Slashdot Mirror
Public Comment Period In MS/DOJ Battle
PacketMaster writes: "Somthing that I didn't know, and perhaps many others didn't know is that now this settlement by the federal government and some of the states will go back before the judge and be opened for a 60 day commentary period by the public as required by the Tunney Act (See Sec 5,USC Sec 16). This is a great opportunity for everyone to send in their intelligent and informed opinions on the matter. If some of the major developer groups (i.e. Samba) would put together a well-thought-out and easy-to-read commentary on their concerns, maybe we as a community can affect the process. See the ZDNet
article for more information." No forum for public comment is up yet (first, the proposed settlement must be published in the Federal Register), but should be in the near future.
First of all, I really hope the slashdot crowd refrains from silly flames and other immature letters, like some unfortunately have resorted to in the past.
Anyways, are there some sort of comprehensive website that explains in lay-man terms what has happened in this case?
Reading court documents and simular isn't too thrilling, especially when I don't understand half of the legal mumbo-jumbo, and I also find that much of the info that I _can_ read is spread across a zillion websites.
Personally I don't think we need the goverment to bring M$ down, capitalism will do it, Linux is inherently better and cheaper, people will find the better way to spend money.
Ryan Singer
would indevidual comments have.
Especally those from none US organisations and organisations.
What happens to MS affects not only those of you in the US but also a large amount of the rest of the world.
Would the US Judisary take account of none US Citesens
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
Be the impact major or minor, this is democracy in action. Take your chance! What harm can it do? I'm only jealous that as a European I cannot participate.
"We kill to cure, with cures that kill" - Skinny Puppy
No forum for public comment is up yet (first, the proposed settlement must be published in the Federal Register), but should be in the near future.
Surely Slashdot qualifies as a forum for public comment, especially for anything regarding Micro$oft.
We all know that the deal sucks, we all tend to agree that the deal-making process sucks, and most of us think that the deal-makers have serious personal problems.
Don't bother telling the Judge that part.
What we can tell her that the Court might actually listen to is this: how can Microsoft wiggle through loopholes? A consent decree is, when you get down to it, code. Legal rather than computer code, but code nonetheless. Let's apply the famous myriad eyeballs to finding bugs in the code here, and tell the Court in clear terms (as the Samba team have) just how it's broken.
Let's tell the Court what they don't know about this deal.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Here is a list of states suing microsoft (courtesy of Microsoft's "freedom to Innovate Network"):
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Utah, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin
Here's what I sent to the Attorney General in my state:
"
I believe that any settlement that would have a chance of restoring competition to the computer industry would require at least the following:
1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.
2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such changes are made available to any parties requesting them.
3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).
4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as "trade secrets" must be disclosed.
5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems,
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.
6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.
7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a
monopoly.
"
Remember M$ are still being dragged through the courts in Europe so Europeans ought to send some of those intelligent and informed opinions to their representitives too.
What bugs me with the proposed US 'settlement' is all those opt outs - the register eloquently outlines the many flaws . Once again the the excuse of 3v1l h4X0rs is used to allow M$ to hide 'security sensitive' information - who decides what's sensitive? Why M$ of course!
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
So why submit it here? Only 1 post in 100 in a Microsoft thread actually offers anything intelligent to say, with the rest merely about the evils of Redmond and the valiance of those who oppose him, with the general gist being that Microsoft sucks for such and such. This is boring to read. Hell, it must be boring to write. Don't any of you ever get tired of writing the same thing as umpteen other drones every single time Microsoft is mentioned? Posting this here is likely to result in a flood of Microsoft attacks based on poor facts or none at all.
IMHO The point still being missed by all these settlements is that if everything goes according to microsoft's plan, within 2 years they WON'T GIVE A SHIT anymore about weither or not their protocols are open or closed whatever.
.NET myservices. Microsoft is forcing all IU's (Ignorant Users) passports and microsoft is extremely good at forcing stuff upon people. .NET is free, Myservices not.
What NEEDS to be adressed is the passport system and the
In the end of it, this will mean that we will simply be forced to use Microsoft products because we need a way to authenticate to microsoft servers.
I Really feel that nobody is adressing this problem anywhere, microsoft will just get small tap on hand again but nothing more...
anyone agree or am I just pouring out pure crap?
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
This may seem like a really dumb question but does anyone know if
the Tunney Act allows/welcomes commentry from non-US citizens?
While I'm here: how does any legal solution rendered in America
affect Microsoft's offshore activity?
The reason I'm asking is, as a British Subject(sic), I'm becoming
increasingly concerned that if thwarted in it's march across
America, Microsoft will increase it's corporate presence in
Britain. Blair and Gates are already pretty chummy so the idea of
Microsoft seeking political exile is a distict possiblity IMO.
Dave Winer (co-creator of SOAP among other things, so he has dealt and continues to deal with MS on the interoperability front) has a few things to say about what Microsoft stands to gain, what it stood to lose from the settlement but didn't, and a (plausible, and hopefully incorrect) prediction of what the Government stands to gain from Microsoft controlling the greater Internet. (think Hailstorm/XP plus Carnivore)
I think Dave would be a good person to provide suitably knowledgable 'public comment' for this bill. Read his blog; he's a decent guy to boot :)
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
Does anyone know much about that group of lawyers who use the same open source principal as we do except in law? (or did i jsut imagine it?) anyway, perahps tahts something to look at: an open letter to the judges, dump it on source code, let people "hack" at the letter with suggestions,making it presentable and correcting the typos, and then we all pitch in and turn it into "lawyer compliant" letter. Anyone already doing something like this?
Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
Has anyone written such a history?
Be nice. English isn't everyone's first language. True, his comments may not carry their full weight without the decisive clarity that you or I expect from communication in a highly technical world. But alas, I've come to understand the limitations of people who don't primarily speak english. I've known a few people who couldn't ask for a candybar but could write mathematical formulas in circles around me.
Be Kind
digitalunity said so
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
While electronically-submitted comments will have some impact on this process, it can also get drowned in the noise of some moronic l33+ g33K mail, discounting the entire medium as kooks, zealots or plain old Microsoft bashers?
You want a real opportunitiy to make your voice heard? Revert back to pen and paper, write a well-thought-out letter detailing the issues you have with this and send it. If nothing else, the actual writing process seems to stimulate a lot more thought.
Just this once.. bypass the submit button. Kill a tree. Stick a mountain of paper on someone's desk.
-'fester
I was reading Antipatterns the other day and ran across the "Vendor Lock-In" anti-pattern. The suggested solution for this anti-pattern was to create an isolation layer on your network, so that interfaces on one side of the layer would not depend on interfaces on the other. Microsoft's behavior with .net, Kerberos and other networking protocols seem aimed at marginalizing the isolation layer that TCP/IP provides.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Openlaw is an experiment in crafting legal argument in an open forum"
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
I don't think anyone (with the capacity for thought) thinks Microsoft should be desolved. The ripple effect on the economy and industry would be horrific. I think the major complaint is that it seems that Microsoft is rewarded for bad behavior more often then not. Microsoft needs to be taught to play well with others.
When we talk of monopolies we do not mean that the consumer has no other choice, which is absurd, but rather the consumer is in a position to be lied to and coerced. IBM might have invented FUD, but Microsoft has made an artform and a successful school of marketing based on it. And to make matters worse they direct it not on enterprise level businesses that should know better. But to John Q public, there should be no expectation that john Q should know better.
Some argue that it is just good business, that Microsoft has 85 percent of the Desktop market and should do everything in it's power to maintain it. But that is not the whole story. The same trite crowd that thinks that Microsoft has earned it's position in the market and thinks that it just "out-businessed" the competition would do well to inspect how Microsoft earned that 85%, how it crushed better technologies with it's FUD+Vaporware campaign of the early to middle nineties. And how the badly consumer was cheated.
As the Microsoft apologists argue that Microsoft brought computers to the masses, that windows 95 allowed the blue collar worker a powerful and intuitive OS on inexpensive harware. A counter argument could be made that the competition, if allowed to compete on a playing field that while not level, was fair by the rules of business as established in a post WWII America, would have brought to market more powerful, more intuitive and more accessible technologies.
The horror stories of Netscape and Apple and Stac electronics... etc. etc... are telling, but it is interesting how most companies have dropped the complaints to a large degree because Microsoft is now so monolithic that it is better (more lucritive and "safe") to just cut deals and work with them to bash ones head against them (Read: Apple)
Microsoft became this monolith by stealing, buying, intimidating and coercing. This is not opinion, this is public record and is in the testimony. The reality of Microsoft is that they are now a cornerstone to the technology industry and perhaps even the American economy. Which is sad only in somuch as they will never be forced to atone for the damage they did to innovation and inspiration that the shops they obliterated could have brought to market.
As i type this, there is a talking head on MSNBC, she is talking about airport security, she has just said, "Bill gates could probably come out with a system where a button is pressed and information is brought up on a screen...". Heh, Bill Gates has somehow marketed his name to be synonymous with applied software solutions... That is what the uneducated public thinks, when they think about computers and technology.
Actually i'm dyslexic and i don't have a spell checker on this machine.
Eye have a spelling checker.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.
Eye ran this poem threw it,
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it's weigh.
My checker tolled me sew.
A checker is a bless sing,
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when I rime.
Each frays come posed up on my screen
eye trussed too bee a joule.
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.
Bee fore a veiling checker's Hour
spelling mite decline,
And if we're lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid too wine.
Butt now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flair,
Their are no fault's with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a ware.
Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den
With wrapped word's fare as hear.
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaw's are knot aloud.
Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays,
Such soft wear four pea seas,
And why eye brake in two averse
Buy righting too pleas.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
But alas, I've come to understand the limitations of people who don't primarily speak english.
What a sad place to live where you have to come to understand something so obvious.
Do an interview, let the /. unwashed mod up the 10 best, or at least 10 lucid, remarks, filter them through the proper suit to correct the general non-command of English you see on here, and submit.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
It would be nice to see the Operating system forced under the GPL. It would cause M$ to diferentiate between OS and Application pretty quickly and clearly. The OS division would still make money since they currenly charge $100 per support call on a PRE pay basis.
Cheers...
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
Even if only 1 of a 100 posts is intelligent and has a point, then it's worth it! That post/point can be taken and used against MS. It's not like we're going to post the entire thread on the upcoming site.
The Tunney Act requires that the judge would review the deal to ensure that it is in the public interest and is not politically motivated.
I gotta stop doing that...
Not politically motivated--the current deal when the DOJ was inexplicably *cowed* despide their victories left and right?
I don't know, but I recall hearing "Those that do not engage in politics, will invariably be done in by it".
Sadly, this is the current situation with the tech sector/slashdot crowd. Heck, I'm just as guilty of "being too busy" or "I'll never make a difference" kind of defeatist thinking.
I'm going to finish the articl and clean the coffee off my work area, and then I'll think of a question that should be asked.
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
I might be missing something, but is there any punishment in this deal. It has been proven that MS misused its monopoly, and the only thing they need to do now is "change their ways". So basically every company can misuse its monopoly until they are sued and even then they can go on misusing it until after some 5 years a settlement is reached. Without any further consequences.
Am I wrong?
With the sign of the Leaders and ...
please, don't forget the patents!
Regards,
-Bryam
Microsoft's "freedom to Innovate Network"
Oh, the irony.
Nice to see that they've had a good sense of humor during all this litigation.
Developers: We can use your help.
I think this a really great oportunity to show many points of view that DoJ didn't. It's there a web site dedicated to this matter?. If not, there is a posibility that this iniciative gets buried just as another slashdot material.
Don't forget that your regular MS EULA prohibits you from using MS software to criticize MS!
Yes it would hurt the economy for a few brief moments in time and the a massive explosion of
growth like we have never seen before would occur. This would in turn revive the job market in the tech sector. Spending would be diversified amoung competing companies not the entire IT budget going to on company as it does today.
Got Code?
Errr.. that's exactly what I ment.. :) .. That number 1 sneaked in somehow... Thanx for the zipcodes dude, I'm saving them.. :)
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but have these public comments ever actually accomplished anything?
Whenever I see a call for public comments on slashdot (or wherever) I always see a story a couple of weeks later telling everyone how screwed we are.
Have these comments ever really done any good? I'm really wondering. Does anyone know of any instances of these having any effect?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
My question to all North Americans: does it bother you that the USA legal system (as this case confirms) seems to consist of nothing more than 'who has more money eventually wins regardless'?
If Microsoft were a small company or individual with no substantial wealth, this case would have been concluded years ago and a more fair and justified judgement would have been in place. Just what is it that makes it possible for Microsoft and other huge companies to effectively stall and convolute the US legal system until the situation becomes favourable to them?
As a European, I practically dismiss the US legal system as merely a tool for large corporate bodies to use in a similar way as they use other available mechanisms for economic jousting. In a similar way, the 'lobbying' system the USA has in politics (we normally call this 'bribery' here) seems to be another fine tool for the comporations to use.
Since Microsoft was found guilty via the findings of fact, why should their not be a penalty?
Or do you believe that companies that do things wrongs should not ever be punished? or we should make an exception for MS?
The dead bodies of companies and the wreckage of personal lives are out there for all to see. and we should ignore this?
feh
Competition is judged to exist not by the mere fact of the existance of the product, but the percentage of the market. The fact the Lotus and Corel do exist does not mean they are effective competition.
If you want to find out about the extremes this can go to, check out the histories of company towns, etc.
Agreed, some folks like having comfortable lives, with someone else doing their thinking for them. But ultimately this is not the best for the society. The profits obtained from this are in many cases only short term, and then you get blind sided when you need a lot more people with initiative, and all you got is a bunch of drones.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Ensure Samba fully inter-operate with Windows.
As a punishment for M$'s convicted transgression in the development of a free and open web technology, Windows web browers and servers must be fully compliant with free and open standards. No proprietary stuff.
To allow more competition in OS, M$ must disclose the API to ensure that Linux can read and write to user data area of NTFS. Dual boot of Linux/Windows must be guaranteed and made simple.
Er, hello Mr. 'I want to make my lame-ass anti-American point'.
.sig is ironic, or something.
>>If Microsoft were a small company or individual with no substantial wealth, this case would have been concluded years ago and a more fair and justified judgement would have been in place.
Er, 'If Microsoft were a small company or individual with no substantial wealth' it's hardly likely they would have been taken to court for monopolising a massive market through anti-competitive practices is it?
Mod parent down, mod me up. And the
I don't think that Microsoft should be forbidden from using 3rd-party components.
I mean really - how many people write any kind of program without using some kind of outside support, be it an interpreter, a compiler, or someone else's program (with GPL)
What should be required (IMHO) is that any agreement microsoft makes to using said 3rd party protocols should have to include the release of the protocol to the public in the same manner the other protocols are released.
In other words, anything licensed to M$ has to be treated in the same way something they own is. Which means that in their agreement with the company, they have to get that permission, or they can't use it. Which probably means they have to pay more for it. I know I would charge more if I had to release something to Microsoft that would allow them to write me out of the loop by writing their own program to deal with my protocol. I might not even let them use it at all.
"Who am I" and "Why are we here" are not the problems.
The problem is when someone asks "Why are they here."
This is a great opportunity for everyone to send in their intelligent and informed opinions on the matter.
If by "intelligent and informed" you mean "half-baked and uninformed", then you've got the right place. Otherwise, you should note that your email was inadvertently posted to Slashdot.
:)
ShoutingMan.com
Female Prison Rape in NY
7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a monopoly.
This is impossible. As most people, who are opposed to American Plutocracy understand, you cannot hinder corporations this way. You see, they are full and equal legal persons protected under the constitution - which is the ROOT CAUSE of the corporate domination of America... this is why there is no political will to break up the MS monopoly... the Plutocratic Government of America knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it... there can be no political will, now or ever in the future, to control capitalism (via anti-trust laws or anything else) as long as this situation remains in America.
See here: The Santa Clara Blues
IANALBPOO/. (IANAL but play one on slashdot) but I understand there is ANOTHER ruling (much more recent) which gauranteed that corporations are entitled to spend money, without interference to "lobby" (read: bribe) the political system... is anyone farmiliar with this case? I understand it uses SantaClaraCounty as a its legal foundation...
You have to bear in mind that MS is a public company, with a responsibility to share holders: making money.
If the 'shareholders' want to make a living, let them get fucking jobs.
Im tired of all this 'share-holder' value bullshit.
I work for a company that is SERIOUSLY faultering right now, and our (newly replaced) CEO kept up with the 'share-holder value' shite right to the end... while all of us employees constantly said "HEY, What about us poor bastards who do all the work!!!! Nevermind shareholders - I need this job to feed my family!"
Bottom Line: Fuck the Shareholders.
The point is not exactly being missed...it was discussed a few days ago here and here.
.NET goes through as planned and causes the projected troubles, there will be another court case, and it will take more time. In the end, I think that untimely justice is better than no justice at all.
As far as the court case goes...Our legal system is doing the best they can to deal with this problem, for which the trial started...I believe 3 years ago.
We want M$ to get more than a slap on the wrist...unfortunately this takes time. I'm sure if the
And remember...if you were innocent, you wouldn't want to be proven guilty cause some fat judge needed his big mac fix. -Corwin StormSinger
"Who am I" and "Why are we here" are not the problems.
The problem is when someone asks "Why are they here."
does it bother you that the USA legal system (as this case confirms) seems to consist of nothing more than 'who has more money eventually wins regardless'?
Yes, but I don't have enough money to do anything about it.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
This is also a great opportunity for Microsoft to do some more astroturfing. It's kind of disappointing that we aren't collectively taking this opportunity to march in a protest right up to the DoJ. Until MS can build some lifelike androids to stage a support rally, that's one of the strongest messages we could send. I guess it's understandable though, since this isn't exactly as confrontational or unexpected as something like Dimitry's arrest.
Any written comments relating to such proposal and any responses by the United States thereto, shall also be filed with such district court and published by the United States in the Federal Register within such sixty-day period.
2) The act does not actually require responses to be listened to. All that is required is that they be published in the Federal Register.
3) The biggest problem with the government case is the behavior of the judge.
4) The second biggest problem is that the case the DoJ made in the trial is not the one made out on Slashdot.
5) The appeals court reversed substantial parts of Jackson's 'findings of fact'. In particular they rejected the view that they were bound to consider a statement to be a statement of fact and not a conclusion. As a result Jackson's findings of fact mean very little because most of the findings slashdotters are enjoying are conclusatory opinions that would not have been binding on the new judge in the retrial.
Somewhere along the line the DoJ was captured by Sun, Netscape et. al. The legitimate case against the MSFT licensing arrangements was not given anywhere near the attention it deserved in the trial. Instead the DoJ case was largely made on the basis of Netscape's view of the injustices Netscape felt had been done to them.
It is not surprising then that the remedy is not what many on Slashdot would want. The DoJ did not bring a case against MSFT integrating the Web browser APIs deep into the operating system. In fact the DoJ explicitly denied that it was doing so because by doing so it could claim that MSFT was lying when it said it could not remove IE from the O/S. As a result we now have a court rulling that requires the user to be able to remove the IE user interface application but not the dlls it calls. The IE platform is absolutely untouched by the settlement.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
for those not fluent in International English:
...
Just how much weight
would individual comments have.
Especially those from non-US organizations.
What happens to MS affects not only those of you in the US but also a large amount of the rest of the world.
Would the Judge take into account opnions of non-US citizens?
Here are the good solutions that I have heard so far:
-Free Open File Formats
-Free Open Communication Protocols
-Free Open APIs
-No prorietary 3rd party file formats, API's, and communication protocols.
-60/90 day free an public pre-notice documentation of all changes and additons to Microsoft file formats, communications protocols, and APIs.
-Public Disclosure of OEM agreements
-"Flat rate" OEM agreements, so OEM's can bundle Windows any legal way they want and Microsoft has no recourse.
-Restriction of Licenceing agreements to "Copyright Only"
-Stop all bundleing with the OS. All aplications must be sold as a seperate package, or at least put on a seperate CD.
-Microsoft for a period of 5 years should not be able to invest in/buy out other companies.
-Microsoft must make public all agreements with hardware manufactures.
-The price of Windows must be artificialy price capped using a formula like PRICE = COST_OF_PRODUCTION*1.25 This will ensure that the consumer is paying a true "market" price for the product.
-Auction the rights to develop each Microsoft product for platforms that Microsoft does not support. Microsoft will then give the winner of each auction full acess to the product's source code under a NDA.
-No spinnoff of a Microsoft division can be made into a seperate company for the next 3 years.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Most politicians are in it for the power.
Sorry, good people get turned off and driven
away by politics early. The one's who put up
with the immorality, corruption and back stabbing
are flawed characters. Money rules politics.
Politicians are ruled by twisted special interests.
"This is a great opportunity for everyone to send in their intelligent and informed opinions on the matter"
What about those of us with stupid and uninformed opinions? Huh, huh? Why are we being left out?
This is democracy?
:+)
They REALLY need to be forced to open the .doc and other extensions for MS Office and have them stay open for some period of time so that ppl can create competing products...
Sigh. Time to test whether the Slashdot scoring system is really content neutral, or whether you have to be unconditionally pro-Linux to get heard around here. It is therefore with considerable trepidation that I post this point of view:
Regarding Ryan_Singer's remark: Personally I don't think we need the goverment to bring M$ down, capitalism will do it, Linux is inherently better and cheaper, people will find the better way to spend money.
You know, I'm not a fan of the Microsoft monopoly, but the point is that it's a monopoly, not that it's bad software. (Whether it is bad software is an opinion that people can reasonably disagree about.) I fail to see how the mere presence of Linux, as a single option, makes things better.
In their own ways, both Microsoft and Linux seem to me to be barriers to new market entry. Microsoft both because it is so commercially large and because of how it got there. Linux because it is so low-cost that it acts economically the same as if competitive "dumping" were occuring, making it hard for a radically different new market entrant to arise because it might have to be free also.
It seems to me that each of these contributes to locking out new competition other than that which happens due to incremental modification from Linux, probably the only option that can be accomplished cost-effectively. I worry that such incremental modification will lead (and has led) to a "hill-climbing" problem. I don't see new companies rushing to offer non-Linux competition, and I don't think it's because Linux represents a total optimum in the operating system design space.
A new company, wanting to offer a whole new approach, is at a major disadvantage in a market where an enormous amount of development cost of the competition (Linux, in this scenario) has been contributed free. The new company, not yet its own religion that attracts hoards of people wanting to contribute commercially valuable time just out of starry-eyed love, will have to pay salaries. And if one company has to pay salaries for development and another doesn't, that puts it at a competitive disadvantage to the Linux community, which seems to me to be its own kind of monopoly on contributed free work.
It's not enough to say "Linux is winning, so who cares about MS." The problem is lack of community that promotes true competition, not lack of an alternate operating system. Linux by itself is not proof to me that a community open to true competition really exists. If the world has only Linux, some may be happy, but those comfortable souls should not make the mistake that Bill Gates has made so many times when he says "The reason people buy our products is that they like us so much." Some people do buy Microsoft for that reason, and some people buy Linux for that reason, too. But if there are never new choices, some are buying because they have to get something and this is all they have a choice of. And that will be all the more true, not less, if Microsoft falls.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
- All agreements and contracts between MS and computer manufacturers should be declared null and void. The court should force Microsoft to enter into a fair agreement with PC vendors that does not force them to make users pay a "Windows tax" if they do not want Windows preinstalled on their new CD.
- The court should enforce that users of MS operating systems should be allowed to EASILY change or remove any default software component not needed for regular OS operation. This includes Internet Explorer, Virtual Machines (ie Java), Windows Media Player, firewalling software, etc.
- Microsoft software should be changed so that it does not "trick" users into signing up for features and services that they don't actually need, such as Passport.
- By default, all "net reporting" by Microsoft Software to MS should be turned OFF. Windows XP
activation codes should be disabled.
- Microsoft should be forced to open all of their protocols that are essential for connectivity between Windows and non-Windows machines.
This will prevent the "TCP/MS" situation that was rumored a few months ago.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Look at the DMCA.
Fight Spammers!
The API used to write Windows compatible programs needs to be fully documented. The WINE folks have run into a log of problems with undocumented function calls and other such things being used. Maybe a community letter from WINE developers and users (signed by thousands of people, sent to all news people) would make an impact.
Having open protocols is important, and it needs to be pointed out to the powers that be that the API used by Windows compatible programs is the most important protocol in introducing competition in consumer operating systems. Without the Windows APIs being accurately and openly documented Microsoft will always have a monopoly on the desktop. I suspect the same will be said of competition in xbox software in a few years time.
Hows this.
1) Forced Open Standards on all M$ apps.
2) Release whatever kneebreaking agreement M$ has with IBM over OS/2 Warp
3) Allow IBM to market Warp as IBM Windows with similiar name scheme (ME/2000/XP etc...)
Yes, this would create confusion for the customer but they would figure it out quickly enough. I think this would quickly create a huge competitor for M$ with backbone that has a BIG ax to grind.
What's the difference between G.W.Bush getting caught doing drugs, and all the other first-time offenders who got caught doing drugs and are currently rotting away in our jails?
G.W.Bush's daddy was rich.
When I submitted the same story?
2001-11-03 19:19:53 Public comment hearing on Microsoft settlement (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
Especially in light of the clock running on the public commentary period. Oh well, at least it is being discussed now, so I'll stop whining.
Dave
Uhm, also he never got caught doing drugs. He just - decades after the fact - refused to specifically deny using drugs. I'm an underage college student, and I won't deny using alcohol. Should I expect the FBI to read this message and arrest me later today?
It's a fact, Microsoft made a deal with the US government....Ashcroft spoke. Gates spoke. We all know it happened.
But what was the deal? What did Microsoft give up to get full control of the Internet?
What did the government want from Microsoft, and what did Microsoft give them?
Was it merely a campaign contribution in the 2000 election?
Or did Microsoft promise to provide the government with access to all the information they accumulate in the Hailstorm database?
Did Microsoft give the government the power to censor websites they think are being used by terrorists? With that power will they be able to shut down sites like the NY Times or the Washington Post if they say things that compromise the government's war effort?
Will Microsoft support an Internet tax?
What else? These are just the ideas that occurred to me as I thought about the possibilities this morning. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of.
(randomly played mp3 in winamp: Cold's "End of the World"...coincidence? a sign?)
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
[...]
As a European, I practically dismiss the US legal system as merely a tool for large corporate bodies to use in a similar way as they use other available mechanisms for economic jousting. In a similar way, the 'lobbying' system the USA has in politics (we normally call this 'bribery' here) seems to be another fine tool for the comporations to use." -nicsterrr
Ok, I'll go after the flamebait here.
Every legal/political system has this problem. If it looks like Europe doesn't have this problem it is because the government and big business are so closesly aligned that there is frequently no need to go to court. The deal gets made at dinner or the club and that is that. I suggest you look at Credit Lyonnaise, Airbus, the Telecom industry, the recent "privatisation" of British rail, and plenty of other examples to see how European governments and companies are tied together. One of the reasons it often looks worse in the US is because our legal system is open enough that we can see a lot of the problems on the TV or the frontpage. It is only recently that the EU even worried about monopolies at all. If this troll truly reflected reality, this case would never have been brought in the first place.
-John Van Voorhis
According to this article in the registry - http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22684.html - it will be possible for OEMs finally to offer Linux as an alternative to Windows, without any fiscal penalties from Microsoft.
So does that mean that we will see Dell offer PCs for 100 pounds less when you select Linux as your operating system? (Dell at the moment the cheapest PC that I could find, in Ireland anyway). This would be great for consumers, bringing the price of PCs to an all time low... or is it too good to be true? Could Microsoft find some way to secretly pressurise the PC manufactures not to do something like this?
ATT.
________________
All my sig are fjdklafjkldafjkldafdaklf
Uhm, you've missed the point though. The Linux community does _nothing_ to keep people from using other operating systems; in fact, they're more concerned about interoperability than M$ is.
Example: samba. Samba doesn't need to exist; it exists for the sole purpose of helping those that are required to use Windows boxes for whatever reason. Do we see any way to access NFS mounts from Windows, using Microsoft tools? No. Because M$ doesn't care about interoperating with other systems. It doesn't make them money. Of course, if a NFS client became massively popular for some reason, M$ would buy the company and integrate the software into Windows (and if they disagreed, implement it themselves anyway and run the company out of business), and then people would praise M$ for "listening to their needs".
The point is, M$ will only do something that _coincidentally_ seems to be the user's interest, when it benefits them (makes them money) as well.
This isn't how free software developers work. Many developers implement features in their code that is of little or no use to them personally, but that their users want. Thus, the developer doesn't necessarily benefit at all, but the users do.
It also doesn't take 100,000,000 mails to a developer to coerce them into doing something (like it would take $100,000,000 of sales of Product X for M$ to consider assimilating it into their own software). Generally once a developer recognizes that a pattern of requests has been established, and it doesn't conflict with his time or code, it'll get done.
It's funny, because this is the code that Microsoft is actually really good at writing. Their lawyers are worth every penny they're paid.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
The appeals court reversed substantial parts of Jackson's 'findings of fact'.
Umm, link please? You can't drop a bomb like that without some sort of supporting evidence.
Everything (as in EVERYTHING - from every source) said that they upheld the finding of fact, but reversed the penalty. I only glossed over the ruling, but I don't recall anything like what you're imlying.
Please provide some corroborating evidence for your claim.
Folks,
Anyone remember the previous monopolies that were broken up? oil? phone services?
The economy took a little hit, yes. But look where they are now. I know this has been said a million times, but some people still don't know. Look at the Carnegies, or any old money family...anyone with stakes in a monopoly still did well when monopolies broke up.
With MS, ideally you would have an OS, Office, and Services-related division. Maybe a misc. apps one, too...for stuff like IE and winmedia. The last one, the misc. apps one, would go first...sure it is a monopoly, but when windows doesn't include IE or WMP without an added on charge, that will be a happy day for me. (shrug), i know i hate MS. I see what they've done, and what they do, their ideas and their ideals, their plans. How can you not hate them?
I predict the Services division will go next. Apache is free. Without a monopoly pushing IIS...
The rest will be history. A future where Linux is supported as much as MS is, is a good one to me...who pays for WinXP and all its crap (do i need to list it?) when you can get a nice stable Linux...a good, strong peice of justice here and 2 more years for linux to mature. Now that's a great future. Cheap OS's. Open apps. Computing for cheap. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Re: The Linux community does _nothing_ to keep people from using other operating systems.
... Generally once a developer recognizes that a pattern of requests has been established, and it doesn't conflict with his time or code.
The issue isn't the use of other operating systems, it's the creation of them. First, GPL doesn't allow its technology to be used by vendors who will charge for their wares. I really have no opposition to such a restriction per se, because I believe all IP owners are entitled to control their code, but I find it inappropriate to ignore the fact that this does have an effect on competition. Presumably, in fact, that effect on competing vendors is the whole purpose of the GPL -- to impede a particular class of competition that the authors of GPL'd code simply don't like, since any other purpose the GPL has seems to be just as well served by simply making code public domain.
But second, and more importantly, it drives down the cost of commercial software. I think this is intentional also, at least with the designers of the GPL if not all its users, but if you want to argue otherwise, I won't quibble about intent. Nevertheless, I think it's the effect. And by driving down cost, especially when you artificially drive it below the cost of actually paying someone to produce the software, you inhibit competition by removing the incentive for new vendors to move into the area.
The hearts of many using the GPL may not be to lock out competition, but I think it takes more than good intentions to justify a claim that the effect is not to do so in spite of their wishes.
Re: It also doesn't take 100,000,000 mails to a developer to coerce them into doing something
To be honest, I suspect this is true of Microsoft, too. They probably just have a lot more or different things that conflict with their time or code. This comment sounds more to me like a political than a structural problem. This is inherent in competition. Any good Republican will tell you that only the Republican party listens to the will of the people, and any Democrat will tell you the same thing.
It's not the effect of the GPL and free software I'm bugged by so much as what I perceive as a false sense of moral righteousness about it. It's just a tool in a battle. A battle that has many legitimate points of view, not just one. A tool that has both positive and negative effects.
I don't know what the right answer is, but I know I don't find the GPL or open source to be the panacea it's made out to be.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
But the question wasn't about mathematical proofs, it was about making a convincing legal argument.
;-) And probably even President! Considering how GWB mangles his sentences, I'm not too sure that he can spell either.
I am aware that the ability to spell or write grammatical sentences is not considered important these days. I've been told there are many people at MIT who can't spell either. I'm not surprised at all. There are many fields like EE or math where the inability to spell or to express yourself doesn't affect your ability to solve the problems in those areas. Also, we now know that you can become Vice-President even if you can't spell
It isn't a matter of being kind or unkind; it's a matter of being realistic.
Nor is it a matter of discriminating against those to whom English is not their primary language - I have known plenty of U.S. and British-born citizens who couldn't write above a first-grade level to save their lives, too.
But the simple fact is this: if you cannot spell correctly, and construct proper sentences, in the language in which you are trying to communicate - be it English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, or Tagalog - then you will not be taken seriously by those to whom you are trying to communicate. And that's just the way it is.
I think MS should be forced to license all their software under the GPL. Then we don't have to worry about all the loop holes and work arounds that their lawyers can dream up. Simple huh ?
Europe is a big market, but not big enough to justify the cost of maintaining two product lines in order to behave in America and be anti-competitive in Europe. Remember that duplicating effort is expensive. Remember how PC manufacturers moved the "off" buttons from the front of all their computers to the side or back when Sweden mandated it, because they wanted to be able to sell computers in Sweden but didn't want to have two product lines.
Moreover, two other factors are involved: the european government, and other companies.
If Microsoft continued to behave badly in Europe after being forced into submission in the US, the European government would no doubt act. Also, other American companies would likely turn around to the American courts and say "see! Look! They're still misbehaving in Europe, and that's costing us customers there!"
However, first we have to see if they actually get any penalty or restrictions, or if they get handed a license to kill.
I don't think it is because of the GPL. Obviously somebody can write an os without using the GPL code in Linux. MicroSoft did, and all the other big computer compainies have an old Unix lying around they can fix up. Even things like Atheos seem to be written from scratch.
The lock-in is due to hardware support. Basically if you want any hardware acceleration, or even the ability to run much hardware at all, you either have to use MicroSoft or Linux. Even BSD is in trouble. On Linux itself this hardware support has kept all attempts to replace X on the sidelines.
The lock-in is also due to programmer's knowledge. Making a new system that is "innovate" by definition means it must be different than Linux or Windows, and that means there are no expert programmers for it. It also means it is hard to port code to it.
In a lot of cases Linux is causing exactly the same trouble as MicroSoft.
Serious reply: Worth reading
The money problem you mention is discussed toward the end of the essay. It's not an American problem, it's a world problem. I had to forgive the banners, the text is good. I'd also like to know what you think of it.
Peace.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
First, GPL doesn't allow its technology to be used by vendors who will charge for their wares.
:)
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your meaning, but you do know that it's is perfectly ok to sell GPL'd software, don't you? After all, that's what SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake et al do. You just can't use GPL'd code with non-GPL'd code, nor can you take it 'closed' then sell it.
However, regarding your main premise, which seems to be: Linux (and FS in general) present their own boundary to entry due to the fact that you can get the software for no monetary cost, provided you have internet access. This lack of monetary cost precludes a commercial entity from offering an alternative to Microsoft because if someone is going to switch from MS products, why would they pay when there is a (F)(f)ree alternative?
I think this concept is a valid one, but there is a reason why it is so. I think it goes right back to Microsoft in the first place (and other closed/commercial OS vendors to a much lesser extent). Windows (and now Office and Internet Explorer) have such a high monopoly barrier to entry that the only alternative product that could be created and survive is a Free one (or actually several Free ones, if you include the BSD's).
Please recall that there used to be 'traditional' commercial alternatives to Windows: From CP/M to DR-DOS, to OS/2 (and others I'm sure I'm omitting). They were all run out of business by Microsoft's predatory use of its monopoly (this point can obviously be debated, but the Appeals Court agreed with this premise unanimously, 7-0, and this was supposed to be the one court in all the US that was most likely to come down on Microsoft's side) Since there was no more commercail competition (short of $5-10,000+ Unix boxes), the market came up with an alternative that could not be killed or bought out. IMO, Microsoft created this situation by its behavior.
I believe that markets (or any large group of people) react very similarly to biological organisms. In this case, Microsoft is a bad element (I hesitate to use emotionally charged words like cancer or virus that carry their own ulterior connotations) which is controlling an inordinate portion of the market/organism, so the rest of the organism has been trying to take it down a notch or two. Finally, the only choice seems to be to "cut off their air supply" by attempting to kill their 2 main sources of revenue/sustenance: Windows and Office.
If these forces were to succeed absolutely and kill off Microsoft (highly unlikely and certainly not necessarily a good thing), then the mainstream software components we all use every day (OS, word processor, email, browser, etc.) would be Free, commodity products, and commercial vendors could focus on providing something tangible that actually requires true manufacturing: hardware (this is, of course, the main business of many of MS's competitors: IBM, Sun, Apple)
Summation: I think you're basically right, but the situation was created by Microsoft itself. Linux simply grew out of the situation as it existed. Regardless, there's certainly nothing that can be done about it now.
Cheers..............
My question to all North Americans: does it bother you that the USA legal system (as this case confirms) seems to consist of nothing more than 'who has more money eventually wins regardless'?
...Yes it does.. As a matter of fact as an American I am bothered by all of the hipocracy that we stand for here. These failings are becoming more and more evident daily.
Oooo! Look what I got in my INBOX again today:
Show You're Proud to be an American!
Wear a FREE American Flag T-Shirt or Display a FREE Car Window Flag!
On September 11, 2001 hijackers sent 4 airliners to devastating crashes into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the woods of rural Pennsylvania. This day drove terror into America, but we are fighting back with courage and heroism. We've taken a stand and are United against terrorism. Show the rest of the world we're proud to be Americans and nobody can push us around.
Get a Free American Flag T-shirt or Free Car Window Flag like the samples below. You only pay a small shipping and handling fee. You can even personalize your T-Shirt. Take a stand and order one today.
That may seem like I am being horribly off-topic, but it relates: America has given its soul and spirit to money. The God of America (you know, the one who likes bombing people for revenge and thinks America kicks ass) is money. Americans have given everything over to this God, and now we are falling apart at the seams.
As a European, I practically dismiss the US legal system as merely a tool for large corporate bodies to use in a similar way as they use other available mechanisms for economic jousting. In a similar way, the 'lobbying' system the USA has in politics (we normally call this 'bribery' here) seems to be another fine tool for the comporations to use.
..Yes.. The systems really sucks. Its getting worse. I miss being in Asia and having coversations with Europeans, especially after the events of September.
Equating the anti-competitive forces of MS with the barrier to entry created by Linux is not reasonable.
Does Linux add an extra hurdle? Of course. As does every single other alternative OS. The size of the hurdle depends on the features they offer. One of Linux's features is that it's free. For some, this is an excellent feature. For many, as we see by the current marketplace, this is not as important as ease of use and universality of applications.
A commercial alternative does have several advantages over a free system however. One being that improvements to the system are generally uniform throughout distributions. In Linux, developers make solutions to what they need, which is great, but trying to support these various combinations of solutions, some of which are better done than others, is a nightmare. A second advantage being a central point of reliable contact for problems and support. Companies like Redhat are trying to offer this, but they have to deal with the vagaries of supporting a system they really don't
control. Third, when money is involved there becomes a reason for complaints to be dealt with. If you're not a programmer and you have a problem with obscure function x, you're basically screwed unless some programmer person decides they're going to fix that problem. With a central point of contact, complaints can turn into action based on something other than a programmer's largesse.
These are just some of the reasons I think your statement is false. If Microsoft falls, competitive OS's will be able to arise that compete by including the features Linux does not possess. BeOS was growing for a time, so much so that they managed to convince major OEMs to include them on their systems. Had it not been for Microsoft's anti-competitve practices keeping that OS hidden from the purchasers, it may have become a serious contender in the OS world.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
that does protect the consumer
and doesn't give the impression that anti-trust laws in the US are worth nothing. (current international opinion)
kmfms.com
what does it stand for?
Kein Mitleid Für MicroSoft
or... No Pity For Microsoft
if you've ever wanted to know What's so bad about Microsoft?, then check em out.
Microsoft has lawyers for that :)
Do we see any way to access NFS mounts from Windows, using Microsoft tools? No. Because M$ doesn't care about interoperating with other systems.
First of all -- Microsoft sells a NFS client/server. There's also a bunch of third party ones, if no open source clients.
Second -- Samba is a great product, but massively overused in the Linux community. If you don't want Microsoft to dominate the network, don't use their protocols! Whining about SMB changes when there's perfectly good, open, acceptable alternatives is laughable. More laughable are the recommendations I've seen that you use SMB for Linux-to-Unix communication! You don't see an Novell shops staking their future on reverse-engineering foreign protocols.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Yes.
The rationale (as often stated to those of us who are not the heads of multimillion dollar companies) is that anyone is free to go out and amass as much money as possible, in which case they too can be Valued Members of Society and have laws bend to their favor.
It sucks, but it's not the only political system that sucks.
Capitalism: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Military dictatorship: Whoever has the guns makes the rules
Monarchy: Whoever wears the crown makes the rules.
Theocracy: Whoever speaks for God makes the rules
Patriarchy: Whoever has the penis makes the rules (often combined with all the above)
It wasn't a good idea for them to hard code the monetary values into the law. The value of money can change significantly over time. Ten million is a drop in the bucket for Microsoft. Of course the jail time sounds interesting.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
would be to require M$, from now to infinity, to publish ALL the protocols/APIs/perversions they make to standard communication protocols AND do the same for any completely M$ created protocols under GPL.
I don't give a crap for their software, per say, but I would like to see a termination now and forever, of "embrace and extend" simply for the purpose of breaking what is fully working and OK - in order to lock people in to M$ shitcode.
If M$ can't produce propriatory APIs or communication protocols, they would have to accept real competition because ANYONE could produce fully interfunctioning alternatives to any M$ app. Only the best would survive and M$ would actually have to work and, for the first time EVER, innovate and produce robust code. They would never again be able to artificially lockout an alternative app because the app doesn't (and cannot) know the communication protocols.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
After major breakups, the stockholders almost always made more money than before the breakup. The combined value of the two (or more) companies after the breakup is usually more than the value of the original company. Don't cry for the stockholders, they'll make a killing.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
In addition to making sure your voice is heard among the public Tunney Act comments sent to the Court, and voiced to your state's Attorney General, I recommend sharing your thoughts directly with the DoJ's Antitrust Division:
From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm [usdoj.gov]:
If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov [mailto]
Impress them with your eloquence; you might help convince the DoJ to withdraw their settlement or at least be a little bit smarter the next time 'round - IMHO, future federal antitrust action against Microsoft is almost certain; it's just a matter of when.
Some of the suggestions are quite good. Others are not so good. If you've read my other posts, you know I firmly believe MS is guilty, but that I also want to see the situation fixed properly. I don't want to see the court or the media distracted by unworkable or absurd suggestions.
-Restriction of Licenceing agreements to "Copyright Only"
Not likely. It would be too restrictive, especially in areas where MS does not posess a monopoly. Let them put what they like in the EULA, as long as they comply with the court's decisions on the important matters.
-Stop all bundleing with the OS. All aplications must be sold as a seperate package, or at least put on a seperate CD.
This has been debated to death. There is no objective way to decide what should be included with the OS and what should be a separate application. This is just unworkable.
Microsoft for a period of 5 years should not be able to invest in/buy out other companies.
I'm not qualified to comment on the legality of this point, but it does seem questionable. Now I know that when a company is split, it can't re-merge for some period of time. But I'd like to hear what others have to say on this issue. What pitfalls are there? Are there any precedents for this?
The price of Windows must be artificialy price capped using a formula like PRICE = COST_OF_PRODUCTION*1.25 This will ensure that the consumer is paying a true "market" price for the product.
Umm... it's not a "true 'market' price" if it's set artificially. Correct the other factors that allow them to price their product artificially high and coerce consumers, and this price-setting will be unnecessary.
Auction the rights to develop each Microsoft product for platforms that Microsoft does not support. Microsoft will then give the winner of each auction full acess to the product's source code under a NDA.
If you make their APIs, protocols, and file formats open, this problem goes away.
No spinnoff of a Microsoft division can be made into a seperate company for the next 3 years.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish. Although there should be a clause in the ruling that would make these rules apply to whomever receives transfer of Microsoft "intellectual property." Just so that they can't simply sell Windows off to another corporation without transferring the obligations as well.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The problem with the case and settlement is that it is not likley to address the unfair advantage MS anticompetitive practice has given it over the years.
A real settlement would take this gained longterm advantage away from MS. But how do you do that.
The game of chess uses the concept of sacrifice, so does the game MS has played, but this ain't chess and it was proven that MS does practice sacrifice.
What would have things been like had MS not done all the stuff we know it did, even beyond the few points the case is all about?
Since nobody can know that, then perhaps the most fair thing to do is to cause MS to suffer the unfair competitive actions it applied to others. What you can say is an eye for an eye justice.
Most of all, whatever the settlement is, the statement "The Computer Industry will NOT abuse the consumer, otherwise it will suffer strick penalties" needs to be made loud and clear.
.
Microsoft is a monopoly in the software industry. Microsoft doesn't care what software its selling, as long as its selling software... That being said, its ultimate goal would be to sell all software known to man. It strives towards this goal by heavyhanded competition.
The little guys on the otherhand want to make specific products for different sectors of the market. If the little guy fails, or doesn't succeed in capturing a sizable sector of the market, then M$ dismisses them... But if a little guy is starting to roll into a big market that M$ couldn't see, then M$ will push hundreds of coders and millions into the market.
The competition between someone just starting up and a little guy is not fair.
One may think that this accelerates growth because the little guy would have taken longer to get into the market... But the truth of the matter is that M$ will almost never develop on the software again once there is no competition.
This is why M$ is bad.
God spoke to me
>s there a web site dedicated to this matter?.
There's a start at: www.msfree.com
Additions and corrections would be welcome.
You Just Said Intelligent, Informed, Comment and Microsoft in the same sentence - in a slashdot post !!!
Oh god im laughin so hard - what makes you in a million years think any of the mental midgets on this site can think above UGGHH MS Bad LInux good and post and intelligent comment.
Dont make a better OS, Just spend all your time bagging the other
Please make this known to your court (IANAA - American!):
MS uses Encryption in some APIs - between DLLs, for example. Documenting the interface is useless if:
* you have to sign your function call parameters,
* reverse-engineering for MS' secret key is illegal!
One thing that worries me is the potential for real damage to be done through the usual screwing around, as it were.
We who read and post on Slashdot, Linux Today and other web sites are more than familiar with the folks whose main contribution to any discussion thread is "MS sux, Linux R00Lz" and other equally insightful commentary. And we are all used to the idea of simply blanking that stuff out and scrolling down a bit more to find a comment that is actually worth reading.
However, the general public and most importantly judges or judges secretarial or research staff are likely not as inured to this sort of thing as we are. I am afraid that when a site is posted for comment submission, we'll have a Slashdot-type of response there, where there will be 40 "MS sux, d00dz" comments for every comment that actually has solid value. Unfortunately, what may then happen is that the person of real influence who is reading these comments for insight into the situation will get tired of reading the silly stuff and just write the whole thing off as "what a stupid bunch here, nothing worth considering on this site" and that's that. Any truly worthy input will be lost and ignored in the noise, as it were.
I would like to take this opportunity to request, no, to IMPLORE the people who enjoy making silly remarks and such on Slashdot and elsewhere to PLEASE refrain from such antics on the official comment page when it becomes available. PLEASE! This is one of the few times where playing about and acting the fool on a web page can do some REAL, SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE to a real-world situation. It would be more than a shame if something like this happened.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Yes it was a typo.. and no, I am not astroturfing!.. You can see it as me trying to affect a desision that will have impact on me. I think it's only right for me to have a say even if I'm not a US citizen. A lot of the Internet legistlation is US centric although it affects the rest of the world, ever thought about that?
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
Worth nothing ... the source code for Windows CE is available for completely free on the Microsoft website. I have a copy. However it is nearly useless because:
So you'll also have to point out delivery method, format, redistribution, and licensing.
Well, for a start, read the provisional PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT.
That should give you some idea of what it's likely to be like. Then pick it to pieces from knowledge of acknowledged Microsoft behaviour, then send that in to Our Dear Little Friends at the relevant court, and just add that you're some sort of techie - give specific details if that's what you want.
Just so ODLFs can't be bullied with the famous counter-argument that they are totally ignorant SOBs. After all, if they are being advised by the entire world of technology,
No harm in trying. Give it a go.
Next time voe for a Democrat.
War is necrophilia.
why has this been modded down? It seems like a perfectly reasonable point of view!
- Ohio
- North Carolina
- New York
- Michigan
- Kentucky
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Louisiana
- Wisconsin
and the nine states that did not are:It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.