Slashdot Mirror
Continuing Twists In Microsoft, Intel Cases
An Anonymous Coward writes: "New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer have threatened to pursue their own sanctions against Microsoft if they conclude that the Justice department isn't being tough enough. Amongst other things, they demand that Windows XP "receive close scrutiny in arriving at a judicially ordered remedy. Go NY!"" NaughtyusMaximus points us to this message at Anandtech about Via reacting to Intel's patent-infringement suit by turning around and suing Intel -- for patent infringement -- in Taiwan and the U.S.. Via is also countersuing Intel in England.
A big corporation to go down easily. They have lots of money to fight, even if it is obvious that they are the ones who are wrong and are going to loose someday. I am pointing at you Microsoft.
:)
I see I am a little too late for FP tonight.
WHy doesnt the government just stick with their original ideas and go with the original punishment instead of having to brainstorm new ones that are just plain too cheap.. their new ideas for punishment seems like a slap on the wrist compared to what the original idea would have cost microsoft.. SUre they would have lost money but at least there'd be more of a basis of competition after the conclusion of a splitup..
Now seems to me that the government is getting its foot in the mouth because they're trying to impose more stupid laws, DCMA isnt doing much, MPAA is being a lecherous bulldog, and now they're trying to figure out how to make a law thats fair? shouldnt they just work on repealing their laws that arent working.. they should have enough experience in repealing their dumb laws like Prohibition back in the 40's.. ( it was the 40's right? )
these attorneys general are on a political jag, folks. they all use windows in their offices and they don't care really, personally or legally, what happens.
if they did they would break with the ashcroft office and call for a split of microsoft.
the bottom line: microsoft will not obey any conduct remedy. to do so they would have to open source code (to verify functionality of windows without IE bundling) and operation practices to outside observers.
they won't.
you think they will? i want some of your crack.
they will do anything and everything to keep this monopoly going, because the economy is crashing and linux/bsd IS gaining on them where it matters, in enterprise applications.
the attorneys general of the states are calling for a strong conduct remedy; this reminds me of someone saying, "OH, you slap that man on the wrist HARD, you hear?"
This makes me sick.
This calls for direct action.
Don't use windows, and coordinate with your friends in other technology companies to make things hard for people who do.
this also involves seriously making Linux usable so there is a clear alternative for the mass of sheep^H^H^Hconsumers when they get too frustrated and jump ship.
Goat sex free since 2001
I am always amazed that people would cheer the government into stopping the release of ANY code, especially something as MUNDANE as an operating system? Can you imagine them forcing Linux from shipping, this place would be in an uproar over how oppressive it is. Just seems ridiculous that you'd support this, no matter how "evil" MS is.
When are attorney generals going to start going after the Baby Bells (Verizon, SBC - I guess any day now all the Bell companies will recombine again) who have been preventing DSL companies from their legal access to central offices? There is a glut of backbone bandwidth out there, high demand for high-speed home access for it, yet the Bells spend more time trying to drive Covad out of business than providing service to their customer's.
If this was a free market, that would be one thing - but the government grants a monopoly to the Bell companies. That's the real problem.
30's I belive. And it was a PITA doing it too. Imagine how much work it is to amend the constitution, and then make another amendment reversing the previous amendment, back in the 1930's. Now imagine how much harder it would be to do anything like that today.
Prohibition was the 20s.
Anybody ever stop to think that maybe if MS is allowed to continue their usual behavior without punishment, that it won't be long until the rest of the market (the joe sixpacks who don't read /.) eventually get tired enough of them that a real demand for alternatives will begin grow and help fuel a rebound in the econmomy for software development?
By which I mean the federalism issues raised on all sides. The current administration supposedly believes very strongly in principles of federalism. The current supreme court has come down recently in favor of federalism. So the Federal government will just do its thing and let the states go ahead and do their thing, right?
Unfortunately, no. If there's one thing the current administration believes even more strongly in than federalism is political power to override such matters of principle when a pet interest is implicated. If the feds aren't going to break Microsoft up, you can bet they're going to do everything in their power to make sure that their will isn't obviated by some ragtag liberal states like New York or California (both of which voted for Gore).
It's going to be one hell of a political grudge match ahead. The trenches have already been dug; we'll have to see who's the first to start lobbing chlorine gas.
Is this gun pointing at Microsoft? Is this kind of punishment DOJ is pursuing? What is the amount of sperm necessary to flood Redmond headquarter?
I wonder... if the government decides not to punish MS in some way, if other companies will continue to push the issue. I think that perhaps Microsoft is going to start seeing the repercussions for relentlessly stomping out various companies, and pissing off the ones that managed to stay in business (thus far). I don't think I can think of any other business that has accumulated so many enemies. Making money is one thing, but when you set yourself up on a pedestal with no one supporting you, you can fall down pretty hard. I think IBM found that out.
Enforced openness. Require MS to publish details of all windows APIs, network protocols, and file formats. Have strict limits placed on replacing, or breaking compatibility with, any existing instance of the above categories.
Rejection of Windows XP by IT departments and consumers worldwide for its odious licensing, configuration tracking and content protection will be punishment enough!
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
Goatse.cx only appears robust because it is running Windows XP server edition on the latest Sun Microsystems hardware. If you run it on a shitty OS on shitty hardware, it would be as bad as Slashdot.
i've eaten a lot of pussy, and i'd have to say that nigger pussy tastes the best. now i know a lot of you here on the internet will disagree with me but hear me out on this one.
the absolute worst pussy i've ever eaten has to be the pussy of this one paki chick i fucked. man that shit was disgusting, you would think she never cleaned it at all. the smell was unbelivable, i only was going down for a couple minutes before i started to feel nauseous. it was awful... i got her back for her disgusting lack of hygenie by giving her a good punch to the jaw during the intercourse however, i swear the look on that raghead bitchs face when I popped her one was worth the nasty smell down there.
and white girls usually dont keep their pussy clean either. i've had some real hot women that have real messy pussy. it's a shocker to see a total bombshell that has some sort of nasty yeast infection when you finally get into her pants. i mean if you spend the time on the other stuff, dont forget your most important part too.
but black girls, i think there's something genetically that makes them smell and taste better. i've had some black girls that were pretty nasty looking but their pussy was just fine. and if you find a good looking jig that takes good care of herself, man that pussy is as sweet as butter. i could go down on a girl like that for hours. plus i think the texture of a niggers pussy is different. it's rougher and has a different grain then a white or paki pussy. i just like the whole package a lot better when its on a fine black girl.
right now im continuing my research by trying to get with this hot chink girl. when i finally get in her pants ill write back with a detailed report. i am most interested in finding out of chink pussy is slanted like their eyes. this is what i've heard but i plan to verify it myself.
GW in the white house and the economy going into the crapper. I think that they'll go easy on Microsoft in part hoping that their stock rebounding might revive Nasdaq.
just my 2c
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
Wow! Quote:
"Intel processors and the Intel Pentium 4 processor compatible 845 chipset infringe VIA's patents,"
Does anyone have any further information? Is this just another case of some company with a lot of very *broad* patents trying to milk them?!
I guess good for them using such (suspect) tactics to combat equally suspect tactics, you can certainly call them bold!
News.com said...
"Although many legal experts were not surprised to see the Bush administration relenting on a position strongly advocated by Clinton trustbusters, the apparent support of the state attorneys general for that move did catch them off guard. "
While popping over the pond to www.theregister.co.uk gives you a bit different view.
"Although the DoJ's statement last week was seen in some areas as the Bush administration letting Microsoft off, as yet there's no justification for such an intepretation. Unless the powers that be in the DoJ are lying (which is of course is possible), then they are simply trying to speed up the imposition of adequate and achievable remedies, while abandoning the tricky, dubious and legally lengthy ones. A Microsoft break-up always seemed a dubious and probably unworkable solution, and there was a fair bit of justification to Microsoft's claims that it would have destroyed the company. You and we might think that'd be richly deserved and a good thing for the industry anyway, but the US legal process is only supposed to be stopping Microsoft abusing its monopoly position."
While GWB may be an easy target these days, I'll take Wall Street's reaction to what the DoJ did as better insight - stock prices dropped rather than jumped when they said they were going to do some behavior modification rather than just break them into two baby bills. You really think the DoJ is going to call off the dogs and let them off easy? Buy stock. I for one think they are going to get it in the ass and am grateful to have jumped out when it hit the 70's....
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Apparently, it depends on who submits an article on whether or not it's posted...
The article at infoworld , I submitted.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
I've said all along that the only viable remedies here are behavioral, and they must include, at a minimum, forcing MS to use one pricing schedule for licensing products to any OEM, forcing them to open their API's, and forcing them to give up control over how OEM's can configure and set up Windows. Even that combination probably isn't enough, but it's the bare minimum that I would want to live with.
- Value. The number one reason to move to Windows 2000 Professional is the overall value it offers your business. As this list proves, Windows 2000 Professional can help you reduce costs through improved management and increase productivity through improved reliability and ease of use. For example, analysis conducted at Credit Suisse First Boston predicted that using Windows® 2000 Professional could reduce the firm's directly related IT costs by 15 percent, as well as improve employee productivity by cutting computer-related unproductive time by as much as 41 percent. For more about return on investment, see these reports from Giga Information Group, Inc. and Arthur Andersen.
- Reliability. An essential requirement for business users is a personal computer they can count on. That's why Windows 2000 Professional includes fundamental improvements--such as modifications to the operating system core to prevent crashes and the ability for the operating system to repair itself--that make it the most reliable desktop operating system Microsoft has ever produced. On comparative reliability tests conducted by ZD Labs, the average system uptime of Windows 2000 Professional was over 50 times that of Windows 98 and 17 times that of Windows NT Workstation 4.0.
- Mobility. Mobile computing is simpler and more efficient with Windows 2000 Professional. This means you can work anywhere, anytime while also saving time and increasing productivity. As described in these news articles, "Finally, a Notebook OS" and "Mobile Users In Love with Win2K", Windows 2000 Professional offers mobile users key productivity and time-saving features, including the ability to hibernate and restart the system without a reboot and the ability to easily take files and folders offline.
- Manageability. Windows 2000 Professional is easier to deploy, manage, and support. Centralized management utilities, troubleshooting tools, and support for self-healing applications all make it simpler for administrators and users to deploy and manage desktop and laptop computers. These improvements pay off in reduced costs, as illustrated by this Eastman Chemical total cost of ownership analysis.
- Performance. The advancements made throughout Windows 2000 Professional are accentuated by the operating system's speed. As shown in ZD Labs tests running the most popular business applications, with 64 MB of RAM, Windows 2000 was 32 percent faster than Windows 95 and 27 percent faster than Windows 98. It is also significantly faster than Windows NT 4.0 on configurations with 32 MB of RAM.
- Security. Windows 2000 Professional provides comprehensive security features to protect your sensitive business data, both locally on your desktop computer and as it is transmitted over your local area network, phone lines, or the Internet. With its support for Internet-standard security features such as IP Security, Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol, and Virtual Private Networking, Windows 2000 is so secure that banks, such as Credit Suisse First Boston, use it. For some organizations, such as the law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP, security is a key reason for moving to Windows 2000.
- Internet. The familiar user interface of Windows 98 combined with all the capabilities of Internet Explorer 5, makes using the Internet and your local desktop a unified user experience, as described by PC Magazine. This user interface, combined with integrated search capabilities, makes it easier to find and use information locally and on the Web.
- Usability. As described in this Windows 2000 Magazine review, Windows 2000 Professional combines the power and security of its predecessor, Windows NT Workstation, with the traditional ease of use of Windows 98. It also provides more wizards, a centralized location for common tasks, and menus that adapt to the way you work.
- Data Access. When you use Windows 2000 Professional in conjunction with Windows 2000 Server, you can take advantage of IntelliMirror technologies. By letting you store your important information and desktop settings on a central computer, IntelliMirror lets you work on any computer attached to your network as if you are at your own desk. The centralized management savings made possible by Windows 2000 IntelliMirror technologies are one of the reasons WFofR, Inc. is using Windows 2000 Professional.
- Hardware. Windows 2000 Professional lets you take advantage of new hardware devices, such as those with universal serial bus (USB) and IEEE 1394 (Firewire) connections. In addition, support for existing hardware makes Windows 2000 ideal for companies, such as Panasonic, that want to standardize on a single operating system across their organizations.
How To Get Windows 2000 Professional: Convinced? Choose from the following to move to Windows 2000 Professional today:Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment (passed in 1933)
*nt*
What are they going to do? Spank them?
Only the federal government has the power to enforce actions like breaking them up. NY state may slap a fine but ms does not have to pay it. The constitution clearly states that only the state of Washington, or the federal government can slap a fine on MS because state powers can only regulate their own states. It will be a cold day in hell before the state of Washington investigates them. The federal government is paid off by Microsoft so they can only slap them on the wrist if anything. In other words ms won. Only a true breakup will end their dominance. They have shown in the past to not follow or respect the law. Just look at the bundling case with Windows95. Basically the DOJ investigated Microsoft's pricing with various OEM's. Ms promised to clear the situation out. Instead Microsoft wrote a more repressive one and labeled it a "trade secret" to prevent the DOj from reading it. The new one is rumored to have a clause that states that if the DOJ requests information about Microsoft, and then they must contact Microsoft's headquarters. In other words Ms has a heads up from OEM's to destroy and obstruct justice so the doj wont find anything. Actions like these and the dragging on with the windows98/Ie case show that ms will never give in and only a breakup can free the industry.
In other words were fucked. Not meaning to be a pessimist here but the UE and the states are quite powerless. The only thing they can do is ban sales of ms products in their states or in Europe. They wont and can't do this. If businesses and individuals couldn't buy a computer at all (remember that windows is required), then they will be so much public outcry will reverse the case.
http://saveie6.com/
Interesting strategy Via's pursuing...
while I'm sure it will just end in Intel and Via
coming to a mutal licensing agreement, if it does
actually go to court(s), Via's pursuing it in
three separate avenues, and if they win in just
one of them, they've hurt intel severely.
I'm sure Intel is quite reliant on sales and
resources those three (US, England, Thailand).
On the other hand, if Intel wins, it's of relatively
less inconvience for VIA, they
just have to retool some things in their chipset
(where Intel's patents are laying claim),
but if Via wins in just one place, Intel
would have to retool the P4 itself, thanks
to the S3 patents. A much bigger job.
<begin semiunrelated rant>
Sigh. Why don't they just merge,
then get bought up by AOL/TW,
and then have complete vertical integration.
Next up: company script!
</the rant shall never end>
-Slackergod
Microsoft's vital contribution to the Silicon Valley business models, besides being the Evil Borg, was that the two main profit-realization methods for startups and their VCs are to either Go Public or Sell Out - and the big companies to sell out to were Cisco for hardware startups and Microsoft for software and services startups (e.g. Hotmail.) By threatening to rip Microsoft into little pieces and stomp on them and cutting its stock price in half, the anti-trust attack entirely destroyed MS's viability as somebody to sell your startup company to, which also means that VCs are less likely to give *you* funding because their only ways to make tons of money from your company are to Go Public in a now-shakier market or to Actually Make A Profit, which is a much slower and more speculative approach. But at the same time, the VCs' pool of money was drying up because the interest rates were getting jacked up and because the stock market was being hit hard by MS's nose-dive and by the simultaneous nose-dive of the money-intensive telecom sector, which had just acquired gigabucks of debt funding the fiber optic glut and was looking pretty shaky itself. And Actually Making A Profit was also becoming much harder, because the services startups and internet-doubling-every-15-minutes ISP expansions were Cisco's big revenue sources, so it's a vicious cycle spiraling downhill.
Microsoft's insistence on PC vendors' using their OS on everything may be overly greedy, but the Bundling Internet Explorer For Free issue that dominated the anti-trust hype is a bogus issue. First off all, it was largely PR and lobbying from Netscape, who had gained their market position by giving away their browser for free, so it's pretty hypocritical of them to complain that MS is doing the same. But beyond that, the Java/Netscape/Sun/Corel/Linux world was making it clear that once everybody had a Java-capable browser, the operating system underneath would be basically irrelevant, so you'd be able to replace the MS-DOS underneath with something Much, Much Better and still use the same applications you were comfortable with. I happen to think that's true, pretty much, and *I'd* like to jump in that direction at the office as well as on my home PC, but it is a machine gun pointed directly at Microsoft's heart, and they really had no choice but to derail it by trying to offer their own substitute for it. And having your competitors threaten to give away free software that makes your entire company obsolete and unnecessary would seem to be a reasonable justification for doing the same thing in response, and it's unfair of the AntiTrust thugs at DoJ to bust them for it, especially when it's that conspiracy of competitors that lobbying DoJ to do so. Even if they are the Borg.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
the MSFT case is not a big deal. whatever happens will happen. However, the Via/Intel case is a HUGE deal. If there is validity to Via's claims, Intel is in serious trouble. HardOCP
has a thread going down in their forums commenting on what the ramifications of this are. This could be huge-keep an eye on it. Via has the potential to really smack Intel where it will hurt the most-in the courts.
Let OEMs have the same rights of resale that consumers have. That is, let them modify Windows in any way they see fit, while at the same time forcing MS to license Windows at the same cost to all OEM's under the same license. Add to that, not allowing them to help supplement shelving and advertising or any other costs that OEM's occur if they stick to MS's version of Windows.
Then you will IMMEDIATELY see competition in the market as companies dump WMP for Real, Quicktime or home brewed solution.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Everyone is coming down on the feds for not pursuing a breakup. Why?
What possible good would it do anyone out there if Microsoft were broken up onto two Baby Bill's?
Do you really think MicrosoftOne will stop offering deals for exclusive contracts just because they can't through Office into the package?
Do you really think MicrosoftTwo will open up the Office File formats just because they don't work down the hall from the OS guys anymore?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
People have been using flawed operating systems too long. I think they see what they percieve as "the best" to being as close as you can get to perfect. They settle for flaws because "what else is there?" People may ask for more, but given the choice of "just dealing with it" and switching to other operating systems they perceive as inferior, I tend to think they will continue to deal with problems. After all, if they didn't think Windows was superior in some way, they probably wouldn't use it. Even if they are too novice to install Linux, they have another easy, plug and play solution - Macintosh. Because of this, I don't think people use Windows out of ignorance, but preference.
How do you change someone's preferences? Make your OS appeal to their needs (simplicity & compatibility) or do more promotion. Microsoft does a helluva lot of promotion. Who here doesn't think the average Windows user prefers simplicity over stability and security? At the Help Desk where I work, people complain regularly about how their computer locks up constantly, but they continue to use Windows 9x.
I tend to prefer Windows because of its efficient GUI and driver support (although not perfect by any means), I'm smart enough not to leave it wide open for hackers (as best as I can, anyway), and Windows 2000 has proven incredibly stable for me. I also enjoy my Linux machine for reasons Microsoft has yet to provide (IMO, Linux dominates in the web development arena).
There is no one-size-fits-all OS.
Yes yes, MS did dirty deeds and need to be punished, but why do new features (and I'm not talking about the driver blocking sort) get them in trouble? I mean, look at Mac OS X. It has so many features I'm almost ready to convert! Why do normal features even come up as an issue?
it's a perfectly valid and very insightful comment. I can only guess that a proud liberal took offense to "some ragtag liberal states" and did a knee-jerk mod down instead of understanding this in the context of which it was intended... that the Bush administration views New York and California as "some ragtag liberal states". as such, they will fight to preserve their anti-clinton, anti-liberal, pro-business agenda and fight like hell not to come out looking like morons for caving to MS dollars.
damn straight they will. and they're a bunch of asshole losers for doing it.
It will be a lot harder for Microsoft if lawsuits arise in several states. Rather than having to fight one legal battle (by bribing DoJ or White House officials), they'll have to instead bribe the attornies general of the several states.
No, I'm not being sarcastic.
Now, IANAL, but...
;-). But can you imagine the implications a separate vendor (like, say, Adobe) would have if they had to concern themselves with 30 or 50 different versions of their software based on the different "sanctions" adopted by each state?
I recall having seen a documentary (really, it was a documentary) on the evolution of the pornography business in the 70's and 80's. One of the laws that this documentary said saved the industry was the ruling that actors couldn't be tried in different states simultaneously for breaking decency laws. Essentially, the court ruled that doing so would make the ruling of the courts in the decency cases a moot point, since it would bankrupt the stars and studios being sued.
I wonder if this ruling would apply to to MS. Obviously, they'd have no problem defending themselves simultaneously in all 50 states, but I think it might set a dangerous precedent if every single state is allowed to impose different "sanctions" on a company.
Everyone knows about "California Emissions" vehicles, but can you imagine what would happen if every single state had a different emissions standard for vehicles sold in their state? Now picture that with a software vendor. MS can't bundle explorer in Texas, Michigan, New York, and Florida. They can't allow VB scripting by default in Wyoming, Delaware, or Oregon. Washington would, of course, make no sanctions
I'm certainly not saying that I condone MS' practice, or that the world is better off with their dominance. I just think that it opens the floodgates for problems when individual states can make different claims.
Hopefully the Europeans will have some sense and pull a GE/Honeywell on MS.
Pretty weak considering that you didn't even have to type an URL to get that.
Interesting that Microsoft has the grapes to link to The Register though.
What is the status of the European Union's inquiry into antitrust or other concerns regarding Microsoft and its products?
A ruling by the EU against Microsoft could be significant, and affect Microsoft's products within the US. For instance, while the US did not oppose the merger, the EU ruled against the merger between GE and Honeywell. And, as a result, GE and Honeywell did not merge.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
According to Bill Gates this is revolutionary OS. The best ever so far.
Thanks to him after finishing High School and getting my A+ I have job as a software installer for local community church. He also contributed 1200$ to our organization 3 years ago.
Only man with honor and big heart like him can rescue our economy. Let's leave him alone and pray.
The problem with this type of case is it opens too many doors if it's not successful. Not unlike the double jeopardy laws that we in the US enjoy, once a suit like this fails, there is VERY little chance of anybody ever bringing a successful suit of those grounds ever again. My thought is that they should wait and let a company with more experience go for it. My guess is that they are just trying to get paid.
I work at a Help Desk, and I would rather die than help the average user who cannot understand the difference between the right and left mouse button to use Linux on the desktop. Good God! I don't think you people realize just how little the average person knows about computers. This isn't a rip on them, per se, just pointing out the truth.
Man, I can see it now...
Support: "How can I help you?"
User: "Umm, yeah, I just downloaded this program, but I don't know what to do with it."
Support: "What format is it in? Is it a tar, gzip, or zip?"
User: "What?"
Support: "What does the file end with?"
User: ".tar.gz"
Support: "Oh, you'll need to extract it and then compile the source."
User: "How do I do that?"
...about an hour later, after attempting to help the user through various dependency problems, the user gives up and the tech support person is lying on the ground with a self-inflicted gun shot to the head.
What annoys me, and probably our friends in NY and CA, and is being heavily downplayed by the press, is that the DOJ is also dropping persuing the tying of IE into WinXX. IMO, this is the most important information here, and it drastically would affect XP as well given that an IM and media player is also built into the system. While I know the appeals court said that the case as given wasn't strong enough for this particular charge to carry through, it certainly didn't say that it wasn't false either. Fortunately, it looks like NY and CA see it this was as well, as well as the EU commission.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
California and New York appear to be responding to a surprising turnabout by the Justice Department, which last week said it would not seek a breakup of Microsoft or retry the claim that the software giant illegally tied together Internet Explorer and Windows 95 and 98...
In other news, federal and state prosecutors have decided to suepend antitrust proceedings against auto manufacturer Ford, Ford has been accused of violating antitrust laws by bundling engines, seats, and wheels with their automobiles. The DOJ originally sought to force the auto manufacturer to sell a stripped-down model minus these key items to allow competitors the opportunity to sell their products to Ford consumers...
You're using her as bait, Master!
Does it frighten anyone else that the government is getting it's hands into the workings of big business?
So some in our government think that they should decide what is and isn't included in the new release of this operating system. What next?
This is the time for Apple and Sun to strike back. Screw the DOJ case, they just caved in thanks to Bill's donations. We all knew that would happen, didn't we? What I mean is now that HP-Compaq owns like 70% of PC markets, it's time for Apple to make a deal. Port Mac OS X to Intel and give it away free for 5 years. It can be bundled with Star Office made totally, utterly compatible with OfficeXP. Since Microsoft is trying to take over the world with XP this is the right thing to do, anyway. HP-Compaq won't have to pay to ship their machines. So what if Microsoft stops porting Office to Mac OS X; people most likely will use what comes pre-installed, anyway. HP-Compaq can even ship Windows on CD, but only on CD so that they will not lose market share. Crush them when they are down! Just kick them in the nuts.
Intel going to countersue and continue the vicious cycle?
Pay royalties to spyglass for every single copy of windows 98 sold(and possibly 2000). There was one clear fact made by this whole damn trial: IE was essentially *part* of the O.S., which microsoft insisted. Now, the agreement between MS and Spyglass was that spyglass would get royalties for every copy of IE they sold, something that MS thought they would get away with if they went ahead and gave it away for free. Of course, since they have now insisted that IE is a *piece* of the Operating System, Spyglass *is* entitled to a *piece* of the earnings from Win98 as well. Of course, if spyglass is dead, this point is moot. Does anyone know how spyglass is doing?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
I would flame you really hard but you admitted that you are clueless so I'll restrain myself. First, the stock market is NOT a zero-sum game like you seem to imply. If VA Linux sold yesterday for $2 per share and today no one in the world wants to sell for $2 per share then the stock price will move up. No one has "lost" anything, except of course the short sellers and there are never enough short sellers to exceed the people actually long the stock because someone has to be long before you can sell. Options and futures are a whole different story, those ARE a zero sum game. Someone "won" a dollar for every dollar you "lost".
Also, breaking up Microsoft would destroy wealth, not create it. One obvious loss is that the three "baby Bills" would have to hire redundant workers. Microsoft had only one CFO but now they would have to have three. The end result is wasted money on wages with net increase in GNP, a loss for everyone.
And you seem to think that people can magically pull their money out of Microsoft. If a billion shares hit the sell at once think what would happen to the share price?? Also, Microsoft is only worth $308 billion BECAUSE it is a business. If you look at their SEC filings you'll see they only have about $30 billion in assets. The rest is mark up on future expected business. So destruction of the company would destroy $270 billion in wealth.
I could go on and on but I'm sure you have a better understanding now.
Ugh...That almost sapped me of the will to reply. I think it is time for bed kiddo. You are not in top form right now.
Does it frighten anyone else that the government is getting it's hands into the workings of big business?
You're suprised? That's precisely what "big government" does! Sticks it's hands into everything it can (and usually manages to screw everything up in the process)! After all, it also wants to get it's hands into your computer!
You're using her as bait, Master!
Comparing Bill Gates to an Ann Raynd character? At least Howard Roark didn't pretend to be something he wasn't; and at least HE laughed... :)
I'm all for letting the punishment fit the crime, but this is not the solution. That's reminiscent of the government telling us that all operating systems have to support digital copy protection mechanisms. I'm not thrilled by the microsoft's behavior, but I don't think it's logically consistent to have the government tell MS what to do with its API when it suits me and bitch about the very same thing when it doesn't...
Plus, do you really want the government handing down technology decisions like this? Just look at some of the other idiotic technology-related government mandates... DMCA, anybody? Awarding a patent for one-click shopping? etc etc....
Oh yeah, go donate to the EFF...
-sd
Microsoft has done an outstanding job of image projection. When "Joe Sixpack" thinks of, say, automobiles, he knows he has a choice: Honda, Chevrolet, Ford, Nissan, etc. When he thinks of computers, does he know anything except "Windows"? (Maybe "Apple", but that's all.)
Secondly, if there was only one car maker, people would, as you say, get tired of mediocrity and look for alternatives, because they'd have a definite gauge: the tires keep blowing out, the brakes always squeek, etc. But people don't have the same gauges with PC's. Locked up? I did something wrong. Too slow? Time to buy a new PC. I doubt anyone ever blames the OS at all (if they even know what an OS is.) No gauge=no demand for change. Scary...
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
The problem is that MS has been subject to sanctions before -- weak, ineffectual sanctions. I think the question is really given their past history are any sanctions an effective agent for change? Judge Jackson dealt with MS in prior cases, and he realized the answer to that question was NO! That is why he decided for a breakup. This is what is going to happen: (1) Sanctions imposed such as no MSN icon on the desktop. (2) MS changes the name of MSN or buys 90% of Earthlink and then puts a different icon on the desktop. (3) Two years from now MS is taken back to court for violating sanctions with their new icon, starting the whole vicious cycle over again. How is it even possible for sanctions to be effective? They absolutely did not work for Windows 95! The DOJ just totally caved.
The government should make M$ publish this information so that other vendors can write interoperable software that works with (and instead of) the Windows platform.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Lesson one: Stocks move on news.
Months ago when Bush was elected everyone(except you slashbots) knew that there was a very good chance that Microsoft wouldn't be broken up. So they bought shares with this in mind, hoping to flip their shares on the "news" for a big profit. Well the big day comes along and HURRAY, Microsoft will stay one. And some people bought early and Microsoft was trading up a couple bucks. Then all the early buyers mentioned above stepped in and dumped, erasing the gains. Microsoft DID move up on the "news", but the "news" happened months ago.
And if you really think that it was bad "news" that Microsoft won't be broken up then you are some kind of newb. If the supreme court had come out that day and said "Microsoft must DIE" then it would be trading down 30% in a second.
Please mod the parent down, he has no idea of market dynamics and he obviously has no experience in the real market where "sell the news" happenes everyday, even on good "news".
What are you still waiting for?
"Microsoft, before their anti-trust case, had almost no presence in Washington," Arizona Sen. John McCain told The Chronicle editorial board earlier this year. "Now, I almost don't know a lobbyist who's not on their payroll."
During the last election campaign, Microsoft employees gave more than $50, 000 to the Bush campaign, while the company and its workers gave $500,000 in unlimited, soft money donations to the Republican National Committee for use in Bush's battle against Democrat Al Gore. Gore did not receive any money from Microsoft, according to election commission records.
According to data supplied by the Center for Responsive Politics, Microsoft employees also donated $22,500 to Bush's recount effort, and a Microsoft executive gave $100,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inauguration Committee.
Quoted from the SF Chronicle
How would this be done?
First have all OS related software rollouts under the supervision and approval by a special committee of supervisors, at least three from named each suing state, and three from the federal government. A nice unwieldy body to slow things down.
Second, prohibit them from rolling out any new versions or revsions or updates to any OS or Platfrom for a significant period of time, proportional to, and at least as long as the length of time that they have had their illegal advantadge in the market. I recommend 8 years
Third, - All licensing for the operating systems shall be permanent licensing, no rental licenses of any sort allowed, ever.
If this screws up .NET, tough. Penalties are supposed to hurt. And they deserve enough pain to get their attention, and focus it on the idea that they messed up.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
1. Ford doesn't even have close to 90% marketshare
2. Ford isn't bundeling technology with their cars to drive out competition.
3. Taking out the engines, seats, and wheels of an Window would be like removing the kernel, the GUI, and all the dlls. No one is advocating that.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Those are the few that I can think of right off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others, but Office and Windows complement each other in such important ways... how many times do we hear about how the Linux Office suites aren't good enough, and if it weren't for Office people would move over? Well, because Office and Windows are pretty much bundled together, they represent a massive power block. Splitting the company would cleave this block in half.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
(Not quite 100% what I meant, but close enough)
cough cough
...or was it a Toyota? Went like a bat outta hell...
I beleive you problem, sir, is that your penis is missing. Try taking your head out of your ass. Then maybe you will find it.
cheers fuckface.
The best report I've seen is in the Taipei Times (which is also a GREAT IT news source):
y /0 000102424
http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2001/09/11/stor
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In newfoundland, Canada they had it a lot longer than anyone else I am aware of (since around 1900 i believe to close to 1930 or 40 something)
i want microsoft to be free to rip, er, i mean innovate sun microsystems a new one like they did netscape, ibm, apple, and all the other happy campers. its sorta fun hearing all of them bitching in court: 'waaaa waaaa we can't compete. big bad microsoft beat us up at the playground.' lol.
Microsoft has been around for quite a while, developing operating system after operating system, and now here they are, resident, in a majority of society's mind, as the only way to go. Of course, it hasn't always been in such a prestine position...
You see, it all started with Windows Version 1, just an attempt at an operating system for the newly spreading PC ideal, alas, Version 1 was far from a hit. Version 2 followed right in the footsteps of Version 1. Despite the initial failures, however, Version 3.0 was developed for another attempt to win the PC populus, which wasn't even much at the time, but its popularity was borderline. Then came Windows 3.1, which turned out to be a great deal more popular than its predecessors. Next, as an addition to Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11 was developed, a Windows environment for Work Groups! As soon as 3.11 was developed, it was not soon after that Windows 95 was in the making, and when 95 reared its head, the idea of such a simple-to-use GUI in a more flexible environment than what Macintosh offered had spread through the minds of the spreading PC user society. By the time Windows 95 emerged, Windows had pried the minds of hundreds of PC users, and from there, Windows became the only way to go for the average computer user. Its simple point and click environment offered such amazing flexibility to the user it was astounding, thus urging the development of Windows 98, the upgrade to 95, and 2000, the upgrade to Windows NT 4.0.
Windows had to work its way up just like anything else, but it was more successful because it offered a simple user-environment to the average user without that user having to learn a great deal about computers. Dah... move dah mouse, George... There wasn't a multitude of commands or macros one had to learn to get around the OS--I mean come on, the average user even has trouble locating files they just downloaded or installed. Microsoft's popularity is simple to see, and its degradation over time is actually expected: think about the first time you meet a beautiful girl or guy, what's on your mind? Giving it your all and attempting to be the dearest angel, just to make a good impression, right? Well, this lasts for about four weeks or so, the so-called Honeymoon phase, but after those first few weeks elapse, you start becoming more slack and comfortable, doing things you could never see yourself doing in the beginning. And when you move in together, oh! That's when shit really starts to fly! But this is beside the point. So, now here Microsoft is, owning 75% [just a guestimation] of the PC world, producing far-from-optimized code, and bundling neat, miscellaneous things into their distros for the users that made Microsoft so big to begin with! It was the average PC user who brought MS to such levels of grandeur, so why shouldn't MS bundle the programs it does? It's not just an operating system, it's a source of usability for millions of average PC users.
Don't get me wrong, I use as little MS products as I can [Litestep], but we have to keep in mind how MS got to where they are, and do what they do. Now, this is just my opinion, as far as it may be from accepted, but I'm just allowing for some passiveness in the case of Microsoft, even though I don't advocate it as being a great operating system.
nature is ancient, stop your rumbling, stop your rushing, and admire it once in a while
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When I see the way things are going I have to conclude that it is unlikely that MS will be punished in any way meaningful. They will probably get slapped with a fine or two that equal to the amount they spend on softdrinks in any given day, and will have a pile of restrictions on their business dealings set in place by the court - but its not going to change a damn thing. They will continue to bundle software free with their latest OS that is solely intended to put some perceived competitor out of business - even if the courts limit their freedom to "innovate" like this - and continue to expand into new markets and dominate them. Nothing the courts can do or say is going to have any effect worth mentioning. Its probably cheaper for them to pay lawyers to sit in court and fight any accusations that they have broken the law than it is for them to stop these practices.
Now that Bush has been placed in the Whitehouse by the Supreme Court, he is free to help his business friends who got him put there via their contributions. The change in the DOJ's approach to the MS case is obviously just a matter of Bush paying back his masters, in this case Microsoft.
I hope to hell I am wrong, but I don't think that the DOJ or the courts are going to have any noticeable effect on MS or its business practices.
OTOH, I think that its licensing scheme for XP is going to kill it dead in the water once IT departments get a chance to explain to management why its a bad idea to have your OS operate under a subscription system. I think MS has shot itself in both feet with this plan. </RANT>
Yes this probably is a troll, but I am just too frustrated to care about my karma...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
30% of this market, 50% of that one, etc.
Add up the billions and send them a bill.
Disburse the money to ripped-off end users, stockholders of ripped-off competitors, funds for all levels of computer education.
Oh yeah, some of the money can be used for prison cells to house the MS criminals who knew exactly what they were doing the whole time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So much ignorance, so few options to eliminate it.
At least consider that just because you are an expert in being a loser nerd, doesn't mean you are also an expert at legal issues, ethics, economics, or anything else.
In both cases, the companies were required to publish specifications. They did, and whole industries developed around them.
This is a great Idea.
War is necrophilia.
An interesting theory, the SSSCA is Microsoft's ticket to being a legal evil empire.
If so it makes the existing antitrust case pretty much irrelevant.
WHy doesnt the government just stick with their original ideas and go with the original punishment instead of having to brainstorm new ones that are just plain too cheap..
Well.. I believe they are attempting to ensure that due process of law is observed.
Seems like an okay reason to me, even if the Art of Software (as it were) is perhaps being held back a bit by the government's inaction..
Okay, you have a point if you can point to complete documentation (that allows competing implementations) of:
.doc format
1. Microsoft Word
2. Microsoft Kerberos PAC format.
at MSDN.
Well, I know who I am an am not going to vote for... I also suspect everyone else here will be voting with surprising consistency.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
RMS: That was my identical twin, Bill!
DOJ: But... I saw a monopoly!
RMS: Oh dear... Bad evil naughty naughty Bill!
DOJ: What?
RMS: He started a monopoly. And we all know there can be only ONE punishment for starting a monopoly! We must have... a SPANKING!
MS Engineers: A spanking! A spanking!
RMS: Yes! You must spank him well and good and after you are done... spank me!
MS Engineers: And us!
RMS: Yes! You must give us all a good spanking! And after the spanking, the oral sex!
DOJ: Well, I guess I could prosecute a BIT longer...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is only round three in a Heavyweight Fight. See my post Round two from last time. I predict that this will take so long that no one will remember what started this whole affair in the first place. The current business climate is much different from two or even three years ago. By the time this is over the curent version of windows will be as obsolete as "Windows for Workgroups".
-- Andy
That is fucking great.
Force Microsoft to give up their IP so its competitors can create products to replace Windows.
From your posting history, I see you not only astroturf for MSFT, but chirp Republican propaganda AND manage to find the time to apologize for Nazi Germany. Ever met a Holocaust you didn't like?
Build a company that will kick Microsoft's ass in the marketplace. If each of you were to throw in say $1k and perhaps build on some existing projects, I'm sure you could come up with products that would be superior to the stuff MS puts out (not much of a challenge). Then all you need to do is to be really good at selling it (if you don't want to make a profit that is up to you but you need to make the masses want and need it). I'm absolutely serious here and don't intend to sound sarcastic.
Now I know someone will say "M$ will destroy any company that tries to compete with them" but that doesn't fly, it's just an excuse, if your better at playing the game you win. Logic and history suggest that no entity, regardless of power or abuse there of, is unstoppable.
Any takers ?
For the record: I think that most MS products suck, bless there little hearts they just aren't very good at writing software, but they sure know how to sell the stuff. And I'm typing this from OS X.
There is a update on the CNET article, claiming that:
"Two states participating in the Microsoft antitrust case have a message for the Justice Department: If you go soft on the software giant, we're ready to push for stronger sanctions on our own." - CNET
Just tought you should note it.
In dream society, people could be given the ability to mod replies. In real life, it would be disaster.
Via's argument against Intel is based on a license agreement between Intel and S3 (which Via now owns) to cross-license certain technology.
Intel used certain S3 technology in the design of the P4 and chipsets (what I don't know), and in exchange, S3 got rights to make P4 chipsets.
Intel is trying to have it BOTH WAYS in claiming that Via, thru it's purchase of S3, does not have the right to make P4 chipsets, while still claiming to have a license for the S3 tech they are using.
I honestly don't see how that argument will fly, Intel clearly filed their lawsuit purely for harassment purposes, to harm Via's product release and name, and to delay it reaching the market (at a time Intel is apparently unprepared to release a DDR chipset of their own).
And the stupid thing is, having a DDR chipset for the P4 out now can only HELP Intel. Looks like the people who have been in charge over there in Santa Clara thru the Caminogate and RAMBUS fiasco are still in charge.
Intel's action can only help AMD further erode their marketshare.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Are the AJs of California and New York going to pursue their own course of action, or are they just making noise because they are pissed at DoJ backing down ?
Mostly what I've seen so far is a complete lack of any real understanding of the legal realities facing the DOJ at this time. Try reading the decisions of the courts and you will see that the DOJ's options are limited. Thus the state Attorney Generals agree with the DOJ approach (if not all the details).
First of all, someone needs to explain what breaking up Microsoft would accomplish. If the OS is isolated in a separate company I can't think of any of the current bad behavior of Microsoft that is restricted unless you also have conduct restrictions. Second and more important for the DOJ, the Appeals Court clearly signalled that a break-up is a punishment of last resort and would take a very high level of proof. In other words, a Microsoft break-up will take extensive court hears to pursue, will guarantee another tedious, time consuming appeal and the Appeals Court would be very likely to overturn the break-up order again.
As for bundling other products with the OS, the Appeals Court also clearly stated that this issue needs more proof before it could be allowed as a claim. The DOJ was looking at extensive hearings and a difficult issue to prove. (Anyone who is interested in actually knowing why, there are about 15 pages in the Appeals Court decision explaining the tying issue.) So again, the DOJ was looking at a great deal of time and money to try to prove something that would very likely not stand up on appeal since the Appeals Court has already indicated scepticism on this issue.
On the other hand, conduct restrictions are going to be relatively quick to formulate and get through court proceedings because there is very little additional to prove. Microsoft has already been proven to be a monopoly. And certain anti-competitive behavior has already been proven. The DOJ needs only to fashion conduct restrictions that fit the proven bad behavior. Since license issues were involved in the already proven illegal activity of Microsoft, the license would seem like the natural place to restrict Microsoft's behavior.
And the key to controlling Microsoft is to go after the license. The license is the tool that Microsoft uses to punish and reward the hardware companies. Consider fot instance that Jean-Louis Gassee said that one of the primary reasons for the failure of the BeOS (from a marketing point of view) was that he could not get OEM's to install it on new PC's even if he gave the OS to them at no cost. The only reason: Microsoft license restrictions. It is also worth noting that Steve Ballmer said that the temporary conduct restrictions in Judge Jacksons original order were, from Microsoft's point of view, almost as draconian as a break-up order. Quite a lot of these conduct restrictions involved the license.
An additional benefit to pursuing license restriction is this. Licenses are contracts. Contracts are something that courts understand quite well. Courts generally don't like most conduct restrictions because then they have to monitor them and it takes their time. But of all the conduct restrictions, license restrictions would be most appealing because its in writing and its something the court understands.
So, to summarize, here is the implied DOJ thinking based on the Appeals Court decision and the DOJ's written statement:
1. A break-up will require extensive proceedings, will be difficult to prove and will probably not be approved by the court or would be reversed on appeal.
2. This may not be the best case in which to prove product bundling that is detrimental to the consumer and the Appeals court has indicated scepticism on this issue.
3. Since the appeals court has already reviewed and agreed that Microsoft is a monopoly and that certain licensing practices were anti-competitive, the DOJ can seek remedies on this subject with almost no additional evidentiary hearings. Licenses will be in writing and therefore, the most appealing to the courts that will have to administer the restrictions.
So what is it people would want really? A symbolic break-up of Microsoft that would take years to get done after all appeals, etc. and would probably accomplish nothing. Or a real solution that is a positive for all consumers and can be accomplished in a few months. Plus, nothing is really given up. Because of the obvious issues in XP, DOJ can pursue bundling and other issues any time they chose (that is, any time they don't like Microsoft's behavior!)
Consider this, if the original restrictions of Judge Jackson were imposed we could now be purchasing machines that have a desktop free of Microsoft software and links and whatever software the hardware vendor chooses. Oh yeah, you could probably buy a machine that dual boots Windows and Linux. Sound like a good plan to me!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sure you meant "tried" instead of "tired" in that title, and far be it from me to simply nitpick spelling.
But perhaps "tired" is more appropriate than "tried" for this case in this administration. I no longer anticipate any good out of the antitrust suit, no matter how much I would like to see file formats, protocols, and contracts opened, and compulsary license terms for patented "standards". That is, unless it drags on for 4 more years, and then we'll see what the next administration does with it.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
IMHO any remedy that does not include break-up with just be blue-smoke and mirrors. Break-up is the only way to enforce serperate accounting, preventint one product line from subsidiseing an other. It would make it easier to verify that OS programmers are not working on aps or trading insider knowledge of the API not available to other competitors. And a seperate OS company would not be force to impose resitrictions on which apps are displayed by default on the desktop or even what default security settings were allowing OEM venders to further differentiate their products. Of course IANAL and use Linux so what do I know
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Generally, I find that people who complain about a particular Microsoft abuse don't know all the facts. If they did know all the facts, they would realize that the situation is worse than it first appeared.
However, coverage of Microsoft is beginning to be more complete. See Brian Livingston's column, Microsoft Passport Cracked for a few of the shortcomings of Microsoft's Passport authentication scheme, which, surprise, benefits mostly Microsoft, and puts the user at very serious risk.
Knowledgeable people realize that Microsoft is abusive. But I don't think there is anyone who knows the full extent of the abuse. The first step in deciding judicial remedies should be to write down all the abuses in one place. The result would be a large book. Just the Court's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft anti-trust case lists 207 pages of descriptions of abuses. There are some intense abuses listed, but what surprised me was that they were not the abuses I knew.
In my opinion, one of the most important judicial remedies is that Microsoft should be required to publish FULL descriptions of its file formats. Then other office software would be able to compete, for example. A full description would include descriptions of all the ways Microsoft's software does not follow the intended design, that is, descriptions of the bugs.
Bush's education improvements were
Mostly what I've seen so far is a complete lack of any real understanding of the legal realities facing the DOJ at this time. Try reading the decisions of the courts and you will see that the DOJ's options are limited. Thus the state Attorney Generals agree with the DOJ approach (if not all the details).
c ourt=dc&navby=case&no=005212A). So again, the DOJ was looking at a great deal of time and money to try to prove something that would very likely not stand up on appeal since the Appeals Court has already indicated scepticism on this issue.
First of all, someone needs to explain what breaking up Microsoft would accomplish. If the OS is isolated in a separate company I can't think of any of the current bad behavior of Microsoft that is restricted unless you also have conduct restrictions. Second and more important for the DOJ, the Appeals Court clearly signalled that a break-up is a punishment of last resort and would take a very high level of proof. In other words, a Microsoft break-up will take extensive court hears to pursue, will guarantee another tedious, time consuming appeal and the Appeals Court would be very likely to overturn the break-up order again.
As for bundling other products with the OS, the Appeals Court also clearly stated that this issue needs more proof before it could be allowed as a claim. The DOJ was looking at extensive hearings and a difficult issue to prove. (Anyone who is interested in actually knowing why, there are about 18 pages in the Appeals Court decision explaining the tying issue http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
On the other hand, conduct restrictions are going to be relatively quick to formulate and get through court proceedings because there is very little additional to prove. Microsoft has already been proven to be a monopoly. And certain anti-competitive behavior has already been proven. The DOJ needs only to fashion conduct restrictions that fit the proven bad behavior. Since license issues were involved in the already proven illegal activity of Microsoft, the license would seem like the natural place to restrict Microsoft's behavior.
And the key to controlling Microsoft is to go after the license. The license is the tool that Microsoft uses to punish and reward the hardware companies. Consider fot instance that Jean-Louis Gassee said that one of the primary reasons for the failure of the BeOS (from a marketing point of view) was that he could not get OEM's to install it on new PC's even if he gave the OS to them at no cost. The only reason: Microsoft license restrictions. It is also worth noting that Steve Ballmer said that the temporary conduct restrictions in Judge Jacksons original order were, from Microsoft's point of view, almost as draconian as a break-up order. Quite a lot of these conduct restrictions involved the license.
An additional benefit to pursuing license restriction is this. Licenses are contracts. Contracts are something that courts understand quite well. Courts generally don't like most conduct restrictions because then they have to monitor them and it takes their time. But of all the conduct restrictions, license restrictions would be most appealing because its in writing and its something the court understands.
So, to summarize, here is the implied DOJ thinking based on the Appeals Court decision and the DOJ's written statement:
1. A break-up will require extensive proceedings, will be difficult to prove and will probably not be approved by the court or would be reversed on appeal.
2. This may not be the best case in which to prove product bundling that is detrimental to the consumer and the Appeals court has indicated scepticism on this issue.
3. Since the appeals court has already reviewed and agreed that Microsoft is a monopoly and that certain licensing practices were anti-competitive, the DOJ can seek remedies on this subject with almost no additional evidentiary hearings. Licenses will be in writing and therefore, the most appealing to the courts that will have to administer the restrictions.
So what is it people would want really? A symbolic break-up of Microsoft that would take years to get done after all appeals, etc. and would probably accomplish nothing. Or a real solution that is a positive for all consumers and can be accomplished in a few months. Plus, nothing is really given up. Because of the obvious issues in XP, DOJ can pursue bundling and other issues any time they chose (that is, any time they don't like Microsoft's behavior!)
Consider this, if the original restrictions of Judge Jackson were imposed we could now be purchasing machines that have a desktop free of Microsoft software and links and containing whatever software the hardware vendor chooses. Oh yeah, you could probably buy a machine that dual boots Windows and Linux. Sound like a good plan to me!!
Stake your claim in the gnu ?economy?, by acquiring this descriptive URL from us.
fud is dead. the fairytail "bull" "economy" is dead. welcome to the brave gnu world of open/honest communications/commerce (just kidding, fud IS NOT completely dead, yet).
('fraidmark) ScaredCity(?tm?)
Full story:
Microsoft: No One's Gonna Break Us Up - NO ONE!
I am not surprised that both NY and California are the two states that intend to pursue the Microsoft issue separately.
Given that these two states have Sun (CA) and IBM (NY) as major political contributors, its no wonder that they are continuing to litigate.
I live in NY, and its well known that Gov. Pataki is in IBM's hip pocket. There is no large (in excess of $10 million) DP project in NY that hasn't gone to IBM or an IBM partner in over 10 years.
Surely it's for the Judge to decide the best way to restore competition. The DOJ can suggest possible remedies but the Judge is the ultimate arbiter. Surely she must consider Judge Jackson's original verdict.
I get the feeling from reading the Register's coverage that at the end of things Judge Jackson was very frustrated with Microsoft's intransigence. He knew that Microsoft would appeal and that his remedies would be reviewed. But by choosing a breakup remedy, he has put it on the agenda for consideration. Rule 1 for defending a monopoly trial : try not to tick the judge off.
Having said that I favour the mandated openness remendy mentioned above. I would add that all documentation should be liberally licensed to allow it to be updated/distributed. Wouldn't want out of date/wrong/misleading documentation now would we.
Sig pending!
You know, we have a fine collection of very able programmers and the like here, how 'bout a little demonstration, aimed at any and all web sites promoting terrorism in all its forms?
Nothing organized, nothing planned, just give a little back to the society that has nurtured (most of) us.
Geeks of the Internet, Unite!
Since I consider implementation a part of development, I guess I was clasifying "development" and "serving" under the same category. I actually develop on a Windows computer and deploy them on a Linux box.
Tell you what, use whatever you like and I will too...
To the rest of you - sorry for the confusion.
You COMPLETELY missed the point of my argument. The original author I was replying to claimed people would get sick of using a "flawed operating system". I was merely restating his comment and suggesting why I disagree. Additionally, I never stated which operating system I think is flawed, but you assume I am referring to Windows?
The point of my statement was to say that even though our main audience might think Windows is flawed, Windows users think their OS is the least flawed (if at all).
As far as the promotion, where are "all this Linux promotion" you are referring to? Linux news sites? Slashdot? Do you think the average Windows user visits these sites? How about Windows? It's featured in all their favorite magazine and is constantly on television. I can't remember the last time I saw Linux on television. That's not to say it should be there per se, but you have to admit there is more MAIN STREAM advertising of Windows and Windows products than there is of Linux.
Exponential, was fast/hot because their processors were designed using BJT technology. The reason why they were 'slow' though was because the processors were based on older PPC cores. Its sort of like making a 3 ghz classic pentium. It would probably suck. As far as exponential tech, what i understand is that early Ppro's had BJT sections. I'm not aware of any such things in the P4.
If 1,000,000 grasshoppers fight the cat, eventually it will be annoyed enough and frightened by the shear numbers that it will run away and go in it's little door on the back of the house. I don't want to see M$ go away, they have some solid software that I use everyday quite extensively. And frankly, it would send businesses in a spiral as they search for people to teach the software to non techies.
It would be a good thing, however, if we were able to seperate the companies correctly or possibly force them to adhere to some Open Source standard so that others could help work on it. Noone truly wants to see Windows bite the dust, i think (correct me if i'm wrong), we just want the opportunity to try out our ideas, and if they work... all the better for the consumer. but, i'm not a programmer yet so when i say we, i mean that in the loosest sense of the word.