Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trial Sent Back To Lower Court
nexex writes: "FoxNews is reporting that as expected, a federal appeals court sent Microsoft Corp.'s antitrust case Friday back to a lower court to determine what penalty should be imposed on the software giant. "Microsoft has failed to demonstrate any substantial harm that would result from the reactivation of proceedings in the district court," the appeals court ruled. "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," the court wrote." Well, now we get to hear about Kollar-Kotelly instead of Jackson. Yay.
the m$ pain just end already...
if they wern't a HUGE corporation this would have been over long ago...
Curt Rebelein, Junior
"Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess"
Didn't the appeals court make this ruling a week ago?
Why Steve Ballmer is acting so crazy recently?
To plead mental hillness of course...
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Think about it: They're going to get hit with one helluva fine when this all falls through. And what are they doing? Trying to get their stock values back up to the point where they can take the hit without losing everything.
The longer this takes, the longer Microsoft wins.
this case is just going to go back and forth between all kinds of courts. m$ will appeal any judgement against them. and on top of that, i really don't think anyone cares anymore. --
Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
Uh, yeah. I know that because of PR you have to spin things in such a way, but if you really believe that M$ didn't understand what the government's opinion was, you'd believe that Ballmer has a future as an exotic dancer.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Not much. They are way behind on this one. Now they will decide on actions that will do little to slow MS.
.Net.
MS is more bold than ever and are making a huge push to get a death grip on subscription services.
Will the remidies deal with
If they don't what is the point. This has gone on to long and MS is poised to turn the corner on the next decade.
The government is to late to help. And I don't know what remedy would work anyway.
Oh well...
What I really want MS broken up for is out of hope that the applications division will then offer their products for other Operating Systems.
Working for a major corporation makes it difficult to get anything approved on the desktop that wont run the industry "business standard" software packages - Office, FrontPage, etc.
Office for Linux would make our lives in business and IT so much nicer, since we must use MS products anyway.
Just a wish...
I guess the marketing scheme of having dead people write letters of support for Microsoft didn't go quite as planned.
It's pretty much back to Square 1 for this case?
Microsoft had also said that if the appeals court didn't put the case on hold, it would put the public's faith in the judicial system in jeopardy.
With that kind of argument, Microsoft seems almost desperate. The public already knows that the judicial system is buried in legal red tape.
Then again, who will they appeal to if the Supreme Court orders atheir breakup?
If Windows XP gets out the door before any penalty kicks in, I don't think we have any hope.
Isn't M$ trying to weld Office and IE in permanently to XP so it can't be separated, as well as bribing their way out?
Price is affordable, for the upgrade 100-200.00 seems like alot, but your getting legal mp3 encoding software, legal cd recording software, an os upgrade, compatibility with prior software and a fairly common platform that you can go to any store and buy software and hardware for.
While linux is improving nicely, it still lacks heavily in any music reporduction, media interfaces business applications. I'd rather pay 199.00 bucks for something that works out of the box and comes with lots of software then several hours downloading, burning iso's and then chasing down the latest versions of all apps waisting a whole entire weekend or business days (thus costing more then the 199.00 XP package).
I'm not dissing linux, and not praising XP. Its just time for everyone to get off there totem poll and just use what is out there. You have your choices, microsoft has stopped blocking OEM's from shipping other programs and that is what the antitrust case should have been about. It shouldn't be about a browser that is included, you can install any browser you wish.
So now people will sue microsoft because it/they still include apps within the os.
Nobody sues IBM for OS/2 that was bundled with a browser (warp 3 & 4), Nobody sued Sun for including the ancient java browser and prefering that you use there browser.
Nobody sued Redhat for defaulting to the gnome desktop and making it hard for people to get KDE (which as of 7.2 will be a thing of the past.. redhat is more desktop agnostic now). But still, if i have to download the rpm's for netscape or mozilla on any other platform why the hell is it so hard for a windows user to download and run an installer for that application on the Windows platform?
Windows is microsoft's product afterall. They can decide what and how they want to to work and do. Just like you can decide what and how you want to use it!
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Personally XP will be my desktop and laptop OS, linux will be my Server/web/email os and linux will also be a developer os (since i can code for my dreamcast and other devices fairly easily).
The new news is that Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly was the specific judge selected to hear the case. I believe everything else has been known already.
NYTimes story (no login link)
so assuming MS is forced to break up, will it be good for the IT industry or will there be more unemployed geeks. What were the short and long term effects on the telecom industry when ATT ???was forced to break up in terms of employment figures, efficiency n cost to consumer?
Democratic USA - Government of the corporations, by the Corporations, for the corporations.
...Bill Gates' son will be dead before the court agrees on something definitive for Microsoft. There's so many appeals of appeals of procedures that were basically just sub-appeals of some appeals of the real thing that it will never end.
This is getting ridiculous. This is clearly a flaw and in the way US's law-model was designed. If you have the money, you can go on and on and on as long as you want.
IP Therefore I am.
Ofcourse i get flaimbaited for having an opinion. Slashdot can suck my left nut.. this isn't a forum for geeks, its a forum for crackheads and 14 year olds who are pissed off school starts next week.
geezus how lame can this place get these days? slashdot turned 10 several times now, we have seen how to roll your own dsl what 4-5 times now? A linux program going commercial? what, wasn't it just 2 weeks ago when i read this about tuxracer and everything was misconstrued?
oh well. i won't loose anything by not waisting my time in here anymore..
screw having karma, it doesn't mean anything obviosly in this "forum"
Hope you liked your present!
Love,
US Appeals Court
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
While the /. article is factually correct, it missed the main point of the action today. The big thing that happened today is that they selected the judge (Kollar-Kotelly) who will be re-hearing the penalty phase. Kollar-Kotelly is a Clinton appointee. There's a biography of her here, but it doesn't tell much about her politics. Anyone know what her attitude is likely to be?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Microsoft is a steamroller, there ain't no stoppin their release dates, especially when it's airlifted.
Neutiquam erro
"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," the court wrote. Precious...but all the satisfaction we'll likely get. The US civil legal system was originally setup to arbite differences between wealthy landowner's just as was England's. However, clever business interests set something in motion that usruped that intent, something the foudners never anitcipation: the corporation. Now the legal system works for the corproation and rarely to the benefit of individuals nor the public trust. Enjoy these precious few moral victories, in the end it will be all we get but may allow us look up from our Hailsotrm/Passport interface devices, which became the sole and only government- and telco-authorized standard in 2005, and smile--we still remeber how it used to be: free as in beer.
M$ published the RTM version of XP today.. i wonder how that will impact the senate hearings over bundlings and what not. I've played with the betas and I quite frankly don't see a problem with them bundling WMP 8 or instant messenger. I'm still going to stick to GDivX and jabber (just in case MS is spying on me!). As for the java download... it's just a few minutes.
"Mom! Microsoft is oppressing me again!"
"Nobody is holding a gun to your head. "
Surely for this crowd there will be no problem in making the choice of what OS, browser, etc. to use or not to use. However, the people reading this are not the social norm. This whole case isn't about us, it's about the people that decide they want to learn how to use email and the internet, so they go down to Best Buy and pick the one with the prettiest case and the most exclamation points in the specs ("65535 Bytes of High Speed RAM!").
Well, they take that computer home and click on something with the word "internet" in it, and chances are that will be a microsoft product. The average person is not going to download the installers for other browsers and software if it is already sitting on their desktop. Therefore they are "forced" into using microsoft products. They surely wont be downloading Red Hat rpms.
If most users are "forced" to do this, I think there is an extremely good case against Microsoft and I am puzzled as to how you can't see that as well.
It was ruled that the original judge (Thomas Penfield Jackson) would not preside over the penalty phase of the trial since it was determined (fairly or not...) that he was biased against Microsoft, based on statements he made durring the trial. The DOJ denied these charges presumably because they wantedan advantage durring the penalty phase.
This new article identifies Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly as the presiding judge for the penalty phase.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Ooohh... so many responses... so little time...
1. Because having a multi-year, hugely expensive, legal c*rcle-j*rk will make us all feel *so* much better about our jurisprudence system...
2. Gee... Thanks M$! I always knew that you guys were all a big bunch of softies, that had my best interest at heart the whole time! I'll sleep so much better tonight knowing that you guys are looking out for the little guy
3. And God knows that wouldn't be the first time something to do with M$ is put on hold indefinitely...
"anyone? anyone?... D-O-O Economics... Voodoo Economics..."
-c
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
According to this article, the dead just love Microsoft. Even writing letters from beyond the gave in support of M$. This is not a troll (I wish it was).
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
I think a fitting punishment(though not really a punishment, just enforcing what should have been done in the first place), is that they should pay royalties to spyglass for all sales of windows. Why? well, they're agreement was: royalties for all sales from internet explorer. Well, since it has been stated time and time again that IE *is* part of the Windows OS, then they should be entitled to royalties from all windows OS sales(except for NT and Win95, since IE isn't "tied" to those OSs). Fair enough?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Obviously the most important fact about this announcement is that we have a new (and hopefuly more competent) judge involved.
First the good news, Judge Kollar-Kotelly has worked as an attorney for the Department of Justice before and should therefore be sympathetic to the limited resources available to them compared to the big money behind Microsoft.
More good news, she's decided against the Big Banks before and in favour of the credit unions in one of her previous decisions.
She also appears to have seen through the foolishness of some patents in another one of her judgements, this time against the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Anyone have any other pertinent info?
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
You don't FORCE anyone to do anything. Atleast if you live in the USA you don't force users to try something different, it was afterall the users that made Microsoft a Defacto. (just like you may choose to make linux your defacto).
Doesn't mean microsoft is a monopoly when it is the easiest to use, most intuitive and simple operating system that my grandma can run.
This is the REAL news. Windows XP is finally done and was given to the top PC makers. It's petty denial for Slashdot to NOT cover this.
- Siding with Credit Unions on allowing them an expansive definition of who can qualify as a CU member in a civil decision against the American Bankers Association.
- Deciding that the FDA can regulate/label GM foods just like any other food additive. Not likely to make the Greens happy, but a reasonable, consumer/regulatory friendly decision. And,
- Finding against the CIA in FOIA suit brought by the National Security Archive, requesting bios the CIA prepared on Communist leaders. This was aparently the first decision that didn't uphold a doctrine held by the CIA that they didn't have to release documents if it they claimed to neither confirm nor deny the very existence of the documents, however, it was on a technicality that the CIA in fact already acknowledged the documents existed
Trying to find anything related to a previous antitrust decision was basically fruitless, though she aparently was the presiding judge that signed off on an agreement between the DoJ AntiTrust division and Fox Television.Work for Change & GET PAID!
What NEEDS to be done is help foster the accountability if MS for those people, organizations and companies that have lost resources from microsoft products and policies, whether that is from the time it takes to repair damage from known but unfixed flaws, adding features that were listed as already in the product but where not in reality, development time to integrate around the MS standards hating policy with your legacy systems (that M$ should have warned would not work) and other such cases. NOT frivilous lawsuits but real business loss just like if a company bought a fleet of cars from brand 'Z' and found only later that they didn't work with standard gas, on standard roads, with standard driving processes and where broken more times than working even to include dangerous features like explosions upon fender benders. Especially if they knew of this and didn't warn of the danger. Its all a difference between me using an electric screw driver correctly and it explodes and melts my hands and face flesh versus me sticking it in my eye and suing them for not telling me to not stick this product in my eye.
Unfortunately, that's not the point.
The point is that Microsoft has been judged (by both the district court and the appellate court) to be a monopoly. That means the rules are different for them. So the argument about "the government should not be in the business of telling them what they can and cannot put in their software," while IMHO quite valid for any normal situation, does not apply here.
-dave
I would like to see them prohibited from publishing or releasing free or not free, any new software that is internet enabled such as a browser, etc for up 8 to 10 years. New versions of the OS could be released with only the current level of internet capability, say as of April 2001, or whatever
Time off for good behavior so if they play really nice the judge can knock it down to 5.
That, and a really good fine, like about 10 or 20 billion dollars, the possible profits from their illegal acts, should be a good enough slam to get their attention.
Let them sell Office if they want, without any new internet capability. No more new issues of IE, in or Out of Windows, freezing them at the current level. No more MSN special clients. No special .NET clients
Freeze the intenet capability right where it is right now.
This would certainly work as a jail term. They couldn't do anything with there ill gotten gains for many years. But it won't kill them.
And of course, to get anyplace, they might have to sell of part of their operation anyhow.
- - -
Radio Free Nation
is a news site based on Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Thare was am Old Quote from Steve Balmer of which I've been trying to get confirmation. It looks like he's been saying things that undermine Microsoft for years... The question is weather his statement is crazy or he was just crazy to undermine Microsoft...
But maybe with a name like "Ballmore" he's got a future as a porn star.
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
If the U.S. system allows me to sit on deathrow for 20 years apealing my conviction for a murder that I did not commit, the same priviledge should be extended to Microsoft.
I too am irritated by the tactics that M$ has employeed, but I am willing to let justice run its due coarse.
Str8Dog
using System.Darkside; public
Let's see now...You've been convicted of being a monopolist and using your position to illegally advance your business interests at the expense of others. While waiting for your sentence you've committed other acts of the same sort.
How is this so different from a defendant trying to illegally preserve assets from creditors by disposing of them to friends, so that the moment of judgement finds the defendant completely broke?
This latter situation is certainly prohibited and proscribed in court cases. Microsoft can simply be told to not sell any more of these things. The "lucky" owners of XP might keep them or not, but without support or future sales of the XP product what will happen to the firm?
of the box and comes with lots of software then several hours downloading, burning iso's and then chasing down the latest versions of all apps waisting a whole entire weekend
or business days (thus costing more then the 199.00 XP package).
Slight offtopic, but wasting a weekend to install linux with the latest apps might cost a business more than that $199 to buy an XP license. But all that work to set up linux only needs to be done once, then you can replicate that work with minimal time per unit across 10 or 1000 or 10000 pc with no additional cost. This is not the case XP.
But yes, it's a choice.
Software Wars
I mean, Windows XP is nice. It has more bundled software and features then you can shake a stick at.
Um, exactly the problem...[abuse of monopoly position]
Price is affordable,
Obviously affordable is a relative term...let's compare with linux
for the upgrade 100-200.00 seems like alot, but your getting legal mp3 encoding software, legal cd recording software,
1.Ogg Vorbis/Lame 2.Xcdroast/cdrecord (and out of curiosity, which is *illegal* cd-recording software?)
an os upgrade, compatibility with prior software and a fairly common platform that you can go to any store and buy software and hardware for.
Let's see, os upgrade...um, got that, fairly common platform...got that. I can one up you on the software as very little needs to be bought. Hardware support, pretty darn good as well.
I'd rather pay 199.00 bucks for something that works out of the box and comes with lots of software then several hours downloading, burning iso's and then chasing down the latest versions of all apps waisting a whole entire weekend or business days (thus costing more then the 199.00 XP package).
Well, then by all means do so. Personally, I'm happy and eager to spend hours getting stuff, setting it up and not only gaining a useful bunch of software but also a great deal of personal edification as well. And I don't even have to pay for it.
So now people will sue microsoft because it/they still include apps within the os.
Yup, abuse of monopoly power is still an illegal act. Applying such force to eliminate competition is (and should be) a bad thing.
Nobody sues IBM for OS/2 that was bundled with a browser (warp 3 & 4), Nobody sued Sun for including the ancient java browser and prefering that you use there browser.
No monopoly.
Windows is microsoft's product afterall. They can decide what and how they want to to work and do. Just like you can decide what and how you want to use it!
No, no they can't. There are still laws governing business practices (not that you'd know it from the state of things).
Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
Which, while probably effective, is not the only means of dictating choice.
Personally XP will be my desktop and laptop OS, linux will be my Server/web/email os and linux will also be a developer os (since i can code for my dreamcast and other devices fairly easily).
Good for you. It is fortunate that you have the ability to make such choices. That is what anti-monopoly laws are intended to preserve.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
The problem is....
I can uninstall Warp. And I can uninstall HatJava. But I can't uninstall IE. And the majority of the people out there are lazy apathetic people who are thinking "Well, it's fre, and it's already installed, and even if I install something else, it'll still be taking up space, so I'll just use this [browser|encoder|player|...]".
The issue isn't that other applications can be installed with Windows. The issue is that other applications _have_ to be installed with Windows. Not only that, but that for Windows to even work correctly, some of those applications have to be present. If you don't see the problem with this, let me try this. You can buy these CD's, but in order to do that, you have to buy this CD player. And this CD case. And this CD labeling system. You may never use these tools, but that's how the CD's come - bundled with all this other stuff.
You forget that you are a technical person probably with a broadband connection. 90% of the US, at last count, was still on 56K or slower dialup connections, and 98% of them run Windows. Sure then can download Netscape and RealPlayer and Quicktime, but they aren't going to, because it's inconvenient, and Cousin Betty got a virus the last time she installed software from the internet, or it may not work right, and then they will get pissed off, run their restore CD, and not put Netscape, Realplay, or Quicktime back on the new install.
The typical PC user is _dumb_ when it comes to how computers work and what they do. Even the non-typical ones are pretty dumb. My wife knows a good deal about computers, just from me, but when it comes down to it, she just wants her computer to work. She complained last night because she had to reboot after updating the DAT file for McAfee. Of course you have to reboot, but it was an inconvenience, and she wanted to go play EverQuest.
This case isn't about defending the rights of the Geeks to get Opera and Cygnus WinTools and stuff pre-instlaled on our computer from Dell, it's about defending the apathetic Joe Average computer user from having their entire computing experience controlled by a single company.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
The issue is that Microsoft has abused their monopoly to make it virtually impossible for anybody to compete with them.
Just why do you think that Microsoft essentially has no competition? It's because they've killed them off. If you ever want to see competition to Microsoft again, you should be rooting and cheering for this court case against them.
There is a HUGE difference between every company that you just mentioned and Microsoft. Microsoft the only company in the list that is a monopoly. This ruling doesn't change the fact that they are legally a monopoly...just means the punishment will be different.
Anyways, all of the rules change when you're a monopoly. One of the biggest changes is that you can't use your monopoly power in one market to push into a different market...can you seriously tell me that's not what MS is doing?
Juiced? Or Not?
Microsoft is just another closed source company that i don't give a shit about, much like VA Linux...
a LINUX story AND a MICROSOFT story within one break of each other? You really wanted to load test the banjo today, eh? heh,
________________________________________________
Since any appropriate punishment should a) hurt, b) be relevant to the issue at hand, and c) take future actions into account, I propose the following.
1) Microsoft should be forced to bundle Word and Excel with every desktop copy of Windows.
The rationale here is that MS claims they simply want to improve the OS by bundling. Well, every desktop user needs these features, but MS has never bundled these applications -- why should they, since they have a de facto monopoly on word processing and spreadsheets, they just continue to rake in the dough. This punishment makes them practice what they preach and punishes them by depriving them of the revenue from Word and Excel.
2) Microsoft may continue to bundle applications or "new features" but they must publicly announce what applications are to be bundled and give reasonable feature descriptions of those applications at least two years before they appear in any release.
This addresses future behavior. Competitors will have a heads up, and will be able to decided whether they want to continue to compete or choose to modify their products to highlight differences between their offering and that of Microsoft.
If we could just get the standard Microsoft Office suite (and running under VM ware doesn't count) on Linux, I think that would be a big first step to getting average Joe Sixpack users and average companies to move over to Linux.
I'd love to see Microsoft broken up and let their good products (Office suite, excluding Office XP, games, game controllers, mice, MSDN) stop subsidizing their bad ones (Windows, XP).
Also, I don't think Microsoft has been ALL bad. It's very nice to know that if I send someone a word document, they will most likely be able to open it, unlike ten years ago when I had to worry if you had AppleWorks or Word or WordStar or WordPerfect or
-------------------------------------------------
What's sad, is that Microsoft is the industry standard, not because their products are that much better, but because their marketing machine is better.
I'll admit that, any more, Word seems to be better for what I do than other WP's, but that's mainly because I'm used to it. But Exchange is far from the best mail system out there. Oh, wonder of all wonders, it's integrated with a calendaring system. Who would have guessed that MS would do that.
MS is the standard because people are lazy. And that's just sad.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Wondering where this initiative of MS will go worries me slightly. I'd hate for the court to unwittingly unleash a "monster" without some method of redress should whatever remedy they come up with prove innefectual.
news like this makes one wonder: why do we bother? through my hate for microsoft, this doesnt seen a valuable spending of the US budget. if things continue the way they have been, and i feel sure that micro$osft's insane legal defense will make sure it does, then every time a negative ruling is passed onto microsoft, it'll get pushed into the appeals court again. my question for micro$oft would be, however, is this really better for the company (or hopefully companies)? constantly screwing up, denying, appeals, screwing up, and around and around again isnt exactly good press. wouldnt, or might it not be better for the company if you were to say "you know what? we screwed up, and we're sorry. go ahead and break us up." who knows, if M$ is broken up, it might even make more profits then it will be with the bad press.
I think, therefore, I'm smarter than our president.
The issue is wether MS used their monopoly power to crush their competitors (in IEs case Netscape).
It's definetly a bad thing to have competition eliminated from any market.
when will he stop calling himself a Libertarian... he might have some Libertarian leanings, but he is a liberal. Plus, his one sided emotionall atacks are typical liberal fare, so lets be honest Bill!
hehehe, offtopic is fun
Why is this a problem?
Remeber Gator and its Ilk. Well there are going to be more of these worthelss spyware/Adware programs that will weasel their way onto our computers. Most of these psuedoviri attack the browsers and cause problems there (I have a client who installs damn near all of the and has managed to f' up explorer to the point where it can no longer handle ssl). This will become the norm as more plugins on needed to view the latest shiny thing on websites.
Perhaps most /.ers are 1337 enough to avoid these problems but my Mom isn't
Back to the point (I think I have one). As it stands now when some plugin (spyware) overwrites a critical dll or two in exploder and it stops working I can fire up nutscrape and redownload exploder and with a little luck get things working again.
With The browser part of My OS when it gets fskd It is time for a clean install and that just isn't cool
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
It's that they were in the past, and the courts ruled that this was anti-competitive action, and should therefore be punished accordingly. The next step now is figuring how to appropriately punish the company. Just because a mass murderer is convicted of heinous crimes, doesn't mean you let them off the hook without consequences for his/her actions!<p>
The debate now is whether or not breaking the company is too harsh, just right, or not harsh enough, or whether they should face less strict consequences for their PAST actions.
With a new judge assigned, the penalty phase will be drawn out as arguments are re-presented to a far greater degree than if Jackson were still presiding over the case, since he has gained a familiarity with it over the past 2 years. This, it seems will be sufficient to allow Microsoft at least the time needed to release Windows XP and perhaps cause even more damage to the computer industry.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Since this is a part of Jackson's ruling that was overruled, it's somewhat unlikely that it will be advanced again as the "final solution."
IANAL, yada, yada, yada....
:-) Then they appealed to the Supreme Court and simultaneously asked the appeals court to put the case on hold until the supreme's decision. Appeals court refused. The case is moving forward.
DoJ can ask the judge for a preliminary injunction against XP, that is, an injunction that is issued *before* the trial. The judge will do it if 1) he/she thinks that there is high likelihood that he/she will come to the same conclusion after the trial, and 2) the plaintiff can demonstrate irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued immediately. In this case it's easy: MS is arrogantly using the same anti-competitive tactics they were sued for, and if injunction is not issued before XP is out, it will be too late.
Microsoft is well aware of that. This is why they are trying very hard to delay the case and push forwrard the release of XP. First they re-appealed to the appeals court (The Register had a funny title for this "Microsoft asks the court to find it a little bit not guiltier"
Two questions remain: will DoJ ask for preliminary injunction against XP? (so far they have given several indications that they will). Will the judge grant it? That remains to be seen....
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will certainly give them L.
Ummm, what exactly is ILLEGAL about MP3 encoders and CD-recording software that we can use now? The only main difference is that the XP-included utilities are likely of lower quality than ones you get for free elsewhere.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
I agree totally. The problem with software is it is abstract. Where the operating system ends and applications begin is choosen by whoever defines the interface or paradigm at the time. If you used something like, say an old Lisp machine, there might not be applications or an "operating system." It would all be merged together in one seamless lump. Can the government dictate what an operating system consists of? I don't think so. If Microsoft is at fault in any way, it is their fault of using the "applications run on operating system" paradigm.
<rant>
I've heard Microsoft given the term "anti-competitive" before. This term to me seems like a contradiction. The point of the free market is that the better products win or rise to the top, while the crap dies out (and yes MS products can be considered either depending on who you talk to.. but lets not get into that here). If one product beats another, is that anti-competitive? If one product beats all products, is that not competitive? Is MS using "hardball" tactics competitive? I don't see how you can be competitive and not be "anti-competitive." Just strikes me as a paradox of sorts. I can see if you were doing some athletic tournament and were taking steriods it could be considered anti-competitive. But, that's only because steroids are deemed "bad" and they are outlawed. If they weren't outlawed it would be considered "getting a leg up" on the competition. It all seems like arbitrary line drawing to me..
</rant>
I hope she is not one of those "I'm here to help protect you from yourself" fools. That has got to be one of the stupidest things that humanity has ever come up with, but not the most evil. The most evil is when they enforce it. (and always 'FOR THE CHILDREN')
-CmdrTaco
If Microsoft made an antitrust trial edition of the Monopoly game for Windows? I think that would be hilarious.
It seems like this whole thing is turning out to be like the OJ case: Neverending, boring, redundant and without any sort of real interest. All it needs is a white bronco chase and some way too expensive lawyers. "If it's not a megabit, you must acquit." That sort of thing.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
If they take action against Microsoft then I think Gates should just run the business into the ground. Destroy the whole damn thing. Put tons of people out of work and help to destroy the economy.
Yeah, go on and mod me down you assfucking communists I don't give a rat's ass. You and your GPL/GNU/FAG communism is getting to be a little irritating. You people need your attitudes adjusted and if it means beating the fuck out of you dorks then it's gonna happen. You dumbfucking snobby cocky dorks.
Windows 95 started shipping today a few years ago, WinXP hit RTM (realease to manufacture) this afternoon, and the court sent the trial back down today.
At this point, I bet the lawyers are scrambling to prepare a motion to stop shipment/distribution of WinXP, but can they succeed in less than 60 days? If so, they'll have dealt a good blow to MS - all those copies of WinXP sitting around in warehouses (we're talking several million boxes of product). This won't hurt MS much financially (much), but it'll be really interesting to see what happens then. MS would have to throw them away if the court required some unbundling. And if the court said, "No shipment until ruling" then MS would have a strong reason to help move the process along - including making some concessions they were unwilling to make a year ago.
Believe me - Microsoft, as a whole, is riding on WinXP, as it is the most stable MS product yet, not to mention that it's the first windows to realize their dream of five years - one version/code base for both home and coporate users.
If they can't get it out within a year...
-Adam
While linux is improving nicely, it still lacks heavily in any music reporduction,
Actually, there's quite a bit of music production software for Linux.
media interfaces
You mean like Shockwave and MP3s?
business applications.
Such as Excel and Word?
I'd rather pay 199.00 bucks for something that works out of the box and comes with lots of software then several hours downloading, burning iso's and then chasing down the latest versions of all apps waisting a whole entire weekend or business days (thus costing more then the 199.00 XP package).
So would I. Fortunately, if I want to run Linux, I can get a complete set of CD-ROMs from CheapBytes for less than fifteen bucks (including postage) and usually install or upgrade the whole system in about two hours, most of it hands-free. Most of these systems have a reputation for running smoothly "right out of the box."
Finding God in a Dog
It wasn't until the US government realized that it relied on Ma Bell more than the post office that it decided to break them up. If I "was the gov't" looking at this, I'd remedy M$ so hard they'd have no idea what hit them.
If the gov't relies too much on the product(s) that M$ produces, then it will start to have issues. The gov't does realize the inherent strength in diversity.
"In a final decision, Judge Kollar-Kotelly presiding over the punishment phase of the Microsoft anti-trust has decided that the company must pay 3 Billion dollars in penalties and be split up into three seperate companies. One will be primarily concerned with operating systems, the second with development tools and desktop applications, the third with internet applications and services. Upon hearing the results, Steve Balmer, President and CEO of Microsoft (MSFT) said "What! We paid millions of dollers to retry this and still got the same result? We didn't even lie this time around? Where can I buy a better judge?" The department of justice noted that the extra expence of handeling the case to the same conclusion would come from Microsofts penalty fine."
And so it goes.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
The problem is.... I can uninstall Warp. And I can uninstall HatJava. But I can't uninstall IE.
What I want to know is, can you uninstall Konquerer? All of this talk about how Microsoft killed the little guy by integrating IE in to Windows, then other OS's go and copy it. I like having my web browser and file manager the same... so do a lot of people.
I agree that Microsoft has done "unfair" practices, but this isn't one of them.
Mod me down as a troll, but you know I have an interesting point...
That's not a terribly good comparison since you're taking something relatively cheap (cd) and bundling it with something expensive (player). In this situation it would be like you're pissed because you wanted to buy a CD and play it on your 8-track deck but "the man" is forcing you to buy a CD player. A slightly more accurate analogy would be Wanting to buy a CD player, where your choice is the $199 Sony model or the free instructions to make your own. With the sony player you also get the entire NSync collection - it's crap, but you don't have a choice.
I'm not willing to comment on the ethics or convenience of this situation because I like installing an OS and having at least rudamentary internet connectivity installed with it and hate Windows Encoder (Xing and VideoCapturix for me). If my Dell came with Win-NOIE and netscape installed and I had to reformat it and then had to figure out how the hell to get a browser back on there with no built in net connectivity and no install disks for it I'd be pretty damn pissed. Can't use FTP because that was removed since it was illegally bundled and has since been stripped out.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
Sure... I have two linux boxes here (and one at work) that don't have Konqueror on them... two run GNOME, and one doesn't even have X.
"With the sony player you also get the entire NSync collection - it's crap, but you don't have a choice. "
Don't forget that according to Sony, you cannot take the NSync collection out of the CD player without breaking it. Plus, you are left with figuring out how to put a second CD in there now. The whole while Sony claims doing so may destabilize the player and will prevent you from getting any support should something happen later.
Disclaimer: I have nothing against Sony, I was merely continuing on Sawbones's example.
How do you know that WinXP isn't the cheaper of the parts that's coming out? Maybe the expensive part was getting all of the applications fixed so that they wouldn't crash under XP. They are shipping 1 OS and, from what I understand, 10-15 applications. Even at cheap prices, 10-15 applications that I buy on the bargain shelf for 10 bucks a piece will still run my $100-$150. If that's the case, then the OS is worth between $0-$150 bucks, depending on whether you're buying the home upgrade, or the Pro full version. We have no idea how much the OS costs, because no one has been able to figure out what the market would pay for Windows if it had the choice, and the usual Free Market effects forced MS to sell Win at whatever it could compete for.
And I'm not pissed because I wanna play my CD's on an 8-track, or on the $199 Sony player. But I'd be just as happy having to drive across town to puck up that $100 Technics player, because, frankly, I've like the buttons and interface on it better than Sony's. (Not really, I have all Sony audio stuff, but I had to continue the analogy :).
I like the way Compaq used to have their servers set up. When you bought them, they had every software setup you could use on the hard drive, encoded and packed up. Booting started the install procedure, where you picked which software packages you wanted installed. The restore CD blew away your HD, and put that boot image back on the disk, and once you had your software setup picked, you got the opportunity to build restore floppies for the different software packages.
Why can't we do this? Computers ship with 30G hard drives at the low end today, I can put Netscape, IE, Opera, Mosaic, and umpteen other browsers on the disk to install on first boot. Same with Word/Wordperfect/Wordstar/whatever or Quicken/Money or Realplayer/WMP.
The fact is, people just don't care. We care, but we are the minority voicing concerns in a way that the affected majority don't associate with. Until your Aunt Martha understand that she should be able to use whatever she wants, then MS will go about their business unscathed, because not enough people are pushing for them to get their arm ripped off instead of their hand slapped.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Oh blather.
Most people simply aren't going to install Netscape simply because it's a piece of shit and has been for about 4 years now. (although NS6 is better it still lags behind IE5.5)
In the 1980's Honda cut into Chevrolet's marketshare pretty hard. They sold cars that were affordable and higher quality than what Chevy had available.
You are essentially arguing that this was somehow unfair to Chevy because customers are not stupid and will not spend more money and buy a piece of junk, so by default they are going to buy a Honda.
While that might be true, I don't see the consumer being harmed, just Chevrolet.
"Nobody sues IBM for OS/2 that was bundled with a browser (warp 3 & 4), Nobody sued Sun for including the ancient java browser and prefering that you use there browser. "
You are just dead wrong about this.
I cant sspeak for Warp4 but Warp3 does not have a browser install as part of the OS.
You have to specifically install it from the bonus pack CD, and I might also point out it is so outdated no one would bother installing it anyways.
it was afterall the users that made Microsoft a Defacto.
Bzzt wrong.
Very few users in corporations get to choose the hardware and software they use. Since the majority of PCs are sold to corporations it was this that made MS defacto. And the users are FORCED to use what the corporation says.
But even if MS as defacto standard was a good thing (I don't think it is, but I'll assume it is for the moment) the fact that MS then used their defacto standard in one area to drive out competitors in another is by no means a good thing for users.
And that is the problem. MS has used their success to unfairly compete. And they continue to work limit choices to MS and MS only products via unfair business practises.
And I sure do not want to live in an MS only world.
Steve M
It would be more correct to say that distributers can't remove ther N'Sync CDs from the package. You can still go out and buy Foghat's Greatest jits and play them til your heart's content but you get the N'Sync collection whether you want it or not.
Also, it's important to note that you didn't pay for the N'Sync collection, Sony bundled it for promotion. I'm not sure if N'Sync is signed by Sony or one of their subsidiaries but for arguments sake let's say they are. Would this be illegal bundling? No, it would not. Would it be fair for EMI to force Sony to bundle one of their artists with every Sony CD player sold? No, it would not. Would EMI think of doing this? Only if this case is resolved using Slashdot think (read: only if this judge has her head up her ass.)
What pisses me off is that one is supposed to have a "fair and speedy" trial. There's no reason I can think of for such an important case to languish between trial and appeal for so long.
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
I'm not saying your diatribe wasn't intelligent - just that I'm a weirdo.
like when people don't buy it.
>Actually, there's quite a bit of music
>production software for Linux. [hitsquad.com]
Unfortunately, there's nothing like Cubase, Logic, or Protools for Linux. Show me one
commercially released audio product that was
mastered on a Linux box.
Of course, the real cost of a music production
workstation is closer to $10,000. Only a tiny
bit of that is the cost of the consumer OS.
The problem that I see is there isn't a specialized OS for audio production -- there's
really no "Professional" level for a PC OS in
this marketplace.
We have to build our audio systems on the same
consumer oriented general purpose OS that business systems use. If Linux had just a bit
more credibility among the people who develop and
market A/V production software and hardware, it
could really take off. However, the success Linux has enjoyed in Hollywood does not seem to have helped. The simple fact of the matter that the platform is simpler to develop has helped on the amateur end of things (pretty much everything
on the hitsquad list), but almost nothing at the
professional end.
I found it most amusing that the sponsor for the hitsquad site is FruityLoops. This program is arguably the best value in audio today. But there's no version for linux. Evernything in
the "multitrack recording" category is highly inappropriate for production work. Not only are we "not there yet", we're a DECADE behind!
It's not just a software issue, either. There's
almost NO hardware support for the audio systems available. Only a handful of mutlitrack sound devices are supported, and none more than "partially" supported, on Linux. ALSA is making
progress, as well as 4Front, but nothing is ready
for production work today, or in the forseeable future.
>You mean like Shockwave [shockwave.com] and
>MP3s? [xmms.org]
Okay, consumer stuff, sure. What about Quicktime though? What about all the codecs that are not supported in, e.g., xanim? What about the fact that, even if you do meticulously tweak your linux system, it's still not as useable from a consumer perspective as a windows 2000 system out of the box? And of course, for
production work, we really need something better than windows 2000.
Apple was on the right track, but their latest redesigns have cost them momentum. The net result is that right now, there are fewer choices for serious computer-based audio production work than there were a couple of years ago. There really shouldn't even be a
market for $100,000 DAWs right now, since you
ought to be able to do everything they do with
a consumer PC. But you can't. And the studios
and the record companies like it that way.
>business applications.
>
>>Such as Excel [gnumeric.org] and Word >>[abiword.org]?
Yes, these come close. And sometimes, in some ways, outperform the MS counterparts. But they're still not as good for business purposes.
Surely for this crowd there will be no problem in making the choice of what OS, browser, etc. to use or not to use.
I'm part of this crowd.
I cannot choose my OS at work. I cannot choose my browser at work. If fact, I can only use the corporate standard OS and apps. I not allowed (supposed) to install anything.
And this is the point. The users don't choose OS's, corporations do. And as MS's monopoly becomes more entrenched there will be fewer and fewer choices for OSes, applications, etc.
That sucks.
Steve M
Say, for instance that you introduce an alternative, but too late. Your parents have genetically coded you so that the only way your kids won't mutate into swamp things is to marry and procreate with this toaster.
They even give you a choice: Marry this girl, or be celibate for life. Sure it's a choice, but not a fair choice.
Now, replace your neighborhood for your computer, the toaster for windows and ie, your alternative as MAC or 0S2 and Java, and your parents as Steve and Bill (which from your arguments, just might be true
then say, just don't buy it. This is about stagnating choice to the point that a choice becomes detremental. And being in a position of public trust and abusing that position
I agree. Microsoft puts out a good product for the masses. However, how they got that lion's share of the market was unfair.
Kind of like addicting everyone to crack and then selling munchies bundled with crack, then saying that people still can go back to a clean life. Not going to happen. They're hooked.
But obviously you haven't thought this through. You probably were still watching TMNT when all this stuff went down. So nobody will blame you.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
Here's the link for the MSNBC version of this story. Has a pic of the judge, good bio, many links.
Of course, MSNBC is partially owned and operated by Microsoft, so caveat emptor.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Would be if Honda happened to buy up 95% of the highways in the U.S. during the 1980s as well, and reconfigured the roadways to "complement" Honda cars nicely and "improve Honda performance".
Oh--and by the way, about Netscape 4.x quality: sure, Netscape isn't the best browser now, but it's pretty damn good considering how long it's been around without development. Monopolies are bad because they _hurt_ the competition as well as the customer. Thus, competitors to Microsoft will eventually look bad partially because they don't get financial support to maintain quality.
Also, I want to know where this idea came from that Joe Sixpack didn't install Netscape because of the quality. My mother-in-law wouldn't give a rat's butt about that small of a quality difference, and I have NEVER seen a casual computer user complain about the quality of Netscape relative to IE. You might, 'cause you're a saavy computer user, but do you really think most users know the difference between IE 5.x and Netscape 4.7? I don't think so--I've seen a lot of students in computer labs use computers, and not one of them has said anything bad about Netscape.
Yes, the problem is...
YOU can uninstall Warp. And YOU can uninstall HotJava. And some really clever individual may be able uninstall IE (without harming Windows). And the majority of the people out there (if the members of my average non-techie family and extended family are representative examples of the typical consumer PC end-user who are not necessarily lazy or apathetic) have no interest in installing or de-installing the software that was pre-installed on their Dell/Compaq/HP bundled-all-to-heck desktops.
From my experience, the average PC end-user does not give a rat's-a$$ about whether or not IE can be de-installed from Windows. If they discover that Netscape/Opera/AOL/etc. is much more pleasing to use, then they will leave IE alone (with the possible exception of deleting the icon from the desktop, thus giving them the illusion that it has been removed) and install an alternate browser. That doesn't mean they're "dumb" - on the contrary, they're usually busy being productive or enjoying their PCs to be concerned about whether or not a specific piece of software can be de-installed.
I certainly believe MS is guilty of some monopolistic activities, but I think directing the attention to the de-installability of their products is the wrong way to attack the problem. Instead, why not attack the questionable relationships they have forged with such monopoly-enabling partners as Dell, Compaq, and Intel?
Tell me, how exactly is Microsoft's software bundling any different than Red Hat's, Be's (before they went tits-up), or Apple's? Are you going to bitch about Be for shipping NetPositive with BeOS and argue that Joe Average won't download Opera or Mozilla? Or are you going to sue Apple for putting a Quicktime icon on the dock instead of a RealPlayer icon? Are you going to sue car makers for including stereos?
Since when is it Microsoft's responsibility to support competing companies by putting their software in Windows? Just because the average user doesn't want to download software doesn't mean Windows should have to include anything & everything some other company might want MS to include.
MS has abused their monopoly in a lot of clearly illegal and/or improper ways, such as making exclusivity arrangements with hardware makers, XP activation, making their web site incompatible with other browsers, deliberately breaking competitor's code, etc. However, this software bundling issue just ridiculous. Everybody bundles their products - full featured distributions are in large part responsible for the success of Linux.
Excellent. Maybe an actual unbiased decision can come out of this. If she were on record as always siding for the little guy, MS would use its money to get a different judge (possibly justifiably). If she were on record as always going with the corporate behemoths, we'd be screwed.
That the case is receiving some new blood and a fresh point of view is reassuring.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Neither can I. I'm stuck with an SGI O2 on my desk running IRIX, and I'm posting this in Netscape. Should I sue my company or go straight to SGI?
So, you're saying that it's legal for Red Hat and Apple to bundle software with their OS, but it's illegal for Microsoft to do the same thing?
Doesn't that strike you as a double standard?
OK, I just went and attacked these questionable relationships. I happen to have rather potent body odor and gaseous emmissions, which I think are my best weapons. Let's see what happens now, after the dust settles.
Siggy Wiggy Figgy Tiggy a bana bo Biggy!
I'll tell you the truth, I didn't even read all of your comment. I just saw the beginning question of who cares. And you implied that either you buy it or you don't.
Not exactly. I'm not going to buy it, yet it's still going to effect me. I use linux almost exclusively but the tactics that Microsoft is using with windows XP is going to give me pains for years to come.
Microsoft is trying to use Windows XP to push web developers into using active x, and no longer supporting netscape plugins. Not that big of a deal for windows users, but what happens when web developers start saying "well, I can just support active x and get 90% of the market, thats good enough." I will no longer be able to see things such as flash on a web page. And even if you don't use flash that much you must admit its annoying when someone gives you a link to something and you have to explain (for the millionth time) that you can't view that in linux.
I'm sure theres going to be a lot more than that too, sounds like they are trying to get users to use Windows Media instead of mp3. I bet the builtin cd ripping (it has this right?) will by default rip to windows media. Since windows doesn't even show extensions the majority of users aren't going to know the difference. Well before you know it windows media will be replacing mp3 *sigh*.
Probably a bunch of other things that we're not even aware yet, that microsoft will unvail later on.
I know this sounds like paranoid ramblings, but I seriously think this is the type of things they're trying to do.
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
Actually people aren't sueing Microsoft for bundling software. They're sueing Microsoft for using it's monopoly status to destroy other companies.
Without restriction Microsoft can kill any software company that it wants to.
At this point it fairly well documented that Microsoft will use unfair and illegal tactics to kill any competitors...
If you think you are safe then you are very naive. Microsoft could put presure on hardware companies to not allow drives for your product. Microsoft could persuade the big OEMs to charge more if customers wanted to use your product. Or Microsoft could force them to not sell your product at all. Microsoft can try hire all your best programmers away from you. Microsoft could use their enormous advertising budget to slander your company and product. So how are you going to compete now that your software doesn't run on any hardware and either no one will sell it for you or if you do sell it, part of the profit goes directly to Microsoft.
Sure, XP is stable, it's one-code, it's got instant messaging and other apps embedded in it...
And that's it. Does that make me want to upgrade? No way in hell. Do you think most consumers seeing a possibly deep recession welling are going to want to upgrade to basically the same thing? I don't think so. Even new PC sales are seriously slumping this year, some estimates saying they are down 21% the first two quarters alone.
I think we're only looking at the beginning of Microsoft's hard times.
Go Lakers!
Look when talking about Windows XP you forgot to mention some of your talking points.
1) Xtra stability, remember Windows XP is based on Microsoft's exclusive professional code base, even for the consumer versions of windows XP!
2) No only is there Xciting new bundled MP3 encoding software and CD Recording from Microsoft so you don't have to worry about the legality of the software, there is also a microsoft media player, a new microsoft messanger, a microsoft DVD player, a microsoft movie maker so consumers can edit there home movies. It's like microsoft has provided everything the consumer wants! There is no need to have to run third party software to chat with friends, listen to music, watch videos or make your own.
3) Windows XP presents a unified interface for the user, they don't have to figure out complicated and incompatible linux desktops!
Now your going to have to get your act togather and shrill better if you want to earn your commission. Try just cut and pasting the memos microsoft gives you in diffrent arrangements, make shure to include all the important points and don't go thinking for yourself again or trying to put things in your own words.
I usually bash the heck out of MS for most things they do, but I seriously don't fault them for adopting the unified browser interface. It really is a legitimate evolution of the OS and does add value for users.
If there is any doubt about whether browser integration was a positive move, just look at how others have recognized it's importance and copied it (KDE/Konqueror, GNOME/gmc/Nautilus, etc.). The market for a standalone (non-bundled) browser was already non-existent before IE 4 came around.
I mean, how many people you know actually purchased a copy of Navigator? Netscape's business model didn't have a prayer. And frankly, by the time Windows 98 hit the shelves, Navigator was already way behind IE when it comes to quality and technical merit.
That's why I don't understand the DOJ's focus on IE integration, when Microsoft's other actions were far more damaging (such as preventing hardware vendors from selling other OSs).
And so the doctor says to him....
I'll give you a for instance. We just shipped a product that needed to have a tabbed window with the tabs at the bottom. Hey MSDN describes how to do that with the common tab control. The problem is that in order to get that functionality, you have to have a fairly recent version of the comctl32.dll. How do you get one of those? You download the latest version of IE. Can you get it any other way? No. Can I ship the dll to my customers? No. But you can ship the full install of IE and have them install that.
That's the kind of thing that is pissing people off.
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
I guess my point was just to subtle for you.
Sue whomever you like.
But in case you simply missed the point...
One of the main arguments in the post that started this thread is that users choose operating systems and by implication MS became a defacto standard because users chose it.
This assumption, that users can choose the software they use, seems to be widely accepted. And we see in posts on both side of the argument where that is the case. I believe that this assumption is incorrect.
My point is that the majority of the software purchased is chosen for the users and not by the users. It is choosen by the corporations that buy the software.
I don't have (to much of) a problem with my employer dictating the hardware and software I use. I'd prefer to be able to make my own choices but so be it.
What I do have a problem with is that the overall number of choices is shrinking (bye bye BeOS) and thus in those situations where I do have the ability to make choices my options are becoming more and more limited.
And I find it truely evil that MS is abusing their monopoly position to further limit my choices.
Good luck with your lawsuit!
Steve M
Why you want to waste so much of real estate for demonstrating your trash in the brain ?
Its not about bundling which is perfectly legal. Its about oversupplying a given market to bring demand down below the cost to produce it. Microsoft uses the word bunlding to make use think they are just being the good guys and bringing us more software and greater features. In actuality, they are driving competitors out of bussiness by tying which is illegal. This is why IE was everywhere when netscape was still hot. Microsoft bundled it with ever cd-rom for every magazine to even on hardware driver installation cd's. They then tied IE api's with their standard c++ calls so IE would be required when using third party apps compilied with visual c++. This is very illegal and is quite different then just bunlding something.
http://saveie6.com/
Heh, you stopped just sort of calling your wife dumb. Nice one; it could've been the couch for you tonight. (well, that is if your wife read /., in which case she would be much more intelligent than the average computer user... hmmm, or would she? ;)
I'm sure what you meant was, "If I'm running KDE, can I uninstall Konqueror?" (The above reply doesn't seem to understand that's what you're talking about)
2 points here:
1.) Yes, you most certainly can run KDE without Konqueror. You can run Konqueror with Gecko (Mozilla's rendering engine) or you can not install Konqueror at all. Since it's Free Software, you can hire a C hacker and do ANYTHING with it (or do it yourself if you can).
2.) KDE doesn't have a legal monopoly. Microsoft does. This forces them to act differently than everyone else who doesn't have a monopoly
your headers show IE on windows 2000
/.
"If the future is going to be as successful as the recent past, the technology sector must remain free from excess regulation."
/ 134332634_microlob23.html I just had to laugh since yesterday I was reading how they are real coming down on the schools in Detroit for sharing software on multiple computers. Maybe they should be free of their own excess regulation (cough XP, cough, cough)
Straight from their letters to congress http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld
Ummm, if somebody (other than Apple--see the fine print) is giving an mp3 encoder away for free, chances are they're not paying the required royalties to Fraunhofer (US $2.50-5.00 per unit).
no..its illegal for micro$oft to :
destroy other companies.
force OEMs to bundle only windoze.
threaten OEMs who add competing icons on their PCs.
bully competitiors with their foothold in the market.
lock consumers into their applications by breaking competing applications using their OS leverage..
etc etc..
The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary gives bland, but good reviews of Judge Kollar-Kotelly. (The publication calls attorneys and gives reviews without identifying the lawyers.)
Lawyers interviewed reported:
1) Good legal ability
2) Good judicial temperament, however headstrong lawyers may produce a spark (i.e. Neukom may have trouble)
3) Strict on courtroom protocol
4) Tries to get cases settled
5) Civil plaintiffs' lawyers think that she leans to plaintiffs. That would not be unusual for a Democratic appointee.
6) Civil defendants' lawyers think she is pro-plaintiff. "She is one of the more liberal judges."
7) Criminal defense lawyers thought she was fair to both sides.
On the whole, probably not the best news for Microsoft, however, Jackson was one of the few full-time judges on the court that is not a Democractic appointee, and I don't know that Microsoft had much better coming the the luck of that particular pool of judges.
Well, to be completely honest a lot of businesses will do the same thing with Windows installs via ghost or some other drive imaging program. Of course, Microsoft's licensing makes this practice less-than-legal in some circumstances, whereas the licensing for Linux is equally simple for 10 or 10000 machines, so you still come out ahead with Linux IMHO.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
How big a fine to impose and what to do with the money.
I don't see a breakup as being able to remove MS from the seat of power it now holds. If you open sorced windows, they'd just create a new closed version with "extra features".
Therefore, I think MS should donate it's $30 billion in pocket change to the free software foundation, for advocating and implimenting Free open source software in schools and companies. Ultimately, with enough people working with and on Linux(with enough eyes all bugs are shallow), the government reserves the cash as an asset in the form of freely available software solutions. This does 2 things:
1. removes monopoly power by creating alternatives for not only americans, but everyone everywhere. These alternatives by nature of their open source license are guarenteed to always be available in the future.
2. provide public awareness of alternatives to windows while leaving MS "cashless", unable to rival the marketing power of the 30 billion retrieved in the case.
MS's monopoly needs to be brought down a few notches and I feel that MS should foot the bill for that.(no pun intended)
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Any MP3 encoder which hasn't paid patent licence fees to Frauenhofer is illegal (LAME, etc), or would be if a judge says so.
Besides Windows XP Release will not include an MP3 encoder anyway, so it's a moot point. (MS has licenced the Frauenhofer patents for their included WMA encoder.)
M$ back to lower court? Now that must be a setback for Billy ;) The higher the better, isn't it Bill?
Very shortsighted. Actually the right analogy is
to allow killer convits on deathrow to raom the streats and continue to kill....
So what's your proposed solution? I guess it would have to be one of two things.
The first would be to lobotomize the default installation of Windows or make it inconvenient to use in some way so that Joe Average is forced to get off his lazy butt and make a decision about what browser he wants to use. Make the customer feel some pain so he's got the motivation to take action. In other words, ship Windows without any browser at all.
Regardless of whether you think IE could or could not be technically separated from Windows, you have to admit that Windows does use the browser for a lot of functions (the help system, the file browser, etc.) and that it makes sense to do so. So a large part of the Windows interface depends on having a browser there from the beginning. Yeah, sure, Microsoft could simply not use HTML for any part of the operating system, forever and ever, but how does that make any technical or business sense?
So Microsoft has to say, "Sorry, you can't read the help topics. Sorry, you can't view the contents of your hard drive. At least, not until you've chosen, obtained, and installed a browser of some sort. And since we can't display help topics or allow you to browse the web right now, we can't help you fix it. You're on your own. Hope it works out for you!"
Now, tell me exactly how this is good for the consumer? Remember, we're talking about Joe Average computer user here, not some tech wizard. How's he supposed to get the browser? Can't download it, 'cause there's no easy-to-use internet connectivity. Buy it in a box? Oh, good, so now we're forcing consumers spend more money all in the name of helping them. How is selling Joe a broken, non-functioning piece of software supposed to be good for him?
The other solution is for Microsoft to ship all other competing browsers right on the CD and allow the user to choose one as he's installing Windows. This approach has multiple problems. First, ever heard of bloat-ware? Everyone's always complaining about how big and fat Windows is. Can you imagine the groans and complaints if Microsoft had to include fifteen different browsers? Which brings up a related point; who chooses which browsers get to ship with Windows? Does anyone get in just for the asking? Where does it end? Which leads to yet another problem; who's responsible for testing all the interactions between the various browsers and Windows? Remember, HTML isn't just some optional component that Windows can do without. If the browser is slow, or is incompatible, or doesn't support certain tags, and the user chooses to install it, it's like cutting off a leg. Windows isn't going anywhere fast. So now Microsoft can't even control the quality and behavior of its own products. (Yeah, some people question the quality of Microsoft's products anyway, but at least right now it's Microsoft's responsibility to improve or screw up as they see fit.)
Given all of those issues, I don't see how the current situation is all that bad. Windows ships with one well-tested browser that's guaranteed to work well in the Windows user interface. If certain customers would rather use another browser for surfing the web, then they're absolutely free to install another one. IE continues to be used for the Windows interface, and the other browser is used for web surfing. If the user is satisfied with IE for web browsing, then he doesn't have to do anything. Everything just works right out of the box. How is this bad?
It's said that Open Source software is written by people with an itch to scratch. Alternative browsers are installed on Windows by people with an itch to scratch. It seems to me that you're complaining that not enough people have an itch. Where I come from, that's usually considered a good sign, not a bad one.
...for those that just don't get it yet.
First, read this.
Now, imagine if the hard drive maker, or the memory maker, or the video card maker (etc., you get the point) tried to do the same thing? Compaq would have dumped them in a second and gone to a competitor.
Now, listen carefully:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!!
This is precisely what is a legal definition of a monopoly (as opposed to an absolute monopoly. Many people say Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can buy a copy of Red Hat and install it. These people are confusing a legally defined monopoly and an absolute monopoly like what AT&T had.)
It's technically legal for Microsoft to have this monopoly, but it's illegal to abuse it by forcing other products down computer manufacturers throats (First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.)
To all you Microsoft apologists out there: Do you REALLY want Microsoft in control of EVERYTHING to do with computing? Because, without the anti-trust case, that's exactly where we'd be heading. Without this "government interference", every computing experience would be handled by Microsoft. We'd all use Windows, Explorer, Office, MSN, Media Player, Windows Messaging, Passport, etc. and then Microsoft could charge whatever they want for all this.
Also, without "interference", NONE of the major companies currently supporting Linux to varying degrees (IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., etc.,) would have had anything to do with Linux. The repurcussions from Microsoft would have been much too severe.
Not to mention all the security problems that would arise out of all of this. Melissa/Love Bug/Sircam/Code Red anyone?
I am pleased and relieved that the case is going the way it is. This will preserve some measure of computing freedom for us all.
Rather than file to block the distribution of WindowsXP which is rather hard to do now that the software has been released, the government should file to prevent Microsoft from receiving any revenue on the sale of XP. All profits relating to the sale of XP should be banked and set aside waiting a ruling in the case and possible penalties and other settlements.
This benefits everyone except Microsoft who are then hostage to settling the case to receive their revenues. This puts pressure on Microsoft without putting pressure on anyone else. What it does do is release the XP into the wild but then everyone who thinks XP closes them out of the market is allowed to file a brief with the court and join the "victim list".
If XP is also found to be an abuse of monopoly power the total funds are available to be payed out to those locked out of the XP market by the inclusion of technologies into XP. At this point Microsoft should be told by the judge
"You have been found to be a monopoly."
"You have misused your power as a monopoly in the past."
"These are judged facts."
"If XP is found to be a continuation of the practice I will rule with prejudice, as XP was released after the judged facts were concluded and you were fully aware of them."
"You have the option of withdrawing XP or releasing it. If XP is released all revenues received will be seized until a judgment settles the case."
"If it is found to be the case that XP continues the practice of abuse of monopoly power the XP revenues will be seized to compensate the victims and pay penalties. It is possible that additional penalties will also apply."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It took me 9 mins to install linux on 3 workstations and have them on the network with mandrake 8.0 burned from iso's i got from there website server set-up i am guessing 2 or 3 hr tops
And i am a uber newbie
It came with *legal* mp3 cd media apps stations didnt need them so didnt go into install
I would like to know names of ilegal mp3 or cd apps are tho...far as i know there isnt any
m0zone
"A split might not hurt (3-way, preferably), nor would opening Windows."
The only kind of split that would both leave MS free to do what they want with their products, AND would eliminate the monopoly would be to split them off vertically (ie, create a minimum of 3 "baby bill's").
Each "baby bill" would have full rights to all current MS IP and trademarks, as well as an equal share of all money, facilities and employees.
They'd not be permitted to cooperate in any way (they'd all have to pay user fees to an oversight board that would monitor this). They'd only be able to cooperate thru industry standards groups (which set open standards any company can use).
I see this as the ONLY way to actually punish MS, and to prevent them from continuing their "innovative" embrace, extend, extinguish business model, as no one of the "baby bills" can stray too much from current API, file formats, etc, or risk becoming incompatible...
Not to mention that no one "baby bill" could have the control over OEM licensing, and price as MS currently does.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"Um, exactly the problem...[abuse of monopoly position]"
I want them to include as much as possible so I don't have to go out and spend additional money.
I do not feel cheated by MS, why do you insist on claiming that it hurts me?
"Obviously affordable is a relative term...let's compare with linux"
Comparing OS that lets people run thousands of professional software application with half-finished OS which at most can offer bunch of perpetual-beta apps with no support is NOT fair.
William H. Gates, the company's chairman and co-founder, hailed the new program as "the best operating system Microsoft has ever built."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Look, the entire computing experience being controlled by a single company DOES have advantages - uniformity and ease of support. Of course, having competition is good, but it didn't happen only because competition couldn't make a viable alternative to Windows. OS/2 was near that, but its near perfect compatibility with Windows killed itself. IBM had enough money to push OS/2 to OEMs, but it didn't.
BTW, bundling a browser is GOOD for average Joe users, and as you have stated earlier, most of them cannot do that by themselves and having one bundled by default is something OEM should have done anyway. IE 4 was superior to Netscape (in speed and HTML compatibility) and it was perfectly natural for OEMs to choose this browser. The major mischief of MS, IMHO, is that they didn't allow OEMs to change the desktop, but this alone doesn't warrant a heavy remedy like breakup.
¦ ©® ±
in the words or nelson
HAHA
Please don't mistake a legal system for justice. :-)
But seriously... I don't understand how these cases can possibly run for so long, if the goal is "justice" rather than "paying the lawyers". The UK legal system largely works on the principles of "innocent until proven guilty" and the need to prove something "beyond reasonable doubt". I assume the US system claims to work on similar principles. So...
Why not give both sides a maximum of, say, one month, to present their arguments in a major case like this? If the prosecution cannot make a compelling case in that time frame, then I would argue that clearly there is reasonable doubt, and hence a not guilty verdict should be returned. OTOH, if the defence cannot refute facts demonstrated by the prosecution in that time, this would take away their chance to string the proceedings out interminably through a long trial and appeals process -- which could and should be drastically simplified, by the same argument.
Restricting the time allowed in court would immediately fix absurdities like the MS case, and I would argue that it's no less likely to produce the correct result than the status quo. Of course, to make a change so fundamental, you'd have to convince the lawyers, and they have something of a vested interested in keeping the status quo, because it pays better. :-(
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Slight offtopic, but wasting a weekend to install linux with the latest apps might cost a business more than that $199 to buy an XP license.
Assuming the cost of installing XP is $0..
But all that work to set up linux only needs to be done once, then you can replicate that work with minimal time per unit across 10 or 1000 or 10000 pc with no additional cost.
Also you don't need special third party tools to do this.
This is not the case XP.
How much Windows software (including for XP) even has the option to install once, run evrywhere...
The "replication" idea assumes that everything needs to be installed on every machine, which simply isn't the case with unix type systems. Indeed use LTSP and nothing needs to be installed on user facing machines.
Well, to be completely honest a lot of businesses will do the same thing with Windows installs via ghost or some other drive imaging program.
You only need to use drive imaging with Windows because if you try and simply copy the files it messes up (except if you use Linux to do it...)
Also consider that XP supposely defeats using drive imaging, so could automatically be more expensive to install.
Its not really a problem if they have M$ in thier back pocket. Hey a monopoly thats cooperative with the government is just an extention of the government. However it becomes a problem when the company decides it longer wants to be a puppet.
"Her reputation is excellent," said Plato Cacheris, a prominent Washington lawyer whose clients have included Monica Lewinsky and two Russian spies, Robert P. Hanssen and Aldrich H. Ames. "She's intelligent and fair."
Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer who has appeared before the judge, described Judge Kollar-Kotelly as "practical and experienced."
"She's not pro-government or pro- anything," he said.
E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., another lawyer who has appeared before her, said she "brings a tremendous amount of trial experience" to the Microsoft case.
"She has absolute control of her courtroom," Mr. Barcella said. "She's very pleasant about it and very bright."
A 1996 article in The Washingtonian magazine rating local judges offered similar praise.
"Her expertise in mental health issues might have put her on the map, but Kollar-Kotelly excels in virtually every type of case," the article said. "On the bench she is all business, extremely organized and efficient."
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Your business has performed an illegal operation and will be shutdown.
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
"They consume few manufactured goods, thus very few suppliers are wholly dependant on Microsoft as a customer for their survival. "
Are you nuts ?
There is a HUGE industry build around MS software ( Office, VB, MSCE)
You missed the point.
The author was saying that there is very little money that goes from MS to other companies in the economy.
However, as you were saying, there is a great deal of money going from other companies to MS.
.... the majority of the people out there are lazy apathetic people who are thinking "Well, it's fre, and it's already installed, and even if I install something else, it'll still be taking up space, so I'll just use this [browser|encoder|player|...]".
So let me get this straight you want microsoft to make their software as devoid of any usefulness as say linux or freebsd ?
You linux people are starting to lose it... your minds that is... the OS War was won 10 years ago.
I do not feel cheated by MS, why do you insist on claiming that it hurts me?
I claim that by abusing monopoly power and forcing out of business competitors in program area X, Microsoft brings about a situation when you have only one realistic option in area X. Without competition, there is no reason to continue to improve (or innovate), and there is no incentive not to price gouge. I claim both of these outcomes are hurtful.
Comparing OS that lets people run thousands of professional software application with half-finished OS which at most can offer bunch of perpetual-beta apps with no support is NOT fair.
I assume you are referring to Win in the former part of your statement, and Linux in the latter; however I would suggest the reverse would work as well. Claiming Win is more mature the Linux is a very slippery argument that i doubt we will resolve here. [Though i will mention my linux box has been up 110 days now while my win box makes it a few days if im lucky.] In terms of quality of apps for each, I think you will find a full range of solid, useful, professional to pre-nearly-almost-alpha on both platforms. As for support, again the range is nearly endless on both. I respect your preference for win, but I think you arguments for knocking linux are at a minimum misguided.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Bottom line.
I do enjoy using Linux for development which I do 90% of using that platform but for casual stuff like browsing, games and just about anything other than programming I do prefer Windows.