Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, DoJ Reach Tentative Settlement
JeffMagnus writes: "MSNBC is reporting that the tentative settlement between Microsoft and the DoJ calls for a five-year consent decree between the government and Microsoft governing the company's conduct. A three person panel of independent experts will be created to review the companys' future activity." The New York Times appears to be the original source for the settlement stories; there's also an AP article.
Notice that the agreement came just a little bit after XP's launch.
The attorneys generals from the states that sued Microsoft for antitrust violations were weighing whether to sign onto the deal
This is the critical point. The feds have backed off because they received instructions from the White House (read Bush) to do so. However, the states may decide to persue this on their own.
It's not over yet.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Do you think three people could really keep track of all of microsoft's activity for the next five years?
They better get some help. It's the little things people miss that gets me. Who's gonna help them?
I think it is the consumer's responsibility to take action--why else do you think it's taken so long to get this far? Because they're so big, and so few people are acting!
An industry trade group that has been critical of Microsoft's business practices accused the Bush administration of "selling out" by seeking weak penalties.
Americans let's remember this when it's time to vote again in a few years. Bush, more so than any administration I can remember, is for sale. He's too close to the business and too far from the people. Finally, he doesn't understand the issues.
This isn't meant to be flamebait. Heck, I voted for him (sorry about that). I'm just saying it would be foolish to fail to consider that he instructed to courts to back down when it's time to vote again.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
This is ridiculous. This is precisely the remedy formulated after the last DOJ action. Billmer and Co. are going to make a mockery of this in its implementation. You can be sure only ISVs already fully onboard the MS train will get a glimpse of the code, after signing bulletproof NDAs.
illegitimii non ingravare
My first reaction to the remedies in the story: The least that could have happened was some sort of prohibition against any future leveraging with Windows. Way too light. These remedies don't even qualify as a slap on the wrist.
Microsoft's comments that they "wouldn't accept any prohibitions against bundling new features into windows" seem to indicate that they will continue their predatory business practices in the future.
The feds are really bending over and mooing on this one, cash whores that they are. Look on the bright side, though: They could've offerred to pay MS' lawyers fees too.
Who did what now?
Huh? So let me get this straight: if Microsoft violates the terms of the agreement, the deal will be extended so that Microsoft can violate them for two more years. ??? Tough on crime we are today, ain't we?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're arguing aganst user friendlyness. Like my grandma should be able to open up a terminal and start making some bash scripts. There's a lot of people who have tons of problems with a GUI metahpor, let alone the scary commandline.
I think this is more Linux's problem than Apple's and Microsoft's (although Linus would probably argue that this isn't a problem at all, because, atleast this is what I've been hearing, he's not interested in taking down microsoft and colonizing home computers with linux for every day Joe's).
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Bill wiped his ass with the last one.
"Terms of the prospective settlement were closely guarded, and people close to the negotiations cautioned that precise language was still being worked out even between Microsoft and the Justice Department."
which means absolutely nothing has been worked out. We all knew a deal would eventually be worked out, but without specifics it's still quite up in the air.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surpised if the Justice Dept. found the recent "concessions" by Microsoft (allowing icons of Internet Explorer to be removed; allowing the user to easily change the default browser on the Start Menu) to be enough. This was the same Justice Department, after all, that "demonstrated" how it could remove Internet Explorer by deleting the icon from the desktop.
Watch for more tomfoolery...
I can't really tell if this will make it easier for people to get information about the S Office file formats.
In my mind, when the various open source office suites can read and write MS Office fluently, then there will be a real choice on the business desktop. Open Office can hold a conversation, but it isn't fluent.
It also doesn't say anything about Java. One of the specific findings was that MS was anticompetitive by deceiving developers with its embraced and extended Java. I think they should be forced to include a Java VM in their browser.
How telling is it that this happens on Halloween, under a full moon?
...all the "sign out" buttons on Hotmail have just transformed into XP-looking ".net sign out" buttons.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Don't forget that this is just a settlement with the federal government. About half the states have been very unhappy with how the US DoJ handled its case and have split with it and the other states in order to continue pushing forward. This isn't done yet, although unfortunately the chances are very slim of it going anywhere else with just the states involved.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The sound of the worm wriggling off the hook and into millions of Outlook clients.
As long as computer manufacturers can't ship a dual boot system with Windows on it (with no "price incentive" to ship single boot), the DOJ has failed.
"Microsoft officials also have warned they wouldn't accept any broad prohibitions against bundling new features into Windows."
Since when does the party found guilty in a criminal case get to set terms on the sentence? This is crap!
"Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing."
Again, this is crap! Like every other product on the planet, more features should cost more or the same and the only discounts should be based on quantity.
What Tentative Settlement, who is to be bribed and how big the bribe is will be.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
Didn't we have one of those already? And wasn't a huge part of the case that Microsoft blatantly disregarded any of the terms of that consent decree?
There's something rotten in Denmark.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Linus
RMS
Steve Jobs
We'll take care of this monopoly business in no time.
From the AP story (paraphrased):
-Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
A very reasonable restriction but is this a penalty? No.
-Banning restrictive contracts but allow financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
Gee, that's what I thought they were doing before the trial. Bill said "you can do it our way or you can't do it at all". Instead he'll say "you can do it our way or pay more". As if anybody hasn't noticed, given the choice between paying one price for something or paying more for the same thing, which is the typical consumer going to pick? PC vendors have a choice of doing it Microsoft way or coming up with a great song and dance routine to make the exact same box running the exact same software appear to be worth more money. Is this a penalty? Hell no!
-Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows source for its Internet browser, but not Windows.
Huh? Who the hell wants the source to IE? What good is it going to do since Microsoft already illegally monopolized the market? Is this a penalty?
Found guilty by the trial court with that verdict upheld by the appeals court I ask for the last time, where's the penalty?
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Get real folks, Microsoft is more powerful than ever. This only solidifies their empire. They are the world's most powerful corporation by a long shot, and they have almost a complete stranglehold over the consumer computing experience.
For consumers, its boiled down to two choices - AOL or Microsoft. Take your pick, everyone else is chump change at this point.
"Bush, more so than any administration I can remember, is for sale."
So you can't remeber all the way back to '96 and the Buddhist Monks? Or the White House coffees? Or renting out the Lincoln Bedroom? Or the donations from the Chinese military, Or the money from the Lippo group? Or the money from Loral Aerospace or the ....
"he instructed to courts to back down"
The president can't instruct the courts to do anything. You obviously han't mastered basic civics. Given that I'll take your up for sale comment as drivel.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The DOJ thing did a very important thing - it showed that Microsoft is fallable, and made IT people all over the globe question why they were using Microsoft's products, and what it really meant for their customers and businesses. Now they are demanding Microsoft actually adhere to industry standards, so they can choose something else if it's a better fit. That is what a Free Market should be.
It made companies brave enough to piss of Microsoft by trying out alternatives. The IT industry is once again interested in investigating other solutions, some of which Microsoft can't destroy or bury through anything else but providing value per $ spent on thier products.
I'm happy - I'm Microsoft's customer again, not thier biatch-yesman-mouthpeice to my companys upper management. I have a choice again - and more choices coming with each passing day, when new code gets posted on myriad CVS servers across the Internet. More choices coming with companies that were heartened enough by the DOJ case to actually develop new, great products that don't require Windows and in some cases directly compete with Windows.
Roll up your sleeves, people, and get back to work. We are the competition.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Elections can be fixed. Like the last one.
I thought the last election was broken, not fixed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the way the NYTimes article is worded, sounds like only major corporations will have access to the technical documentation. Independant projects like Samba wouldn't be included.
No deals with OEMs is great, but I'm SURE they'll still do it...all it takes is one guy with a suitcase full of $100s.
What a worthless trial that was. Thanks Bush. Fucking asshole. Oh well, maybe the terrorists will get him. Or Gates.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft should be punished for their misdeeds by being fined billions and billions of dollars. (I like to call it the Sagan treatment.) This will send a message to the shareholders to make sure that they don't break the law anymore and suffer further punishment, and have the delightful side effect of severely reducing Microsoft's ability to buy near-monopolys in related fields such as cable tv, etc., as well as putting a lot of money into the government coffers to allow the meeting of expenses such as part of the cost of fighting a war without having to increase taxes or federal debt quite as soon or as much.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Ask any one nerd (myself included) what transgressions Microsoft is guilty of and they could go on for hours. And that's just from surfing the web in their spare time.
If you have 3 full-time paid professionals reading articles, interviewing competitors and reviewing Microsoft's business plans, that's more than enough resources to keep track of them.
I think that might be the EXACT problem. BUSINESS. Not GOVERNMENT. The Nation is *NOT* a corporation, don't treat it like one!
- Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
I don't exactly call IBM and their $1 billion budget "a scattered group of people".
Remember also that the government uses Microsoft products. They have no interest in turning off what is eventually going to be their biggest IT supplier, if Microsoft is not already.
Its pure fantasy to believe that the government ever had any real notion of destroying this company...they know that Microsoft has wormed itself far too deep into American consumer life to be yanked out violently. We're just going to have to live with them until something better comes along that consumers actually spend money on.
Because, fool, legally, they do have a monopoly. The Findings of Fact were upheld.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Did you think they would rip all of this apart to save companies like VA Linux and Novell?
This has got to be the scariest story I've heard this Halloween.
Evidently Microsoft manage to "Trick" us all by providing "Treats" to the right politicians.
Never attribute to stupidity what can be construed as a monopoly preservation tactic.
First, read this.
Now, imagine if the hard drive maker, or the memory maker, or the video card maker (etc., you get the point) tried to do the same thing? Compaq would have dumped them in a second and gone to a competitor.
Now, listen carefully:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!! If they dumped Windows and went to Red Hat instead, they would GO OUT OF BUSINESS! And they know it all too well.
This is precisely what is a legal definition of a monopoly (as opposed to an absolute monopoly. Many people say Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can buy a copy of Red Hat and install it. These people are confusing a legally defined monopoly with an absolute monopoly like what AT&T had.)
It's technically legal for Microsoft to have this monopoly, but it's illegal to abuse it by forcing other products down computer manufacturers throats (First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.) or to tell them they can't sell computers with 2 operating systems or with no OS or any of the other dozens of things that Microsoft does that they couldn't do if there were any REAL competition in the desktop OS market.
Some folks say that Linux is now to Microsoft what AMD is to Intel. This is simply not accurate for one simple reason: AMD processors run ALL the same software that Intel processors do. If you have an Intel processor, you can simply replace it with an AMD one (yes sometimes you need to replace the motherboard and perhaps the memory) without changing ANY of the software on your computer.
Linux DOES NOT run the same software as Windows. Why is this? Well, Microsoft's license agreements say that you agree to not reverse-engineer their software. If you don't agree to the license, you can't use it (legally). Hmm, let's see, it's legal to reverse-engineer Intel processors, but not Microsoft operating systems. How nice for Microsoft.
To all you Microsoft apologists out there: Do you REALLY want Microsoft in control of EVERYTHING to do with computing? Because, without the anti-trust case, that's exactly where we'd be heading. Without this "government interference", every computing experience would be handled by Microsoft. We'd all use Windows, Explorer, Office, MSN, Media Player, Windows Messaging, Passport, etc. and then Microsoft could charge whatever they want for all this. Not true, you say? You don't think that Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE? You think any web pages created with Microsoft Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
Also, without "interference", NONE of the major companies currently supporting Linux to varying degrees (IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., etc.,) would have had anything to do with Linux. The repurcussions from Microsoft would have been much too severe.
Not to mention all the security problems that would arise out of all of this. Melissa/Love Bug/Sircam/Code Red anyone?
(In response to mrbkap.)
.Net. Since MS couldn't lure people to their Java-alike called C#, they are now trying for another Java-alike called J#. But that isn't likely to work since people remember what a joke Visual J++ was. If Microsoft can't keep Windows developers, or get .Net developers, it is going to be in trouble.
;)
Microsoft would like the world to believe that the fate of the economy rests on its shoulders. If that were true, MS would not be looking for new and exciting ways to milk money from people (auditing impoverished schools and children's charities, forcing people to pay to keep their software running, etc.) just to keep the company fed. Back in March and April of this year, upgrades of Windows 98 were outselling Windows ME, and Apple's OS X was outselling Windows 2000 upgrades. With all the reasons to hate or fear Windows XP, and all the anger MS's latest license policies are rousing, Microsoft is going to have a tough time selling Windows XP. Add to that the low PC sales (= OS sales) and MS so conveniently trying to overextend itself going for new markets (web services and game consoles), and you get a Microsoft that is weaker than it has been in years. It is ripe for its competition to unseat it, and removing its stranglehold on the market would free up a lot of room for real innovation that would actually spark growth. Microsoft is an ugly, smelly, half rotten weed. It is making the computer industry very sick.
Yes, Apple does make things user friendly (as opposed to MS merely making them user annoying). They have taken that talent, and applied it to an operating system based on an open source version of BSD Unix (plus the Mach kernal and a proprietary user interface). The result is the powerful, but easy to use, OS X. Finally we have a Unix that is as easy to use as Mac has always been, that runs Quicken and the Sims, is as powerful as Unix, and has a Terminal application that the brave can use to access a real Unix shell prompt. The result: Mac users who have never seen a command line before are eagerly rushing to acquire "mastery of the Terminal app", and are posting tips about their favorite cryptic command line like game cheats or easter eggs! OS X is quite capable of filling in Linux's weaknesses on the desktop. OS X makes the Mac a very credible threat to Windows, especially since Apple is the strongest of the desktop computer makers at the moment. Microsoft does not realize the danger here (Shhh, don't tell them).
Linux is nothing to be sneezed at either. It is doing very well against Microsoft on the server side. It is not out of the running on the desktop side either. Linux is a good choice for the enterprise desktop, in cases where commercial apps aren't needed, and MIS has competent people to administer the users' machines. Linux is also good for embedded systems.
Java is supposed to overtake Visual Basic and Visual C++ next year. The success of an OS depends on its developers. If the developers are moving to system independent Java, that weakens Windows and threatens
The alternatives are here now, and ready to roll. Microsoft is either going to have to learn how to compete, or they are going down the tubes, and dragging with them any PC maker stupid enough to not find themselves a better OS. Somehow, I don't see MS learning how to make bug free programs that do what the customer wants any time soon. If I were IBM, I'd start making the rounds of the software companies and get them to start turning out Linux applications.
As for the antitrust trial, this is getting ridiculous. Microsoft has been found guilty of doing nasty, illegal things with their monopoly. Shame. Shame. To even consider "settlement" talks during the penalty stage of a trial is bad enough. Agreeing on the exact same thing that MS violated years ago is idiotic! MS already thinks it is above the law. Letting MS off is going to make it think it is the second coming.
Time to appeal to a higher court: the consumer. Punish Microsoft for their wicked ways by taking your business elsewhere!
Homage to Godzilla, King of Monsters, on the occasion of his 47th birthday this Saturday.
Coincidentally, this was announced three years to the day after the leaking of Microsoft's plans to "de-commoditize" the open protocols that make up the internet. Fate must be winking at Bill.
What's so interesting about the source of for IE? I can't think of much.
.NET and Passport.
The keyword for selecting the source codes to open is intercompatibility. IE follows open standards reasonably well, and any of it's own web standards are open (or otherwise no one could write html for IE), so it's not so much of a problem, not at least yet.
The most important source code would be for Office, especially for its file format, and also for the data structures (i.e. headers). Office is the most important source of the infamous Application Barrier mentioned in the Fact of Findings.
Other pieces would be other file formats, such as those handled by Media Player.
Another yet more useful would be requirement that any hardware drivers must be opened. This might be somewhat more difficult to get as it would require that also other companies than Microsoft open their drivers. It could be formulated in a way that Microsoft must require that any hardware drivers be licensed with an open license (with "open" I don't mean Open Source but a minimal source license that allows reading the code to attain intercompatibility).
And of course,
Folks,
:-)
I personally thought long ago that the settlement of US v. Microsoft would involve Microsoft offering Plain Jane versions of Windows that allows an end user or OEM to install their own additional software.
As such, my prediction has become reality. Don't be surprised that we may see an AOL Plus Pack for the Plain Jane Windows XP Home Edition that includes Netscape 6.x (using final Mozilla 1.0 code), Real Network's Real One media player, AOL IM or ICQ, and so on. And this add-on pack will include full support for RoadRunner cable modems, too.
Please don't slap my hand! Outch! Ha ha! Back to being a monopoly!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
One of the articles linked here states that there would be a procedural problem if the states attempted to carry on after the judge has approved the settlement. So there is no guarantee that it would proceed even if the states wanted it to.
You can bet that MS would work that angle for everything it was worth if the situation arose. They don't need to worrry about losing or even about attempting to win if they can manage the situation such that they can stay out of court in the first place. "Business as usual" then.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
M$ usually offers companies/universities 5-year contract of mandatory purchase of their products, after the victims received letters from BSA accusing of their license violation.
My universities was replacing SUN workstations with NT workstations til we found out the hidden contract they've with M$. *SIGH*
You just gotta love the settlement terms!
Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
Microsoft can do anything it wants, as long as it also offers a lobotimized version too...
Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features...
Microsoft can't force people to buy the version they want to push...
but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
but the lobotimized version can cost twice the price!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot the part that actually does something:
Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows blueprints relating to its Internet browser software
A yup... that'll fix 'em it will! No more worries about dirty tricks from Microsoft, yeehaw!
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This just goes to show that you don't need to be intelligent to get an MBA. Most higher education just requires hard work and discipline. There's nothing wrong with that, it's probably how it should be, but don't mistake a degree for intelligence.
Perhaps it's also evidence that the education you get from an MBA, while perhaps useful for running companies, doesn't help you to lead a country.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
So, Microsoft broke the law, fact established by two courts.
When you break the law you go to PRISON. Period.
Instead, the "punishment" is to vaguely ensure that they don't break the law anymore ?
From the NYT article:
"Under the settlement proposal, Microsoft would be required to make that information available in a "secure facility," where representatives of software makers, computer manufacturers and others deemed qualified could study the Windows programming code and ask questions."
"Carrying out the technology-sharing provision remains one of the sticking points in the settlement talks. The government wants to make sure it is effective, while Microsoft wants to make sure it can protect its intellectual property."
This sounds a little dodgy in terms of open source programmers being allowed a peek for compatibility purposes. And if the code they write then reveals a Microsoft "secret" what happens?
If you don't think letting Microsoft get totally off for free, or the same thing they were let off with in 1995 which did zero good then,
I suggest you call your own state attorney general and tell them not to give into this federal get-out-of-jail free card...
CALL THEM THURSDAY MORNING FIRST THING AND TELL THEM!!
Here is a site with the phone numbers for most all of the states aj offices..
http://www.naag.org/about/aglist.cfm
Here are the 18 states still involved as complantants in the case..
Connecticut, Iowa and New York have generally been viewed as the three states championing the case. Also involved are California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
Also call California and New York because they have the most power and have been the 2 most outspoken against the results of this case so far..and call IOWA because Tom Miller the IOWA AG is the spokesman for all the 18 states involved.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
Man you guys are cynical. Isn't it possible that the feds and states will make sure to put real, competent, neutral people on this advisory panel? If so, they will be able to see to it that the spirit of the sanctions are carried out, so that simply "changing the wording" won't be enough to get MS by anymore.
-Brian
"Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness." -Robert A. Heinlen
The law doesn't mean a thing. Well, not really. The law means a lot, but only to little people. Those with expired tags ("And maybe perhaps could we check inside your vehicle, sir"). Those with less insurance than they need ("You should have opted for the 'Act of God -- but only under duress' clause, sir..."). Those who can't afford a lawyer ("One will be provided for you should you not be able to afford one"). Families with sudden tax burdens ("Actually, it's guilty until proven innocent in a non-jury trial, sir -- get out of your house immediately"). For large corporations and individuals, the law doesn't mean shit.
The law is what you've paid for. It's not what is right, or true, or just... or even what's wrong. It's what's been paid for. It's been this way ever since we've had governments. PoliSci 101: Those with power wield it primarily in order to gain more. I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I had to say it. And in a capitalist society, power is money. Therfore, money is politics. Like I said, back to day one of class and nothing new. This is just the most astonishing example of money making government we've seen recently. It's a Morgan or Hearst-like thing.
And since the I have the soapbox out, here's some advice: Fuck Microsoft. They're petty, awful people and I feel that one day soon other people will find it in their best interest not to bet their careers on them.
I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, and stongly against any spurious government interdiction in the free market. But I'm also a realist and realize that there has to be some form of interaction. Shoddy products can be dangerous, after all. But the real power is held by the people: The people that buy stuff for IT departments. I beseech them to look at alternatives to MS prodcuts. They will likely save money (and their jobs) in the long term.
Again, all this is so old it's cliched. But that makes it no less true. Although it's so late in the story du jour that nobody will every see this, so it's all one hand clapping....
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
This is great! It means Microsoft only has to buy off 3 people.
Dozings.com -- Its kinda funny... If you're as crazy as me.
They've hired a power lawyer to get more for all their trouble. We can expect them to contest this settlement, in it's current form, I think.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
You don't have to be smart to get a degree from Harvard or Princeton or Yale. If you are rich that will suffice. Lots of actors and actresses have degrees from Yale, Harvard, princeton etc. All it takes is money.
War is necrophilia.
...let's hope the EU actually has some...
>should do whatever it can to help it's
>shattered economy, and I believe dropping
>all charges against microsoft will
>do just that.
Yeah,
Let's build an economy on a backbone of criminal and otherwise unethical behavior!
Wait a minnit! This is the Bush administration... That's what almost half of you selfish bastards voted for!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The solution is very simple.
Enforce open publication of file-formats as a requirement of their use in government.
Thus if microsoft wants to maintain government contracts must publish format specs.
This will prevent most of their attempts to stifle competition in office apps and actually encourage the economy.
I don't care what other people do so long as I am free to use what I want and they can use whatever they want.
'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson...'
I find it ironic that MSNBC was the news source submitted to get news about Microsoft's monopolistic practices. Corporate control of the means of production is consolidating and omni-present.
What do you mean, Bush is backing down on Microsoft? Don't you watch the TV? He's been on almost everyday saying how he's going to get rid of the evil-do-ers.
Actually, MS didn't pay any taxes. I did, but they didn't.
- Dan I.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's a very different quote from what I've read elsewhere. Notably, the other versions all read something like "broad prohibitions" or "mass prohibitions". In that context, Microsoft's position is entirely justified; there is no reason they should have to accept restrictions that aren't specific in both intent and scope, any more than there is for anyone else.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Senators and congressmen do not even read the bills they vote on! They pay 'experts' to read it for them and summarize it to them.
Do they actually pay "experts" or are these actually paid by some of the people who lobby for the bills in the first place.
It's hard to imagine quite a few things not being sumarised as "violates the US constitution for reasons A, B, C, E, etc. Veto it"
One election was in legal question. The supreme court, falling all laws and legal procedure cleared up the matter.
At what point did it what was a matter relating to some parts of one US state become a matter for the US federal government? Did the Florida supreme court request a ruling. Was there a constitutional ammendment. postdating the 10th, which grants such jurisdiction?
It just runs on a different system of values than the minority number of voters believes. To most people in the US, money means morals. Most people look at Bill Gates and see that he's worth billions of dollars after starting from the normal life that most people have. That leads people to believe that he must be the smartest best guy in the world and that he should never be accused of doing anything wrong. Everyone wants to be in his position.
No the justice system isn't corrupt. We're just in a disagreement in if fair competition or the biggest dollar sign should lead the correct moral path.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Granted, Asia does not have any ongoing anti-trust proceedings yet AFAIK, but Europe is continuously looking into starting an anti-trust trial against Microsoft.
I have a strong feeling that the EU will get their butts in gear, realizing that they need to finish the job that Clinton could not finish.
If MS loses large parts of Europe, or is forced to start doing business differently there, then that will really hurt their bottom line and their public image (except in the states. there, the republicans will rant about "those snotty, arrogant europeans that are passing anti-competitive legislation").
Stop the brainwash
The most significant element in the settlement proposal, industry executives said, is the requirement that Microsoft share the technical information needed for other software or hardware products to work smoothly with Windows.
Think a little about this one. We all know that protocols, api libraries, and other interoperable standards are the real battle here. Go back and read the halloween documents if you've forgotton..
If this penalty was enforced properly (along with the additional requirement that MS comply with all protocols and standards and do not attempt to create their own incompatible ones), Microsoft would rapidly lose any advantages due to gaming incompatibility (DirectX), web standards, the .Net fiasco, Wine incompatibilities etc. etc.
Very soon, people would be free to choose Linux and other operating systems *knowing* that they *will* be able to run all their old applications, they *will* be able to browse and interact with the web without problems, they *will* be able to buy the latest games without having to keep a Win9x partition on their PCs.
This is the real battle. It only remains to be seen whether this proposed penalty is actually implemented. If it is not, any other likely action is unlikely to have any real effect.
The tentative deal would end Microsoft?s practice of forbidding computer makers from selling PCs preloaded with software from the company?s competitors
They already agreed to that with XP. You can include other apps, but you then have to make MS apps more promenint(sp?).
The deal would also reportedly allow Microsoft to add new software to Windows ? as it has with Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger and Windows Media Player ? but would force the company to offer a separate version of Windows without those additions.
Will these "limited" versions be sold for a discount? If not, then it is very unlikely that they will sell more than 10 of them.
The settlement would also reportedly force Microsoft to reveal some of its underlying computer code to other companies.(My emphasis)
Who decides which "companies" can see the code? I do business as a company. Can I see the code?
This sounds like a joke settlement and I hope that the states attorneys general don't go along with it. We need a resolution with some real teeth.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Yeah, after the earlier consent decree in 1995 I think we can all rest easily knowing that our government has vigorously pursued the case against abusive monopolists.
The terms are probably just as likely as the terms of the earlier decree to correct bad behavior.
Senior executives of Microsoft have been seen shaking and shivering in their boots at the prospects of this new decree.
Oops, my mistake - they had smiles on their faces. They were laughing.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Now we see the violence inherent in the system...
... OK, enough Monty Python references.
The agreement would reportedly force the software company to end restrictive deals with computer makers, release some of the software code for Internet Explorer, and offer versions of Windows with and without added features such as MSN Messenger.
Hey, that's pretty cool! It's about time they outlawed Microsoft's policy of retailers selling their souls to the Devil... er... Bill Gates. Those contracts are a ridiculous plight on the computer world. Maybe now we'll be able to tell our not-so-computer-literate friends and relatives that for their next computer they can just hop on over to Best Buy or somewhere and pick up a PC with Mandrake or RedHat instead of Windows XP 2.3 SP 5 rel 2 ver 8. Well, in reality, that's probably really far off...
I wonder exactly what portions of code they have to release for internet explorer... I doubt they'll let go of anything all too relative.
With or without MSN... now seriously, do you think Microsoft will just let that happen? I'm sure you'll have to specifically ask for a non MSN computer, and each store will probably have 0 of them, but when you request it they'll go uninstall it. Of course the first time you log onto your computer you'll see a little message pop up: "wouldn't you like to send messages to your friends as well as shop at several convenient online stores, well here's the only way to do that: MSN!"
And now for something completely different...
The tentative deal calls for a five-year consent decree between the government and Microsoft governing the company's conduct, The New York Times and Washington Post reported on their Web sites Wednesday evening, citing anonymous sources. According to those sources, the deal included the possibility of a two-year extension if the company violates the terms of the agreement. To try to ensure enforcement, a three-member advisory committee of independent experts would be established, The Times reported.
OK, great idea, but three people? This to me is just another indication that the people in charge of righting Microsoft's many wrongs really have a limited or nonexistant knowlege of the actual subject. Microsoft's wide range of products and services and practices of leveraging monopolies are so complex, convoluded, and "sneaky" that you would need at least a dozen people working full time so have a minimal understanding of it all. They would need an OS expert, internet expert, networking expert, database expert, Office expert, ISP expert, messaging expert, etc... Three people, especially if they're lawyers, really isn't enough.
~ now you know
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that the breakup of Microsoft (or another dehabilitating blow to the company) might be the worse thing that could happen for the economy. Ironically (IMHO) the breakup of Microsoft would lead a void that at the moment, no other company can fill.
.NET that is exactly the situation.
At the moment this isn't an issue. Because no software (including Microsoft software) depends on the continued existance of Microsoft. It's not as if every version of Windows contains "logic bombs".
However if we have
many other operating systems don't have the single-user user-friendlyness that Microsoft had achieved.
In plenty of situations this "single-user-user-friendlyness" (or "allow the person sat in front of the machine to do anything they like") is far more of a liability than anything else.
f I'm reading you correctly, you're arguing aganst user friendlyness. Like my grandma should be able to open up a terminal and start making some bash scripts. There's a lot of people who have tons of problems with a GUI metahpor, let alone the scary commandline.
The assumption here is that GUIs are easier for everyone (of any age) than CLIs. Which is simply utter nonsense.
Indeed you could just as easily argue that a "grandma" would find it easier to "simply" tell the thing what to do rather than messing around with a mouse.
The secret part is that MS will open all the backdoors to the CIA so that they can track Osama bin Laden's email, ICQ logs, bank transactions, etc. That way, the spooks don't need to trouble themselves with say, getting a Swiss bank's permission to examine transactions. They can just waltz right in and have a look anytime they want. The Swiss bank won't even know. Call it patriotism. Microsoft's little contribution to the war on Terrorism.
What is keeping Microsoft amongst the web servers out there?
Most likely brand loyalty more than anything else.
People can call up Microsoft, and expect someone on the other end of the line to be able to help them with their problem.
This is an illusion people who make decisions have. In relatity people who actually run systems would search the web, post to usenet, ask collegues/peers. In preference to calling some "helpline" (who may know less about the software than they do).
For many Linux releases, this is hard to find.
It's consideably easier, since you have the further option of looking at the code.
However, Linux is mainly (as far as I understand it) for the crowd that can. Most programs require compiling before installing! How many 'average' Windows can do THAT?
There is no good reason for the "average" user to do this. Any more than they should have to install their own services (power, network telephone) to their desk or even build their own desk/office. In any organisation of any size installing software is (or at least should be) the responsibility of either a separate department or a contractor. The same as installing or maintaining anything else required for people to do their jobs.
>As if anybody hasn't noticed, given the choice
>between paying one price for something or paying
>more for the same thing, which is the typical
>consumer going to pick?
So by your flawed logic, everyone in the United States uses Linux as their operating system since after all, it's much cheaper than buying a copy of Windows. What's more, all of those people also went out and bought AMD processors, which offer not only a much better price/performance ratio but offer better performance per clock than Intel processors. Funny though, I don't see any numbers that support those facts.
The fact is, no one buys these processors because no one HEARS anything about them. The reason no one hears anything about them is because they are stifled. Microsoft has agreements with every OEM they deal with requiring operating system exclusivity. You aren't allowed to have any other OS readilly accessible on a computer shipped with Windows. Research has shown that it's only a tiny slice of the consumer pie that will go out of their way to install these alternative operating systems... and even when they make the decision to do so, more often than not it requires repartitioning of the hard drive, meaning the user has to start from scratch. Not a very attractive option to someone who is just becoming computer literate.
AMD has taken the silent route for a very good reason... to keep prices low. Anyone who knows anything knows that AMD now produces a superior product when compared directly to Intel's identical line of processors. This, however, hasn't made enough of a difference to consumers, thanks to the Intel marketing machine. Instead AMD is starting to do very intelligent things... like the elimination of clock indicators. This bought them free press, the cheapest kind of advertising there is. AMD is also doing their "road show", giving away free processors in 20+ major cities. Things like these increase word-of-mouth, but allow AMD to keep expenses low, so they can make a cheaper product. They need to KEEP their products cheaper than Intel, or most of their advantage over Intel will disappear.
So please, dispense with the "cheaper = more popular" mode of thinking. It is NOT always the case that the superior product is more popular, nor that the cheaper one will be purchased more. In AMD's case, where they have both a superior AND cheaper product, they still fall far behind Intel in sales.
...what Microsoft really wants.
Most of us who make our living from copyrighted material do not protect it by restricting access. We enforce it by going after those who pirate it. MS has more resources for this than most of us, and we do fine.
Restricting access is the refuge preferred by those who steal the IP of others, by those whose code is embarrassing when viewed by true professionals, and by those who seek commercial advantage by including secret APIs in their operating systems.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
>Not true, you say? You don't think that
.NET developement circles. NS 4.7 locks up for me from the start, and most pages on the site give NS 4.7 no more than black displays.
.NET code in Moz/NS/OmniWeb when you're only going to net 10% or less more customers. You're going to make a new system in .NET instead.
>Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE?
Okay, that's going to be a tough one. Even if MS beats out TCP/IP (and I just don't see that happening), they've still got AOL to fight with.
On the other hand...
>You think any web pages created with Microsoft
>Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
That's already happened. Try looking at a site that uses ASP.NET like:
http://www.dotnetjunkies.com/
... in NS 4.7. These people have appeared on MS Developer's Network and are power players in
That's not a big deal to me by itself, but these [and those this site represents -- I feel this one is representative] are the guys MS wants _teaching_ newbies how to program. The less professional sites (including some of the more deeply hidden pages on dotnetjunkies) don't even render in Mozilla well. People don't test cross platform and cross browser because they're not taught to.
The problem occurs when programmers test only in IE because they know more than 90% of their clients/customers will have access to IE.* It's simply not worth the work bothering to test new
The extension of the MS monopoly to the server-side is on the way -- not because programmers are given tools that, by definition, lock out non-MS or non-IE tools, but because it's so much easier to ignore non-MS tools and assume your clients have IE anyhow. MS even provides built-in "separate but [hardly] equal" controls that mimic on Moz what they do quite handily on IE. "Our site even works on Mozilla -- we know because MS tells us so."
MS can support standards and, as long as it's still easier to do it on Windows first, lazy programmers are still going to do Windows only.
* Think how many people have one form of IE or another -- Mac IE is a very nice browser that comes pre-installed with an icon on Mac OS X's Dock. Think of IE Mac as "mini-Windows" -- and therefore another brick in the foundation for server-side, possibly antitrust-like practices.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
That's the most unbelievably idiotic thesis I've ever heard. Essentially, you're saying that the Clinton administration wanted Microsoft active politically... even if any moron could see that the benefit would most likely go to the opposing party?
Of course Microsoft is giving some dough to both sides... But make no mistake. Microsoft knew that (even if they did contribute) the Gore campaign was not where their bread was buttered. A ten year old child could tell you that the Republican party was a better prospect for a large business looking to avoid gov't intervention.
And yet the Clinton administration made an enemy of an extremely wealthy corporation just so they could get them to fund the political opposition? That's inane.
Maybe the DOJ was actually doing something right, even though it was politically dangerous. Maybe two courts of varying ideologies have essentially agreed that Microsoft is a monopoly, and abuses that power. Of course, you could ignore all that and just make stuff up...
Microsoft's monopolistic market power is based on its leverage of the Windows/Office platform and revenue streams. Therefore, the best resolution to the antitrust case is one which increases competition by reducing the ability of Microsoft to leverage the platform and revenue or otherwise invade the privacy of the customer as a result of the foregoing.
.Net framework including any modifications thereof or successors thereto. This will permit two things: a.) relatively rapid porting of the framework to alternative operating systems while eliminating potential inconsistencies due to multiple framework development efforts (i.e. freeing resources devoted to the redundant Mono framework) and b.) platform independent applications (i.e. applications written exclusively to the .Net platform should be capable of running on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, etc. a la Java). Microsoft would be bound by decree to certain source and object code publishing and documentation requirements a la Sun's voluntary efforts related to OpenOffice.org.
.NET services evolves into); b.) any network authentication source; c.) any advertising or sponsorship links. Related to this, Microsoft must not require the use of any network based service to use its desktop applications (i.e. why is Passport required to open my Money 2002 file?). Microsoft must further x.) permit third parties to utilize an API facilitating equivalent functionality for authentication and provision of services to the Windows platform/Microsoft desktop application as that used by Microsoft for .NET services; y.) give users the ability to chose any third party provider; and z.) simplify that choice by listing alternative providers with 2% or more of the market for any given class of network service where this list is sorted by market share.
.NET framework program. With respect to third party copyrights, Microsoft must use its best efforts to obtain a BSD license for such copyright so as to permit full disclosure and incorporation of that code in third party operating systems.
Here is my proposed consent decree:
1.).Net Framework: Microsoft must open source (BSD license) the
2.)Incorporation of Nonessential Functionality in Products: Microsoft must offer a simple means of avoiding the installation of or removing the following functionality post-installation: a.) all applications or network-based services not integral to the proper operation and maintenance of the Windows operating system (i.e. explorer, movie maker, photo editor, imaging software, media player, messenger, games, MSN Explorer plus whatever
3.)Privacy Management: Microsoft must not distribute any information it gathers about its customers/users to any third party without the explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent of that user. Microsoft must provide a simple, secure method for any customer/user to view all information that Microsoft has gathered with respect to that user and permit the customer/user to delete any or all of such information. Microsoft must use its "best efforts" to secure such information from accidental divulgence to third parties. Absent explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent, Microsoft must demonstrate that it does not utilize internally or distribute certain user information including contacts, calendar, and financial information except as absolutely essential to the provision of that service.
4.)Pricing/Marketing Restrictions: Microsoft must offer standardized, openly published pricing to any customer for a given volume of products. Microsoft must not enter into any agreement which would have the contractual or de facto result of exclusivity for Microsoft.
5.)Compatibility with Other Office Programs: Microsoft must offer the OpenOffice XML file filters for the following Microsoft Office versions: 97, 2000 and XP via a download from its Office support website and must bundle these filters as one of the default supported file formats in any future Office version or any service pack for an existing Office version. Further, Microsoft must publish the file formats for the following desktop applications: Office including FrontPage and Publisher, Visio, Project, and Money including the current version, two past generations, and all future versions (three months prior to commercial release of a product utilizing the new format). The DOJ would reserve the right to add to this list of products.
6.)Open Source Device Drivers: Except to the extent that such incorporates third party copyrights, Microsoft must release the technical specifications and open-source (BSD license) its source code, to every extent possible, for all devices and peripherals supported by the current version of Windows (i.e. scanners, printers, sound cards, video cards, hard drives, USB devices, controller cards and chips). Program management for this effort will be similar to the open source
Who they pay are people like me, concerned, educated citizens who are experts in their field. And they don't pay that well either. I've done legislative assistance for the US Congress. One thing is for sure, you don't get into government work for the money.
I think I'll stop here.
If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft is not above the law, so why does they have to agree to the governments terms? The government should be able to set any terms they feel is necessary and then force Microsoft to obey. As long as Microsoft has to conceed to the terms then they will make sure the terms won't really hurt them such as the OEM agreements, do you really think that changing the OEM agreements will affect Microsofts monopoly? No!
Microsoft needs to open up their file formats and communication protocols so other products can play nice with Microsoft products which will foster competition since it will allow rival product makers the ability to work with Microsoft products and then consumers will be able to choose a product based on if they like it, not just be forced to choose Microsoft all the time. Also, opening up their file formats is not a significant hit to their intelletual property as they might suggest, but it is one of the corner stones of their monopoly so they probably won't give it up without a big fight.
Opening up a completely well-documented Windows API would be nice for projects like WINE, but I really doubt Microsoft will do it. I also don't think they should open their source code to office or windows, but just the file formats would be enough to actually give consumers choice.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Umm, I'm pretty sure that was a joke or a troll (or both)... What a bunch o' dullards.
...signifying nothing.
* Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
Full OEM version: $30
Stripped OEM version: $80
Profit margin from each system $60
If your losing money on each system, you'll never make it up on volume.
* Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
How does this differ one iota from how MS cornered the market? Put MS-DOS on on all of your systems and get a price break equal to your profit margin. Install even a single copy of DR-DOS, and you pay full price. The month after MS implemented the policy, DR-DOS sales tanked!
* Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows blueprints relating to its Internet browser software, but not the blueprints to Windows.
So everything is now defined as being part of Windows, and IE is now just an interface to some system libraries. Hate it for all those out there who wanted to actually display pages written by FrontPage on an alternative OS.
This has got to be one of the biggest paper tigers since Reagan's immigration bill in the 80's, the reason you now have to 'prove' you're American or have a VISA to work here. Illegal immigrants can produce a photocopy of a drivers liscense and the Human Resource drone at the cleaning company checks off on the form. These rememedies, whether you agree MS is guilty or not, are full of sound and fury, signifiying nothing.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Would you be willing to serve on the joke this committee will be? All they can do is recommend that the "punishment" be extended for two more years.
I tend to be a libertarian, but I also feel that if you are going to have a monopoly, that it should be a part of the government. That the government is the natural home of all "natural monopolies". And that it has no business creating artificial monopolies.
This decision seems to combine the worse aspects of both monopoly and government. They become legally recognized as a monopoly (their punishment is this oversight board, which can't do anything). But they escape the limitations that have been placed on government (to such extent as they are still extant).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And while we're at it, let's stop investigating the mob's protection rackets - any business is good for the economy now, even if its illegal, predatory, and actually destroys more than it creates.
What's amazing is that a even Reagan-appointed judge had the blunt honesty to call this company what it is, a thuggish criminal enterprise, and somehow our government isn't going to punish them. If anyone else caused the economic harm this company had, was found guilty of all counts except one, would the Ashcroft DOJ not appeal a sentence?
I'm at a loss for words.
Some random financial facts about Microsoft, compared against the biggest company in the world (by revenue) Exxon Mobil. Scary Stuff:
Basically, even though Microsoft has approx 1/10th the revenues of each of the top 3 corporations in the world (the others are Wal-Mart and GM) it has approx half the profits they do.
In June 2000 Microsoft's pre tax profit margin was 60.2%. After taxes it was 41.0%. Seeing as Bill Gates owns 13.3% of Microsoft, every dollar spent on a Microsoft Product -- actually let's make it every $100 because $1 won't buy anything MS sells. For every $100 you spend on a MS product, Bill Gates gets on average $5.33.
There are sites that try to try to put is wealth in perspective. This is the google cached version (don't wanna melt the poor guy's server) but it's pretty much up to date.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think while Linux is getting more user-friendly, the fact is that upgrading the OS and adding hardware device support can be quite tricky even with the best commercial distributions.
Hopefully, when Linux adopts Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) auto-configuration support, the ease of OS upgrades and new hardware support will become far easier. This will finally make Linux a true viable competitor to Windows 2000/XP for most users.
So maybe instead they should have submitted the article from the AOL/TW site... cnn.com?
/ in dex.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/11/01/microsoft.ap
I've seen that erroneous statement made all over this thread. This is not a sentence being handed down from a court. This is an attempt to reach a settlement between MS and the DoJ, as ordered by a court. That is, it is a negotiation. If memory serves, there is even a court-appointed mediator (Eric Green?) to help to proceedings along.
What Microsoft need to remember is that if they fail to reach such a settlement, or if the terms of the settlement are not accepted by the court, then the court may impose another penalty instead, and probably one MS would like far less. If I were them, I'd be putting the arrogance on hold, lest the court feel that they've "got away with it" in the settlement they've achieved, and impose a more restrictive/damaging alternative penalty.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
From the headline:
A three person panel of independent experts will be created to review the companys' future activity
One posters suggestion:
Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Paul Allen.
My two cents:
OhMyGOD let this come to pass. The The Three Stooges references are too good to pass up.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I looked this ruling over, yawned, and then got back to more important things. If you think this is the end of the world, then let me clue you in.
Your freedom and liberty are your responsibility. You don't get them from Microsoft, Apple, Linux, Debian, RMS, or ESR. You don't get them from John Ashcroft, Janet Reno, George Bush, or Bill Clinton. You don't get them from the DOJ, DOD, IRS or USPO. You don't get them from the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. Liberty is something innate that you are born with.
As a free human being, you need to exercise your freedom or it will atrophy. I don't use Microsoft products because I am a free man and have chosen of my own free will not to use them. I know other free men who have chosen of their own free will to use Microsoft products. They are no less free than me.
Microsoft has never infringed upon my liberty. They have never held a gun to my head and forced me to use any of their products. They have never coerced me in any way. I could sit back like the rest of you and whine that choosing an alternate operating system is inconvenient, but I'm smarter than that. I know that the best things in life are NOT convenient. You have to work at them.
Could this ruling mean that Microsoft will remain a monopoly? Yes. But so what? It won't bother me in the least bit. They were a monopoly yesterday and I was using Linux yesterday. They will be a monopoly tomorrow and I will still be using Linux tomorrow.
Nobody is going to make you use Windows. If you end up using Windows it is because you chose to use it of your own free will. The only way Microsoft can get any power over you is if you choose to let them. Stop looking to the DOJ as your savior! You are already free so get out there and start acting like it!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
you shall be visited by three ghosts named "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish".
"Tis the season of Tux the penguin, fa la la la la, la la la laaaaa"
To hell with Karma and consequences...I'm having fun.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Microsoft are a bubble, like the dotcom bubble. They are that way by design and show no interest in changing their strategy. The reason it would have been great (in a way) for the government to really slam them, is that it would've provided an excuse to change their strategy. It would have produced a recession- rather than a Depression. The way they're going now, we may see an all-out crash out of them yet- or the first serious terrorist war against a company, rather than a nation-state. I really don't think they're prepared for that, physically, mentally, or emotionally. Their blindness to such a concept is their main weakness.
Yes, I do think people will be trying to literally kill Microsoft employees. _I_ will not. What I'm doing is just trying to develop the best dither software out there, and make it GPLed open source ;) this is not likely to earn me any money directly, but it might be a good tactical move against the likes of Microsoft, and so I'm perfectly clear on my motives. I'm at war too- just constructively rather than destructively.
I see myself as one of those who are competing with them, and that's how I choose to play it- and I'm more than willing to do without, and suffer loss of potential income, to do them harm. I don't think they really understand that, but it scares the piss out of 'em :)
slap! slap! slap! slap! slap!
Bad corporation! Bad Bill! You've been very, very naughty, and I'm very disappointed in you!
No go to your room, young man, and promise me that you'll never, ever do it again!
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Haven't you heard? We bombed it on purpose to keep the Taliban from stealing the food inside. I heard it on CNN or MSNBC, so it must be true!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.