Slashdot Mirror
Cringely On Microsoft Settlement
sandalwood writes: "Robert X Cringley has a new article about the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. He includes information on where to write to make your views known (the 'proposed Final Judgement' accepts comments from the public for a period of 60 days after it's been published)."
Posting AC due to paranoia 8S
/.'ers comment to the DoJ (read, take action and not just wish you could) about this it will crash and burn like a corrupt copy of Windows 95. Read the Article, it does have some instructions at on where to go from here for the commonfolk. Also, a non-partisan board is a Good Thing(tm) in this whole mess.
MSFT is lobbying HARD on this to get this settlement through cause they know they will come out smelling like roses in the end, but with the growing awareness of the language of the settlement, it seems highly unlikely that it will breeze through. If enough people like
Then again, I am just preaching to the choir on this, right?
Is this legal FUD practiced by both sides of this case?
My solution? Require Microsoft to develop its own technology without outside help for 5 years. They can't acquire technology, buy companies or lease patents. See how long they last...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Thought some people might wanna see one of the many related links I have scattered around from rejected stories and junk:
Rep. Ed Markey's letter to John Ashcroft (pdf) in opposition to the settlement.
A red flag should go off when a Slashdot poster, or comment acceptor chooses a text with a link identical to one in an earlier story within a certain time period. Sort of a "Warning: Are you sure this hasn't been posted before? Check the story below to be sure this isn't a duplicate." message.
Yes, even the kings of slashdot could benefit from idiot-proof software.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
read about it here.
I saw this today and it had a very interesting tidbit of information. In the settlement, Microsoft is valuing the software part at $840 million. Apple contends that actual cost of that software would be more like $1 million and only 5%-6% of the value of the settlement would be able to be used to buy non-Microsoft technology.
No, that is precisely the sort of thing MS wants. Publishing the APIs merely keeps people tied into the MS operating system world. It does nothing to address the Barrier To Entry issue on other platforms.
I am considering what sort of Public Comment form to submit to the court. The only thing I can think of that will address the Barrier To Entry issue is to prohibit MS from releasing any middleware product that competes with a product that has previously been subjected to illegal anticompetitive pressure by MS. As far as I can tell, the only solution is to force MS to completely withdraw Microsoft Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Passport. Completely prohibit them from the market. Let Quicktime/Real, Netscape/etc, and Kerberos continue without any MS competition. MS must not be allowed to use the power and the cash hoard it accumulated in its OS monopoly to move into new areas. Deny them the fruits of their illegal efforts.
Cringely's new article comes out every Thursday at the I, Cringely website.
::Colz Grigor
You can add an automatic link to the newest article from your Slashdot Homepage Preferences. Scroll down to the Customize Slashboxes tab and add I, Cringely.
My proposal is this: rather than having to submit a story about Cringely's latest article (as is done every week) in order for the article to receive acceptance by a Slashdot editor in order for it to become a story and receive a Slashdot forum, why not just have an automatic forum placed at the bottom of the I, Cringely slashbox? Every Thursday, a new forum is created for the new article, and there's no need to submit the story to the editors and wait until Sunday to post our comments. Kind of like the way the Slashdot Poll is handled.
--
I mentioned in my previous reply that I wasn't comprehensive enough in what I said there. I agree with you that they should have to publish formats / etc to keep out the unfair barrier to entry on other platforms.
However I must disagree that MS Media Player, IE, and Passport are illegal efforts. I am wholly in favor of monetarily penalizing the living daylights out of the bastards to account for unfair business practices. But a lot of Microsoft's software is where it is because it really is better than the competition.
What CODEC did the pirates, who could choose any one they want to swap pirate video, choose to use? Quicktime Sorenson? RealMedia? No, Media Player.
Taken to the ludicrous extreme, you could construe Microsoft's "illegal product tying" of WordPad / Calc / Paint / CHKDSK as unfair competition against Wordperfect / Mathematica / Photoshop / Norton Disk Doctor.
Hate Microsoft for the right reasons. The decent software they write isn't one of them. (wooo, will I ever be modded down for this one.)
o/~ Join us now and share the software
It's too late -- it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
/. and k5. k5 is much better run. I wish the /. community would, all at once and together, move over to k5. But i personally don't read k5. Why? Because i don't have time to read both /. and k5, and i'm forced to choose /., despite the fact that it sucks, because they have the community mindshare.
Look at
Classic network effects - competitors can't reach critical mass.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Competition isn't so much from large corporations, but rather from 2 guys in a garage. Look Linux and other open source projects, they come from individual efforts.
The most dangerous guy in the world is one with computer access, and an ability to write a killer app, like the original MS basic. That is what Bill Gates is worried about.
The API's need to be available to anyone with USD $50 at a bookstore.
Do you know HOWMS Word became the dominant word processor?
When Win 3.1 was released the ONLY company that knew the APIs as Microsoft. Word Perfect couldn't get their product working. That is how Word took over from Word Perfect, and Excel took over from Lotus 123.
Is that the "free market"? Or is that an ILLEGAL MONOPOLY excercising monopoly power to crush competition?
What really strikes me about the libertarians and Republicans is that they didn't have these philosophical arguments about the government picking on poor little Microsoft until Microsoft started spreading the influence cash around.
Just because Big Bill isn't going "Bwahahahaha" the whole time, doesn't mean that M$ ain't evil. Your definition sounds more like a cartoon stereotype than a reasonable working def. Putting your profits ahead of the life, health, and freedom from pain of any number of others? *That's* evil.
Would you say that a corporation that considers the welfare of people, whether workers, consumers, or general public, as unimportant, to be evil? I would, and that to me makes Union Carbide evil. They exemplify what I consider to be values that are *morally wrong*, ie evil. Remember too that many of the atrocities committed in this world weren't committed out of a desire to make people suffer: they were motivated by some other desire, and the suffering of others was considered negligible. *That's* evil, not some barking mad Evil Overlord with plans to take over the universe.
I'm not sure that I'd consider M$ evil, but I"m damned sure they're bad for a lot of reasons. This "everything goes in the market" crap is foolish and irresponsible: capitalism is an *economic* theory, remember, and offers no guarantees as to morals. Lots of things can be (and have been) justified in the name of profit, and I'm damned sure I'd call some of those outright evil. Responsible adults should consider the consequences of whatever they do, and accept the responsibility for same: saying "Oh, I'm innocent, I was just after a profit" is cowardly and selfish.
End rant. Sorry, but there's too damned much rights and too little responsibility in some of these arguments. If we can hold wee script kiddies responsible for *their* actions, why not CEOs? Why not directors? They make the decisions, for god's sake. And get paid handsomely for doing so.
Recently, I was told to seek out and find a decent computer for my cousin for a Christmas present. After searching around, I found that Dell had the best systems.
:) When it comes to laptops, your SOL. Windows or no computer.
To make a long story short, I was told by the person taking my order that I am required to purchase a copy of Windows XP with the new system. I told him that I wasn't going to put Windows on that machine, it would be a Linux only system. The guy didn't really care. If I wanted them to pre-install a copy of Red Hat, they would charge me quite a bit. Mainly, becuase I would need to buy a higher up machine. Either way, I already own (Haven't used in years) a copy of Windows 98. Why should I buy required to buy another copy when I already own a copy (older yes, but it would work if I had to) of Windows. I am being charged $200 for a OEM version of XP. If I removed Windows XP, and install another OS, then decied to go back to XP. (Not like I would) I would have to call Dell for an authorization number. I am not sure how true it is, but it pisses me off to say the least.
I think this should be apart of the settlement as well. If I don't want an OS installed, or there custom software. I shouldn't have to pay for it. The computer comes with a few other applications that I have no choice but to pay for. Most of which, is MS products. Why do I have to pay for a copy of MS Office, when I would use Star Office if anything at all.
Thats like buying a TV (just a normal TV) and having the salesmen tell me I am required to purchase a cable hookup on the spot. I have no choice, other then not buying the TV.
Once I got the computer, its littered with stickers giving disclamiers and license numbers for all the MS products I didn't even want. On the side of the computer is a lable with the XP license number AND a warenty number. Which, I can't remove or I loose the warenty. Which, IMO, is complete BS. Don't mind me, I am just sick and tired of dealing with MS these days. I want to run something else, and keep getting backed into the wall. Yes, I could have build the computer for her. But, my family just wanted to buy it right off the bat, and not worry about fixing it them selfs. (More like me fixing it
Something seriously needs to be done.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Oh, goody, another anti-MS rant.
How does this settlement help Be's stockholders? Microsoft was FOUND GUILTY of ILLEGALLY controlling the market - resulting in Be going out of business and Microsoft having, is it $26 or $36, BILLION in the bank.
Correlation != causation. If I weren't using Windows, I certainly wouldn't be using Be - nor would many others. How dare MS actually allow a competing company to go out of business? They should have floated Be a loan, to keep them around, because as we all know businesses like to have competition!
And the BIGGEST COST of some computers now is the cost of Windows. What about some penalty to be used to compensate all of us who have paid so much money to Microsoft because of this ILLEGAL monopoly?
I'm sorry to say this, but if you can't figure out how to acquire a computer without Windows on it, all it takes is a trip to your local library or to your local geek teenager's house to learn how to build a computer. Most people who buy computers with Windows preinstalled - WANT a computer with Windows preinstalled. They don't want to have to fuss with "what operating system should I use?" or "how is Debian different from Redhat?" They want to turn the computer on, type their letters to their families in Word, get on AOL, or play Half-life.
Not to mention that Microsoft, like any other company in the world, should be free to sell their product for whatever they want. This "Microsoft is a monopoly" stuff - despite the judgment of the court - is crap. They didn't count Macs, didn't count servers, and this was a few years ago, before the rise of linux. Basically, all they said was "Microsoft has a monopoly on the operating systems of all computers with Microsoft operating systems on them." If Microsoft's product is priced too high, people won't buy it. Really, they won't. (They'll probably just pirate it - even XP isn't pirate-proof.)
And they used this ILLEGAL monopoly to force us all into using their desktop applications, which now cost about FOUR TIMES what the would cost if there was competition.
Do you have any documentation here, any proof that we'd be paying 1/4 of the current costs for their applications? Was this a proven fact in court proceedings? How do we know that all applications of similar quality would not be priced just as high? Do you have some kind of "market clairvoyance" we're not aware of? And if so, can you give me stock tips?
What about compensating everyone who has had to fork over extra cash to pay for their products?
Define "had to." Did MS put a gun to your head and say "You have to buy Windows"? Were there not options - albeit a bit more difficult - to buy an OS-less machine? You have not been forced into anything - even the fact that you own a computer is YOUR CHOICE. Choosing to use MS products may have been the wiser thing for you to do, but you can't blame them for being the smarter choice.
And what about the companies that had competing products? What about compensating them?
Compensating them for what? Going out of business? Not being good at competing? Why does MS owe it to every competitor they have now to make sure they stay in business? Does MS owe their employees jobs? And who can honestly say that the competitors' products wouldn't have failed in the long run? If a company other than MS had come out with the IE browser - it would still be better than Netscape. Tell me, how was it bad for consumers to get a free web browser rather than having to pay for it? Tell me, how is it bad for consumers to be able to view movies in a single program that is built into the OS, flashy, and not have to worry about "I need this program for avi movies, and this program for mpg, et cetera."
The only people Microsoft owes anything to is their stockholders, and that is to create the most profit possible while staying within the law. If they break the law, they should be punished - but only for the damage their lawbreaking can be proven to have done. None of this "Microsoft is really big so they deserve to go down" crap.
InigoMontoya(tm)
This signature is self-referential.
I find it just increadable that MS is found guilty of anti-competative practices for among other things giving away software at no cost, and the punishment includes giving away software at no cost!
Realy smart, because you gave away your software, placing your stuff on almost every desktop in the world We'll punish you by letting you teach hundreds of thousands of school kids to use your software. Hell let's take it farther, we'll make a law that if a drug dealer is caught giving free drugs to school kids to get them hooked, the punishment is to take a way the drugs and give them to the school kids for free!
I guess that this is the difference between an air-head and a vacuume-packed head! They just don't get it do they.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds