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.
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? )
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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/
Sure. By the same logic, we shouldn't punish thieves. We should just let society get so tired of the thieves stealing that some enterprising person goes and steals a bunch of stuff from the thief.
The rule of law (should) exist in this country to prevent this sort of thing. Microsoft broke the law, and they should therefore be punished. The fact that I'm being almost criminally optimistic is beyond the scope of my point. : )
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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
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
As far as I see it, when S3 got the rights for future Intel patents for 10 years a few years ago, it was part of a cross-licensing deal with Intel where Intel got some or all of the rights to use Exponential patents in their own products.
Now Intel is saying that one way of the deal is duff now that S3 belongs to VIA. So VIA are now saying that the other way in the deal is duff. I.e., Intel now do not have the rights to use the old Exponential patents.
IF those patents are used in the P4/i845/P4 FSB in any way (as they might be, Exponential as about extremely fast, but low IPC (PowerPC) processors in their time, reminds me of a certain P4 processor!) then VIA can basically grip Intel's balls.
To futher evidence this, it would take Intel a couple of years to incorporate Exponential technology in a processor. The P4 is the obvious choice for the first Intel CPU to have Exponential patents in it.
Exponential had high clocks PowerPCs (533MHz when Pentiums were at 200MHz and PowerPCs at 250MHz). However the 533MHz Exponential PPC barely outperformed the 250MHz PPC, and was a lot hotter to boot. Exponential never got their act together though, so products were never released.
S3 bought Exponential's IP after they went to the great chip-maker in the sky. S3 did a cross-licensing deal with Intel. S3 were subsumed by VIA. Intel say the licences they gave away in the deal are now void. Logically, the licences they gained are now void as well (barring strange/one-way licensing terms, Intel are so much bigger than S3)!
If Intel is going to punch below the belt, then VIA might as well too.
Intel will not want a court to uphold VIA's claims. That could mean VIA licensing this technology back to Intel for an awful lot of money. Like $50 a processor and chipset if they wanted. Intel would have to pay up, or scrap the P4, i845, i850 and any other P4 chipsets or variants. Possibly even a product recall if VIA got really nasty. Of course, Intel would refuse to ever license anything to VIA ever again, but would VIA care if they were getting $50 a CPU from Intel, and the market swung towards non-patent encumbered technology such as AMD and VIA processors whilst Intel frantically took 1 year to redesign the P4 without the infringing technology?
The above paragraph's occurences will not happen of course. Intel and VIA will re-crosslicense the technologies, say sorry to each other, and Intel can then tell its other licensees that it tried its best, but VIA have a valid license.
They will still hate each other though. and none of the above is guaranteed to be correct. speculation, okay?
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?
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.
Already happening -- Department of Defense announced 25,000 seats were being moved off Microsoft products. Ford Europe announced 23,000 seats. those are just two of the largest microsoft accounts that have announced they're evaluating alternatives (most likely, Linux/Staroffice).
And it's happening elsewhere, in smaller chunks, but it's happening.
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome = When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
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"
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!
THe vast majority of Americans, %70 according to cnn favor microsoft in the doj vs MS case. Of active internet users the number approaches %80. Computer users get attached to their platforms and do not want to change.
Lets look at through there eyes.
Joe-six pack does not know what an operating system is or even cares. He buys a computer to do email,word processing, and spreadsheets. He uses what comes with his computers because it does what he needs. If his pc crashes, then its the computer's or the applications fault not Windows. Windows is just a great interface from a great and innovative company that invented personal computing. MS office is needed and required to type a letter and outlook is required to send email as well. Without these innovative MS apps, his computer is a paperwieght. In his eyes computers are suppose to crash. His NT servers crash at work, every computer he ever used crashes. Macs also crash. Win3.1 was bad but windows95 was better and now his XP installation is practically rock solid and each new OS release is better and better.
With all these preconsumptions in their minds, do you think he or she would want to give this all up and trash Windows and Office? I didn't think so. THey believe Microsoft is the good guy trying to fix instability problems and the doj is the bad one who will change all this and bring down their level of security and all they ever know. People are very sensitive to their platforms and paid alot of money for them. Just look at the OS flame wars. Mac vs Windows, Solaris vs Linux, etc. The issues are the same. They have invested alot in windows and new and different things changes their level of security and their investment.
They will become more support of Microsoft over time. Chairman MAO is still highly regarded in China and his support is actually growing. They only know what is taught to them and will ignore some of the issues of his leadership. This includes murder and abuse of power because they have invested so much into their beleives that they will not change.
http://saveie6.com/
Wow, you are so right! I always knew it wasn't because of tens of millions of dollars a month burn rates, business plans seemingly written by optimistic monkies (and not the bright ones), IPOs lauched literally months after the initital funding rounds, with profitability not projected for a decade... No, I'm sure you are absolutly correct about it being the DoJ's fault...
:)
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
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?
If you read Slashdot, you are probably in the enviable position of being "in the know" about technology, but we are but a small percent of the people who represent Microsoft's user base. Let's take a look at two groups of them shall we:
1) People like my mom. She's till using a Pentium 100 with 32 MBs of RAM and a 33.6K modem. All she cares about is that she can read her email and "why does it say there is no dialtone when there clearly is one?" She doesn't care about Microsoft's computer practices. All she wants to be able to do is use her computer.
2) Sure there are IT specialists who are in the know about alternative operating systems, but do they represent the people they support? What about the secretaries who use the computer with Windows telephony products? How about the Graphic designer who is fluent in Page Maker and Photoshop? Are they going to want to take time out of their day to learn an OS? I worked for a networking company, and I remember how much of a hassle it was to migrate from GroupWise to Outlook, or even Windows 98 to Windows 2000. We did a multimillion dollar install at a church once with full remote administration capability, and the most amount of time we spent on support was from frustrated users who couldn't use their old screensavers anymore.
Folks, these people don't care about MS, they don't care that they are a monolopy. Furthermore, most of these people can't separate the concept of the operating system from the computer. The idea of a PC without Windows is unnatural to them. And these are the people to whom microsoft sells all those client licenses and home licenses. It doesn't matter how bad Microsoft gets, as long as they provide the user with a familiar and comfortable computing experience, they will probably always be on top. It would take a MASSIVE PR campaign to convince people otherwise, but it still probably wouldn't work even if you're pushing a superior product or philosophy.
Remember the OS/2 Warp campaign?
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: "And why are you putting this on your company PC? Do you have root access for this machine? That's like Administrator access, in case you weren't sure."
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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!
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))"
Why was the dot-com crash such a bad thing? It, as you mentioned in the beginnning of your post (and pretty much ignored later in favor of throwing out borg and interest rate references) most of the dot-com companies were built on a bubble of a bad idea. Some were bought out and most floundered.
But did they deserve to be in business if they couldn't make a profit? My answer is no.
You can blame it all you want on the DOJ trial and interest rates, but when your entire business plan rests on being profitable enough to survive until one company buys you out, then you've got some bigger issues there.
The Valley is considered America's number one profit center and economy driver, and when nearly all of said area is beholden to a single company from afar, you have to question whether or not this is a good thing. Obviously, many people think not. Netscape/Sun/Other Java people were trying to change that.
Java was not going to be a replacement for MS-DOS or whatever else. JavaOS, while much hyped back in the day, turned out to be shit, and most anyone could have guessed it. Java needs an OS under it, the difference is that the OS doesn't have to be Windows any more. While this was aimed straight at Windows' heart, Microsoft was able to leverage their power unfairly in ways that Netscape was totally incapable of doing. This is why they were found guilty in the trial. I don't disagree that they should have provided a free competing product to deal with the threat. I do also acknowledge that they used their near infinite power over the desktop computing landscape, in everything from licenses to integration to proprietary extensions, to compete unfairly with Netscape and Java.
When a company has this much power, and can stamp out anyone who poses a threat this easily, it is time for it to be dealt with. The brightest, biggest, and best companies in computing, all unified behind java, couldn't beat Microsoft. And you want to tell me this is a "bogus issue"?
No company should hold this much power. No company should ever think "What is good for us is good for America," which is exactly what Microsoft has gotten to thinking. No country should hold them most important and vibrant sector of America's economy entirely within its thrall.
You want to blame the DOJ trial for the dot-com crash which was bound to happen anyway. I say the DOJ trial put things in perspective. The whole thing really started when Netscape itself was the darling of the stock market, and then everything internet would be huge, riding on Netscape's coattails. Microsoft killed this vision with Netscape, putting a cold, hard dose of reality in those VC's eyes. The dot-com bubble needed to burst, and Microsoft needs to be regulated.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"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"
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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That sounds like a network administrators wet dream! That and the fact that I could administer the workstations remotely via telnet.
Ahhh... no more users installing stupid screensavers that crash their PC...
Eventually I think they'd give up and stop trying to download and install things.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Is it just my imagination, or are the Taiwanese motherboard/chipset makers getting really damn powerful? Can anyone name any non-Taiwanese motherboard maker still in business? The only domestic brand used to be Intel, but I don't see many products from them lately. So if I imagine that the Taiwanese businesses (including VIA) are on the same team when it comes to this issue, doesn't that give them the upper hand?
AMD chips are a completely viable alternative to Intel chips, so couldn't a bunch of pissed-off Taiwanese manufacturers get together and "punish" Intel by perhaps being a bit slow to market with whatever Intel's next socket design is, effectively giving the processor market to AMD?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In both cases, the companies were required to publish specifications. They did, and whole industries developed around them.
The combined market cap of all the bably bells ended up being much higher then what AT&T could have achieved. This is because each had a mini monopoly. Breaking up MS would have had the same result. Each baby bill would have a monopoly which it would use to squash innovation. Each baby bill would then grow unfettered into a bigger company. Of course I am presuming that each baby bill would be run by the same immoral and unethical people but that seems like a likely scenario.
War is necrophilia.
This is a great Idea.
War is necrophilia.
Does this line scare anyone else? This is exactly the kind of doom we were scared of hearing. Saying Microsoft invented personal computing goes hand in hand with "Five years from now people will be saying Microsoft invented the web browser." Of course, this line could just mark this post as a blatant troll, but the fact that it's there at all really scares me.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
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?
When that happens, the least risk taking segment of the investors pull out of the stock market and put their money in bonds and as deposits instead.
Which means that liquidity in the stock market is reduced. Which means some medium risk investors will pull out of VC funds, and find safer investments, such as heavy established stocks or (if they're spooked enough) bank deposits and bonds.
So while I do agree with you that hysteria (for good reasons) was the major factor, interest rate hikes certainly do affect the investment climate too.
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
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.
That sounds a little short-sighted. Competition is very good for a free market. If innovation (in the dictionary sense) was actually allowed in consumer operating systems and office-productivity tools, more companies with new and better products would come along, with more cash circulating to more people.
Proprietary software rules. People still need to buy software, so new companies pop up to fill the need. $270B is simply redistributed. Since most of the market cap ends up in Baby Bills anyway, current stockholders aren't really affected that much.
A breakup would also free the baby Bills to pursue opportunities that they were disallowed from pursuing before because it might upset a monopoly position of another division.
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!!
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.
Why not get together and put your money, talents and intellects where your collective mouths are?
I know a couple of people that are doing so, it's some weird OS product involving penguins...
Build a company that will kick Microsoft's ass in the marketplace. If each of you were to throw in say $1k and perhaps build on some existing projects, I'm sure you could come up with products that would be superior to the stuff MS puts out (not much of a challenge). Then all you need to do is to be really good at selling it (if you don't want to make a profit that is up to you but you need to make the masses want and need it). I'm absolutely serious here and don't intend to sound sarcastic.
The problem is the term "superior" and getting good at selling it.
There is technically superior and there is superior relative to the market. There are many products that are technically superior to Windows in many ways, though inferior in others. No product is superior in the market to Windows. By definition, if it was, it would have more market share.
As far as getting good at selling it, se have gotten beyond the point where marketing and selling will be enough to gain market share relative to Microsoft. With rare exceptions (possibly Palm), if you come up with the greatest thing since sliced bread, people figure that MS will either buy it or sabotage it. That's the chilling effect that Microsoft has on the marketplace. It creates a market singularity where the normal laws of economics no longer apply.
Now I know someone will say "M$ 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.
I'll be the one to say it. It's hard to be better at the game when your opponent pays the referees and has the money to buy the game board. Because that's what Microsoft does.
The software biz is all about intellectual property, which means that it lives and dies in court. Microsoft has a huge lobby in DC, and their sheer size all but guarantees that Washington state senators (and certain of their congresspeople) push the Microsoft agenda. The latest MS push to tell people how OSS is so un-American is a direct attempt to get the US government to stop funding OSS software and start funding MS software. It's amazing what you can do with the Law on your side, whether or not it's legal.
Then there's money. Microsoft can directly buy threats to its position (as it did with WebTV, and one other I will mention later), and can buy support to crush its competition (as it did with Netscape). Its position also allows it to force its customer base to crush the competiton for them (again, Netscape).
The only reason that Linux is surviving Microsoft's assaults is that it isn't a company. Linux survives because it is a brand new way of organizing people, and it transcends business.
Logic and history suggest that no entity, regardless of power or abuse there of, is unstoppable.
Somebody had better tell Christ, Muhammed, the Buddha...
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.
Ah, yes. Windows for Mac. You know why MS bought so much Apple stock, oui non? It was to show that they had competition. It was also to shut up a new round of patent lawsuits from Apple. As I propmised above, another example of Microsoft buying off a threat to its position.
--The basis of all love is respect
How much money did Microsoft steal in illegal business dealings?
30% of this market, 50% of that one, etc.
Add up the billions and send them a bill.
Problem is that it's very difficult to tell what the damages might be. Since they have been let loose for so long. Remember that the current trial resulted from their circumventing a previous judicial ruling.
The basic problem here is that something which started life as a legitimate company is handled with "kid gloves". An individual would have long ago been tossed in jail, a company set up by gangsters would have been long ago broken up (regardless of how many innocent customers they might have had).
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
F'rinstance, destroy what $270b in wealth? Until one cashes out, it isn't wealth: it's hypothesis.
In practice it's probably impossible to "cash" it out anyway. Since as soon as you attempt to sell any sizable amount of the stock it's value drops through the floor.
And I'd like to hear you expound on how MS has paid employees with stock. They've been diluting their own stock, to a ridiculous extent. That scam has worked really well, as long as everyone was duped into driving the price up, and no one cashed out bigtime.
But how long can this kind of creative accounting continue?
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!!
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
Actually they'll probably go down very easily if the right methods are used. The right methods are to actually treat Microsoft as a criminal organisation.
Full story:
Microsoft: No One's Gonna Break Us Up - NO ONE!