitting is rather silly, and more of a death warrant than penalty. But look at the Baby Bell "system"...it came back around well enough...
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
> PS - When I started this post, there were no
> posts. Since I tried to actually put some
> (admittedly not a huge amount) care into what I
> was saying, I guess this wont be a "First
> Post". I tried, though...
Awwww. There there. Do you want a cookie?
Well, because business consumers actually LIKE having Microsoft around to somewhat standardize things. They would just pick the Micro~? that had Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer working at it as the "preferred" one, and only buy from them. The other two would be forced to sell their warez to consumers in walmart. Furthermore, the weakest one would just be bought up and crushed by Sun or someone to get MS's intellectual property.
Competitor? Who's a competitor to Microsoft's applications? Please don't go toting around that StarOffice BS again. It doesn't even come close. Linux is really nice and lots of fun to use, but it's just a toy for now. Until some real applications start showing up that can compete on the same playing field, it's Microsoft all the way. You see, it's all about total ownership cost. The cost of the licenses is nothing compared to what it would cost to train people on Linux. Sounds easy, but unless you're in management, you don't understand just how fast your needs grow. On top of that, you can find a quarter million employees that know how to use MS Office. Try to find a quarter million employees that know how to use StarOffice. That will work for $8/hr as a clerk. Sorry, the economics don't work.
Um, Dr. Evil, the browser monopoly/tying judgement /was/ reversed, and the breakup remedy /has been/ vacated.
Actually, according to this article, the order requiring M$ to be broken up (issued by Judge Jackson) was vacated. It now goes to a new judge, who, by the way, can issue the exact same 'sentence' or a partially or entirely different one. So, while Bill the Gates clearly has his head up his own ass on the monopoly thing, right now the breakup question is still just a question rather then a looming threat.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Sadly, I'll be the first to admit that it's not at all original. That's what annoys me the most about a lot of that "don't break up Microsoft" arguments. There are extremely strong, cogent counterarguments (one of which I've reproduced above) that nobody has seriously tried to rebut. But the original complaints keep cropping up again and again.
In the long run, breaking up the company is probably the least intrusive approach that actually has a chance solving the problem. It's actually less intrusive than many suggested alternatives that would also be less effective. But many people don't seem to want an effective remedy, so they propose ineffective ones that let them A) keep Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior and B) point out how interfering the government is.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Idiot.
you display an overwhelming amount of naivete... MS is an 800 lb. gorilla that mashes its competition in every way possible, including using illegal means and that has been proven through adjudication albeit not final... democracy is messy and time-consuming... the alternative? Mussolini made the trains run on time.
How funny it is that americans argue for competition amongst companies esp. for the chinese/russians, but when a company comes into illegal control, competition is not the answer. On that is on top of the fact that history shows us that EVERY monopoly that has been broken up does better afterwards for consumer and stock owners. Personally, I say keep the idiots together. Just do not allow them to be illegal. Every large company under regs with competition who is not, will lose BIG.
me too.
When I'm not in a hurry, I'll try to use: http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/cgi-bin/ispell.pl . It's so hard to get things done right under NT. :)
Awww, shoot. It did not work and I hate using a mouse only to have Word or Outlook screw up my formating. I have not been able to make ispell work on this stupid work NT box yet so that I can check text text file spellings like a human being.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It is not because the standard is a "Microsoft standard" that we are hooked on it. We are hooked on it because it is just that, a standard.
Now you are saying that we are not tied down, because someone has the power to move the market at will. I disagree, and your prior argument that we are tied down to the "Microsoft standard" argues that. Microsoft is tied down to it just as much as anyone else. If Microsoft were to make any attempt to change its own standard, it would have to be prepared to replace everything all at the same time, in a scenario much akin to what you described above. The greatest competitors to Microsoft's future products are their past products.
This is merely an exercise in the obvious, isn't it?
Are you suggesting something like the following?
Is this a recipe for progress?
Now, THERE'S a reasoned response! Spoken like a good little sheeple! *pats MS drone on the head*
Excellent point -- Remember what Andreeson said about Windows becoming a "poorly debugged collection of device drivers", and he was right -- it's the 'middleware' that matters (see .NET), and the OS itself is largely irrelevant (except for MS's several billion dollar Windows revenue stream). Microsoft knows this, the main group in denial are Linux advocates.
Imposing fines on a monopoly is a joke too, the costs just get passed on to the customer who doesn't have any choices.
I couldn't agree more with your statement. Microsoft absolutely has a stranglehold on the computer market. Not just the OS market, but the ENTIRE market. Most things do not get built these days if they are not compatible with Windows. Gates is smart, and realized way back that every computer needs an operating system, and that the operating system is the cornerstone of compatibility. We can see very well that the same hardware will run multiple OSes, but the same application will NOT run on multiple OSes. (with the possible exception of Java...hmmmm....wonder why Microsoft hates Java so much....) The problem here is not Microsoft's Windows monopoly, but Microsoft's Win32 API monopoly. The "reverse engineer or decompile" clause in every EULA prevents any company from making something that will run Windows programs, even if there are no patents being infringed upon. The way that Windows interacts with software applications is not some patentable technological miracle, it is just an arbitrary code or language which the EULA prevents from being discovered by competitors. While having source code would be nice, it isn't necessary in order to crack Win32. The EULA basically makes software this "black box" which nobody is allowed to open up and see how it works. Can you imagine what the automobile industry would be like if it was illegal to make parts, etc. that were compatible with cars unless that car manufacturer specifically allowed you to do it? Bend over every time you break down, and you'd probably have to get it fixed every week. (Gee....does this sound like some software that's out there?) Without this clause there would be nothing stopping other companies from investing some R&D and making an OS that could run Windows apps on x86 hardware. Then we would have some REAL competition.
That their greedy and paradoid view of software should be thought of as normal is a demonstration of the power of adverts. Really, how many other proffesionals are so concerened about others profiting from their work that they would deliberatly reduce the quality of their products? Pitty the poor VB serf who thinks of it as a career.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Good analysis. If there were such a thing, I'd award you a Karma Kewpie Doll.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Kinda makes it sound like XP is some sort of evil master plan instead of some grand improvement on Windows.
I can picture it now (swirly effect)
Steve: Master Bill, the Justice dept. is coming to attack us for our evil marketing practices and thwart our release of XP.
Bill: Call my Flying Lawyer Monkeys. (speaks to head lawyer monkey)This Justice department *must* be stopped. Take your Flying Lawyer Monkeys and hold them off until Oct 25 (Dec 21:). If we can't get an appeal, then make sure we can get a delay. Because after Oct 25, XP will be released and our power solidified. Then the world will be powerless against us.
Fly, my little Flying Lawyer Monkeys, fly!
/*drunk.. fix later*/
I do believe this is one of the solutions which has been bandied about, since 1989. Part of the problem with it, as you note, is that they could still change an API on a whim (Use R&D To Your Advantage 101: See how your competitor does it then change the interface so your competitors method works very very badly) and have the lead time of their product working with the *new* API. I think this has been one of their most successful methods.
Consider for a moment splitting the O/S unit among 2 O/S competitors. Each will embrace Office, however, they are also free to embrace Lotus, WordPerfect, (a windows version of) Star Office, etc.
Also, ponder the recent decision to not ship a Java Virtual Machine, bundled. Smacks of vindictiveness, could be argued that they are simply not favoring one vendor over another, like the critics say they do (conveniently forgetting that they are a competitor and favoring themselves.) One O/S company embraces Java, the other chooses not to. This now looks like a really poor business decision, as opposed to the prior practice.
BTW the API's are probably the very core of their recent disfavor of Open Source and GPL, as these API's and the ability to control them are a vital part of their Intellectual Property which they have fought long (since '89 at least) to protect. Opening them up would probably introduce some competition, but against a 95% marketshare it'll take just too long for anyone to make a dent in it, all the while they nimbly change the API to keep the threat off balance.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Personally, I've never found windows' constant delays to be very appealing.
As a specific penalty for abusing their copyright monopoly in an illegal manner, the court might require Microsoft's release of Windows XP under the GPL. No need to figure out how many billions to fine, no need for ongoing oversite, not even so long as a corporate split might take.
Now, that would be an Intellectual Property destroyer.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
The biggest issue with everything that's going on here is fair play in the software market. Windows isn't an operating system anymore (well, it never was). XP contains new software (developed by Microsoft) that are in direct competition with Adobe, Roxio, Nullsoft, Real and a host of others. The big bruhaha is that XP, while supposidly a new operating system for the new millenium is really a whack of applications that will make you use MS products exclusively. Why bother paying for or downloading other media players since they're already bundled in the OS? Okay, so for most of us we'll end up doing just that but the average consumer who buys a machine from Gateway or Dell isn't as download savvy as we might be and having everything bundled together makes sense. Did you ever notice that buying new PCs a few years ago came with a dozen or so CDs chock full of apps, games and other goodies. In most cases they were pre-loaded on the PC when we got them into our house. So where's the harm in that? Well, those dozen CDs that you got made money for a dozen companies the provide the software and support.
I think if Microsoft simply ripped out all the controversial software that was built into XP and delivered a new OS then everyone would be happy. MS would have dozens of products they could line the shelves with, the DOJ would be fine with their tactics (after all, if you're not embedding software into something you call an OS where's the monopoly) and consumers would have a better choice of what package to buy for their needs. Well, okay, it's not reality but it seems like a simple solution to a problem that is probably going to rage on for years (or longer).
Zealots love stealing IP. I stopped taking them seriously when it became clear that their morals ended at exactly the point at which morality would have prevented them from doing whatever they wanted to do. Any claims free software cheerleaders make to having the moral high ground just make me laugh these days.
Really, all you "the government is overstepping its bounds" people really need to look at the big picture here. Really, what is the difference between "government power" and "corporate power"? With government power at least can be controlled to some degree by the people(in theory anyways, but corporate power interferes with our elections as well). When corporate power is abused(and i believe ms is guilty of that, but not for trivial "bundling" issues, rather for other reasons), it deserves to be smacked down, as such when government power is abused. Of course, i never thought that it should be something drastic liek splitting them up, but at least some sort of punishment should be placed against them. Call me a hypocrite if you like(libertarian sig at the bottom), but this is my take on it.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
You want something for nothing. You want Microsoft's products but don't want Microsoft.
What's this garbage about 'being addicted'? Everybody could switch over to WordPerfect tomorrow, and you will able to convert your Microsft Word docs just fine into the word processor.
Oh, unless you're using a new feature. But there aren't any good MS innovations, so there's no need for those features. So you don't have a problem.
Oh, but all those clueless lusers are brainwashed into using MS features, and you can't read their docs? Really? Well, OK, the MS features have to be garbage, so they must be easy to implement, let's just throw it into WordPerfect. It shouldn't be hard, no one at MS can do anything right anyway.
Oh, wait, it's actually kind of hard to implement these things. Darn we can't achieve complete compatibility with the Microsoft software. And the implementation we have kind of bites. Screw it, let's just buy freaking Office and complain about it loudly.
I hate to break it to you, but wow, MS actually has the better product. Nah, that's gotta be garbage. Linux is ten times more stable, everyone know MS developers couldn't make something secure to save their lives. So it must be just that MS appeals to the great unwashed, they're addicted to the damn stuff.
Someone oughta make a law so that Microsoft stops making addicting software. Or at least freaking punish them until they stop making their stuff so nauseatingly appealing. Or make them give it away for free. Yeah, that would be the best, that way they don't geet to make money from making this crack cocaine of software.
Microsoft should be split into 3.14159... pieces. So that everyone can have a piece of the PI.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
>say much more then then that the appeals court >denied the delay. I don't mean to anger anyone but the correct word would be 'than', not 'then'.
"Don't hate me because I'm right...Hate me because I'm an MCSE."
MS has a big problem, keep growing as it has been growing, in order to keep wall street happy. Now thats a problem when you are reaching the levels of monopoly that they have. Solution, bring in someone who poses a threat, force inovation, to keep selling upgrades. Forget the justice dept. MS won the minute bush stepped in. Now they just have to make it look real.
Am I the only one on earth who thinks that Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson knew what he was doing when he talked to the press?
Fact one: Jackson split off his statement of facts from his statement of law. The statement of facts was very competent and comprehensive.
Fact two: He didn't start talking to the press until after the statement of facts had been filed.
Fact three: This case is huge; it's the biggest anti-trust case in 100 years. There is an enormous amount of money behind Microsoft. Jackson knew that there was zero possibility that the case would be a slam-dunk on appeal. The higher courts have to answer to that much money to some extent; it's impossible to ignore it in a capitalist culture, particularly when soft money elects (read: appoints) Congress and the President.
BE IT RESOLVED, that Jackson had to throw a bone to Microsoft. He gives something for Microsoft to chew on, and he gives the higher courts a way to appear that they are carefully considering the legitimate interests of Capital.
So Jackson threw a fake drug-store doggie bone to Microsoft by talking to the press. They chewed happily on it for a year, virtually ignoring the hefty record of facts that had been compiled at the trial. The issue of Jackson's prejudice was highlighted by Microsoft in their appeal, setting the stage for the Circuit to unanimously affirm almost all of the important facts, while slapping down Judge Jackson.
All the media bite down on the same fake doggie bone. Microsoft thinks they won, because the appellate decision was superficially ambivalent so that the media don't bother reading the record. Meanwhile, the important facts are upheld unanimously, and it seems unlikely at this point that the Supremes will even hear the case.
Here we are, 15 months after Judge Jackson's structural remedy. The remedy is thrown out, but the case was so big that something had to be thrown out in any event. Jackson's victory is that he got the least significant decision he made thrown out, by carefully orchestrating the appearance of prejudice according to a precise time table.
Here we are, 15 months later, and Microsoft has run out of delaying tactics. A new judge will be appointed who is required to do something major, because the facts have been affirmed unanimously and are not within his purview to challenge. He has merely to appear fair-minded, and his decision with respect to remedies will stick.
Stick that in your ear, Microsoft.
Hey you stupid feds: JUST STOP BUYING MICROSOFT'S STUFF
The federal government should just move to a different competitor. I read that all fed agencies shovel over a billion a year at Microsoft in various license fees. Imagine how much a billion a year would help another software company become a viable competitor to Microsoft.
They don't need the courts, use the damn marketplace...
They dont have any influence anymore on powerpc
Then how does Microsoft keep managing to get its way on the Mac platform? Answer: MS threatens to withdraw Office:mac.
Well guess what? ANYONE is free to write a desktop os for x86. The resources are there, and available
Wrong. You need documentation on the hardware interfaces, and many peripheral manufacturers have a policy of keeping hardware interfaces a trade secret.
This isn't like oil or the phone lines - microsoft doesn't have all the raw materials locked up.
Yes it is like the phone lines. Ever try to get a Linux driver out of a winmodem maker (Lucent LT drivers for linux 2.2 notwithstanding)? The "raw materials" in this case are the peripherals.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's not the gov'ts job to interfere." Which is true.
No, it's not. The government has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. In addition, Microsoft, as a corporation, is the creation of the government. Its very existence is due to law, and the power the government has to regulate commercial matters. You can argue that the Sherman act is unconstitutionally vague (and I'll agree with you there), but it isn't possible to argue with a straight face that the government has no right to regulate Microsoft, or to pass and enforce antitrust law.
In the findings of fact, it says that MS has a monopoly on desktop-level operating systems for the x86 architecture. So freaking what? They dont have any influence anymore on powerpc. or spark. or whatever.
Sorry to break it to you, but those platforms are mostly targeted at entirely different roles than the x86. They're just a different market. Even if you include MacOS, Microsoft has more than enough market power to qualify as a monopoly. For the millionth time: 100% market share is not necessary to be a monopoly.
They dominate one, limiting aspect of the computing industry.
Desktop OS's. Web browsers. Office suites. Development tools. Would you like me to go on?
They monopolize a hell of a lot more than one area. And I assume you meant limited, given that it's the OS monopoly that's allowed the others.
To be a monopoly, they've got to have such extensive control that other distributors are effectively cut off from supplying a competing product. Well guess what? ANYONE is free to write a desktop os for x86.
Sure, they're free to. They're also free to watch it tank, since no one can compete with Microsoft's MONOPOLY. How many significantly superior products have utterly failed to compete with Microsoft due to the power and cash the OS monopoly has given them? OEM lockins. Infinite cash flow allowing them to keep incrementally improving substandard software that would have been long sincecancelled by any other company. Leaning on the trade press. The fact that no other OS has enough volume to make it profitable to sell applications for it. All of these are barriers to entry erected by Microsoft's MONOPOLY status. No matter how superior an OS, a browser, an office suite is, it will never gain more than niche status on the desktop. And the number of markets dominated or destroyed by Microsoft will only increase. You don't have to be prevented from supplying a product, you have to be prevented from watching your product succeed. Much like the current conditions of the desktop OS market, hmmm?
Finally, the extremely Microsoft-friendly appeals court ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly. They have a monopoly. Deal with it.
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
I hate to make "me too!" posts, but you've got at least one supporter right here.
I think that if there was an injunction against the release of XP antil the settlement is reached that Microsoft would do their damndest to try to come to some sort of resolution. Otherwise, this thing will just drag on forever.
-->If Linux was written by Bill Gates & Co. - no one would want to switch !!
Then..
It's a wonder his nose hasn't grown a yard by now. Is anyone still unclear on _why_ Gates and Microsoft enjoy such a negative following on Slashdot?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If MSFT isn't a monopoly, what is?
Microeconomics textbook, 100% pure monoplies probably can't exist in a real economy, just like physics textbook 100% pure vacuums don't exist. A vacuum doesn't exist. Does that mean that the effects of a near vacuum don't exist? Don't be silly. A monopoly, like a vacuum, doesn't constitute a black-and-white, yes-or-no phenomenon. That's why the Sherman Anti-Trust Act isn't applied very often. Business entities that probably do consitute a monopoly under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act don't get prosecuted too often because it's simply too arguable to bother.
Non-religious economists recognize that "monopoly" is a matter of degree. Get a microeconomics text book from the bookstore, or borrow one from a roomate and read up on "monopoly power". Economists even have measures for monopoly power. Look for "Four-firm concentration index" and "Herfindahl-Hirschman Index ". By either measure, the desktop computer OS market is one of the single most concentrated markets ever.
Instead of separating MS into an OS division and a software division, which just creates two monopolies, why doesn't the DOJ just break them into three identical companies. Each company will hold the same IP rights and can sell and market anything currently being done by MS. Make three companies all selling the same thing and you really will help consumers by forcing giants to compete with each other, thereby driving prices down and reliability up.
Of course, then there would be 3 MS's to hate.
I gotta get a tight tension on...
Fly, my little Flying Lawyer Monkeys, fly!
Going by Microsoft's track record, they'll probably work as well as C. M. Burns' monkeys.
Eee, EEEE, Thud!
Bill: Continue the research.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
If they can't win they are going to stall long enough so that they can get XP released before they are required to make changes to it. Did you noticed the announcement that MS was moving forward its release date to OEMs? They are probably just going to ship the thing as is to get it out there and then release a service pack or two in January to fix all the stuff that they couldn't fix because they were rushing too fast. No surprise there
-- Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
You don't need information about peripherals to write a desktop OS. What's more, information about almost every standard peripheral is freely available. Finally, if you don't have to support a namby-pamby free license, you can sign NDAs to get the info on the rest of the peripherals on the market. You obviously know nothing about OS programming and hardware interfacing. There's nothing preventing me from writing my own desktop OS for x86.
It's confusing at best and vindictive at worst.
I really don't see how users or competitors would benefit from this.
Splitting up Microsoft, all in all, is just a bizarre way of applying century-old law to this problem.
I don't pretend to know what the best solution is, but this isn't it.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
OEM's already are working on their early August copies of XP and will have systems shipping a month before the official October launch date.
I don't see how the legal system can move fast enough to stop something already in motion.
Microsoft delayed things long enough and have focused on the prerelease while everyone else is concerned with the October ship date.
What are they going to do remove the OS from pc's after the fact. Not likely.
It would seem they have been smarter than the rest of us again.
Msft lost their appeal a /long/ time ago.
Now banana's, those have appeal.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
don't hold your breath. Our legal system is unbelievably slow and unwieldy, getting an injunction issued before October 25th is not going to happen no matter how anti-competitive Windows XP is. If there is an injunction issued in time, Microsoft will ask for a temporary lift on that injunction so that it can appeal it and the lift will be approved, leaving them free to begin shipping XP which will make any further attempts to stop XPs anti-competive features moot.
Yes, eventually Microsoft will lose several cases and exhaust all appeals, but I firmly believe that by the time the first case is finally over I (17 year old high school Senior) will be out of college and possibly even a husband/father. The Open-Source and Free Software community can not sit arround hoping for the courts to "kill" Microsoft. Instead, Microsoft must be "killed" by the production of incredible Free Software that totally blow any proprietory products out of the game. There is no reason why this cannot be done, after all Open-Source projects have the advantage of having MANY more developers than any company can hope for. If more developer put forth a serious effort to better existing projects those projects could easily outshine any proprietory competitors.
The main problem with most Open-Source software is it is always playing catch-up to proprietory software. Open-Source developers need to design original and innovative features as well as incorporate existing features. A great start would be Linux Only games, but not just any games, incredible FPSs, RPGs, and Racing Games. Trust me on this, make a great word processor and Joe Sixpack won't give a flying fuck, make an advanced and extremely gory FPS thats only available on Linux, and Joe Sixpack will have the newest copy of Redhat (or any other Distro) with 2 hours of the announcement.
In conclusion, the fall of MS will only be brought about by the development of great, solid, and innovative Free Software (especially in the entertainment areas), not by the courts.
"
and you sir (or madam) have very apparently lost your mind... ask MS to develop one for you! thanks and have a lovely day.
But in this case, the glove not only fits, but it comes bundled with the bloody knife and bodies.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Since the cost of conversion from one OS to another - in time and money - is prohibitively high for most users, you have the same effect as if the cost of the raw materials were locked up: new entries into the market cannot compete on merit alone.
BTW, note that it's not against the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to be a monopoly... you just can't use a monopoly in business domain A to create a new one in business domain B. This practice is what MS was found guilty of.
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
Another thing that's surprising is that IE6 isn't released yet, rumour was that IE6 was due for a Wednesday release but it's still in beta. Netscape 6.1 was released a week before IE6's alleged launch date, and 6.1 is a lot nicer than the joke that was 6.0, it's now some real competition for IE. I don't think it's gonna suddenly give Netscape advantage in the browser wars but it's good to see their competition has not given up.
So courts, if you want an injunction get it now, otherwise for the good of everyone just don't bother.
It's one thing not to like somebody. It's another thing to have the local thug (e.g. government) beat him up and take his stuff. Let OSS take MS down on its own.
Here it says
Not a lot more info. Are the court rulings public documents?
Hi!
Its not a novel issue of law, circuits are not split on the issues involved, and its not a important constitutional question.
Fight Spammers!
But it's good for americans everywhere!
Damn dude, where's all that code red stuff coming from then??
Also, since Apple controls at least 7% market share, you can't say that 99% of everyone runs x86. You can't. Besides that you make some interesting points, but... missiles? Missiles? BILL GATES IS GOING TO BLOW UP APPLE! OF COURSE! Come on, man!
--hongpong.com
Windows was developed to sell Word in the PC
market, as is told in the book "Hard drive".
The people is hooked to Office. The real
software market is about document handling,
not Internet navigation.
I just wonder how fast would be the Windows
decline, if an independent Microsoft
applications company released a version of Office for unixes.