Slashdot Mirror
Talk to the Man Who Wants to Oversee Microsoft
Imagine "campaigning" for a job that doesn't exist, may never exist, and is sure to be full of heartburn for anyone who takes it on. Stephen Satchell is a self-declared candidate for the three-person committee the Feds might appoint to ensure Microsoft's future good behavior. Satch is certainly qualified; he's been online nearly forever, he's worked with computer operating systems darn near as long as computers have had operating systems, and he's certainly not afraid to speak his mind. But even the best-qualified job candidates need to be interviewed before they are chosen, and Satch has consented to have Slashdot readers conduct the initial interview in this hiring process. One question per interviewer, please. We'll email him 10 of the highest-moderated questions, and post his answers next week.
Do you have any special agenda to get across or have anything for/against Microsoft that would make it so you were not impartial in your oversight of any federal rulings? As much as most people hate them this needs to be done in a fair and impartial way. WIll you be able to be fair and impartial?
Do you Gentoo!?
Do you feel that it is possible to have a unified monolithic Microsoft exist in the market without being anti-competetive? Specifically, if the United States government leaves Microsoft as-is (no "break-up") do you feel it is possible to regulate a company that in the past has shown no respect for government intervention?
Of course, certain personalities are more interested in making policy decisions than technology decisions, as well as vice-versa.
Do you plan to stand over Gates and Balmer cracking the anti-trust whip, or do you intend to deal more with the executive board as a whole, saying 'You can't do that' to certain policy decisions.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
What do you think of Microsoft's C# language compared to Java, is MS just cloning Java in an attempt to make it extinct. And if so, could you do anything to stop it if you had the position?
Shh.
I, for one, do not apply for a job without first doing research into the exact nature of my duties, responsibilities, and most importantly, authority.
Here it becomes critical as (with the first suggested settlement) the comittee may not have very much authority to actually do anything in the event of a agreement violation.<br>
My question is: if you were to be appointed to this position, what authority to remedy faults in existing or future products would you request?
Do you like Japanese imports?
Why would you want this job?
Guvegrra?
Just one of the standard interview questions, I guess, but I personally would like to see Microsoft working on their "Quality" as opposed to the "Quantity" of software. I wouldn't hate MS so much if I couldn't easily slam their products like I can now. Microsoft OSs don't have good uptimes. Microsoft products have security issues out the wazoo. Microsoft has their hands in everyone's pockets, but they're not trustworthy (as far as quality software goes).
Q: Where do you see Microsoft in 5 years?
Q: What will you change about Microsoft if you were CEO?
Is this a joke? Seriously.
Why bother.
What is in place to prevent Microsoft from potentially bribing you or other members of the commitee? Would you turn down 7 figure offers for the good of the computing community?
Do you think other operating systems have a chance to actually compete with microsoft?
What operating system do you use (be honest)?
If you are using Windows, what can other OS's do to make you switch?
If you aren't using Windows, what made you switch?
Has anyone really just asked "One Question Per Post"? I guess these are all related and can be answered all together... sorry.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
... That the only monopolistic practices of Microsoft are those that were publicized by the suits?
For example: Isnt it a monopolistic practice to make the Kerberos Login protocol closed so only Windows workstations can connect to Windows servers??/ Isnt that illegal leveraging into the computing server market?
Anotherone (although maybe immmaginary): Microsoft Passport will be a server side and client side technology. It will implement the server side only in Microsoft web servers and it will probably be imposible (by licencing lock-out) to implement them in a UNIX server. Isnt that illegal monopolistic leveraging into the web server market?
Alex
NO SIG
Are you concerned that tying yourself to Slashdot, a known haven for us *nix freaks that are generally hostile towards Microsoft's actions, will harm your chances of obtaining this position, as it would require that those appointing the position perceive you as "objective" ?
Hell, I declare myself a candidate the job. Send me ten questions and I'll answer them. :)
My understanding is that the proposed committee has one chosen by MS, one by the government, and those two pick the third.
So what's the process to go from "self-declared" to serious contender for one of the slots?
In what areas/functions must Microsoft be resricted in order for it not to violate anti-trust rules in the future?
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
"First, let me introduce myself. My name is Stephen Satchell, and I've been a professional practitioner of Computer Science since 1971. I have been an observer of several industry standards committees..."
Yep. He'll fit right in at Microsoft, and he can make tons of new industry "standards".
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
dear sir, have you ever used a commodore to download movies to your chicken coop?
-junis from afghanistan
Please, while a vocal minority of underwashed "geeks" with poor social skills may be clamoring for a return to the "Dark Ages" of the command line where a freakish ability to memorize long arcana was the primary talent needed for computer administration, the masses of America, the Joe Sixpacks, the MCSE's, and the VB developers want you to remember just who it was that brough a GUI to America.
Why in the world would you *volunteer* for this no-thanks sort of job? Keep in mind that one-third of the population will think you're doing too much, one-third will think you're not doing enough, and one-third won't care.
Microsoft has continually (especially recently) been forging its way into new markets. First it was new software markets (MS Office, Games, home finance), then its hardware division, and now completely new fields such as console gaming and television. Microsoft's partnership with NBC gives them a hands up on the competition to start with. This fact, along with their corporate muscle and financial backing, could potentially allow them to gain a very solid position in the television industry and others.
What steps would you take to ensure that they do not become a monopoly in more than one industry?
***
"I either want less corruption, or more chance
to participate in it." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Surely, the chance exist that wou won't get the position. What are you going to do if that's the case? Are you going to spend more time in advocating alternatives to Microsoft's products? Or are you going to mope in a corner?
One reason for Microsoft's monopoly is the proprietarity of their operating system. Conversely, the reason why open source products such as Linux work so well is that the operating system itself is publically available, while companies can use it to make money off of support, documentation, and separate resources which improve the use of Linux (i.e. HardDrake, Red Carpet, etc). This allows an economic model of computing in which competition is possible, and it means that programs written for Linux will work under most distributions, thus taking the software industry out of the hands of a single all-powerful giant.
What would your plans for Microsoft be in this regard? Obviously, having MS open up the Windows source is not a realistic goal, but do you feel that there is any way to establish a set of non-proprietary operating system standards that would re-enable competition in the desktop market?
/* Steve */
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
Given their previous disregard for laws and authorities, what processes would you need to see in place to be confident that Microsoft was doing what it told you?
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
I know Bob Cringely said that he wanted you to do it. Do you want to do it, or are you being railroaded? What do you think your powers will encompass? Why do you think that your presence on this committee will have more than a "spitting in the ocean" effect?
We have a problem. The nature of business is to be competitive. Once a company gets a certain size it is expected to be socialistic instead of capitalistic? Who should measure?
I read the W3C submission by Stephen Satchell and like what he says. But that is beside the point. All he or anyone else in that capacity can be expected to do is hinder the business actions of the company they oversee. I think the UK tried that and failed in the 60s/70s.
Microsoft may railroad competition, but it is not a railroad. You can choose a different track if you like.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In a typical capiltalist world, businesses are kept in check by the market and the government, and can't become monopolies. How do you believe Microsoft surpassed thse checks?
While I certainly hate to see something like this happen to MS (Massive ammounts of sarcasim in tone)
Could this not be seen as an unfair move by the government towards MS by the business world?
If this sort of thing were to happen more often (government putting ppl in place to watch a company) what is to stop the government from controling the companies and putting whoever they want out in front?
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
I always thought it was
Recursion:(n); see Recursion.
What are your feelings on the proposed settlement and what, if any, changes would you make to it?
Briefly explain why you feel that the U.S. Government and the American people can trust you to oversee such a large operation. Furthermore, do you feel that you can accurately monitor the operations of a company that has the financial resources and manpower to conceal much, if not most of its operations from a small, federally regulated group.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Microsoft is sure to test their boundaries and see how far the overseers will let them go. How much would Microsoft have to stray from the new regulations before you make some noise? Would you be tough and bring to attention the most minor of infractions? Or would you be more lenient and use your judgement to make sure the intent of the regulations are observed?
I imagine you can give us a good reason to pick you. But why do you think the United States Government should be motivated to pick you as one of the three candidates?
I am also a self-declared candidate for this non-existent position for a yet to be agreed upon settlement.
If you were Bill Gates, how would you go about expanding your monopoly to true world domination?
There are certain people that would be bad to include. Microsoft zealots or people who are extremely favourable to big business are not good candidates, as they would most likely be willing to let some of MS' possible future transgressions slide.
At the same time, Open Source zealots or Microsoft haters are also poor candidates because they may go towards the other extreme: punishing MS for the slightest problems or trying to dramatically change the way MS operates.
What is needed is a nice symbiosis of the two viewpoints, someone who is well-versed in such matters and isn't afraid to play the Devil's Advocate, so to speak, but is also objective. How do you see yourself on this scale, and if you're more one the side of one extreme, how do you justify your pursuit of this position?
There is no escape from The Muffin.
The fact that MicroSoft has a monopoly seems to be self evident.
I have attempt to introduce other products into my business and have been unable to do so, primarily due to formating errors when viewing MS Office Documents.
How viable an option would it be to, rather than breaking up MS, force them to release just the specs on how their office documents are coded?
This would give users a choice and could allow for some competition.
Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
Besides the obvious restraints discussed in the media, what additional restraints do you feel are needed to permit fair compitition against Microsoft?
"Your having a bad day when the voices in your head put you on hold"
Are you a proponent of porting Microsoft's tools to other environments? For example, would you be in favor of MSVS for Linux, or IE for Linux?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
What makes you think you, or anyone else for that matter, is capable of resisting the temptations of corruption? Microsoft after all is in the unique position ot tempt and corupt almost anyone... (You know the old joke "How much money to get you to kill some one?") So in other words... What is your price?
I would rather be ashes than dust!
You have done the entire free world a great service, and corrected a great injustice by denying a cowardly anonymous coward the lamest of first posts. You should be as proud of yourself, as we are of you.
At one point there was a proposal to break MS into Operating Systems and Applications. This was an attempt to address the fact that the "OS" part of MS seems to be primarily focused on producing a platform that favors the products produced by the "applications" part of MS - instead of producing the most useful and interoperable operating system. What do think are the prime conflicts of interest within MS and how would you begin to manage them without a break-up?
Mr. Satchell,
I poked around the net a bit trying to do a bit of research about you (Google's cache of your page at fluent-access.com, which seems to be down right now, and the Amazon entry on your book on Linux IP stacks)
What do you think of Ralph Nader's positions on Microsoft, and his qualifications to be on this committee as well?
And what do you think of Richard Stallman's proposal for dealing with them?
o/~ Join us now and share the software
In this job you would not have power to determine the remedy, only to enforce it. Is the remedy clearly defined (and adequate)? How much power do you believe you will truly have, given that MS will surely follow the letter of the remedy, while attempting to foil the intent of it: for instance the portions which only require MS to share interoperation documentation to commericial entities, as opposed to all software developers?
-Adam
"His cook was goosed, as ordered sir."
In a nutshell, list some projects and experiances that would make you qualified for this job, and why they make you qualified.
Maskirovka
To break Microsoft's chokehold on the industry will send their stock into a tailspin, cause their R&D cycle to slow, and cause a chaotic move for power in various niches by everyone from giants such as IBM to various smaller companies that most people have never heard of. This will cause ripples (or shockwaves) in everything from the Dow Jones Industrial Average to unemployment figures to the number of dotcoms that show up and fail at trying to corner a niche to the price of new computers.
My question for you, then, is the following: If you do assume a role such that you oversee Microsoft's compliance with federal guidelines, how will you keep the ripple effects caused by your enforcement in check, and how will you justify the ripples that inevitably are created to the American people?
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Microsoft has managed to avoid scrutiny by companies, courts, governments and even users. Many allegations made in the trial, such as "knifing the baby" remarks alleged by Netscape, would simply not be visible, by simply looking at Official Policy Documents. In fact, probably very little actual policy DOES appear in their Official Policy Documents.
In short, you can't hunt ghosts with an electron microscope. You need knowledge of what the right job is, and then you need the tools to do it.
Do you even remotely imagine that this is even possible?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Would you require that some of his magic itenms (e.g. his "Polo Shirt of Thalkettoth, which grants a +5 saving throw against anti-trust litigation") be taken away from him?
Tom.
Oh arse
one of the stipulation of the 3 judge/panelists is that they be employees of Microsoft.
What is your feeling on that?
Personally I think that is an extreeme conflict of interests. In the same vein as choosing thier "punishment".
And, what is the most *glaring* issue about Microsoft that needs changing in your opinion?
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Where do you see the software service industry in 10 years? Let me narrow this down a bit, so that it is something that does not require a tome for a response.
What do you forsee as "essential services" to be provided by software for the home in 10 years? For the private sector in 10 years? What kind of market would support those services, and how will (or would) it be regulated?
As I see it, the job of overseeing Microsoft can only succeed if it has a definite goal in mind that involves transforming the company and then relinquishing control. If Microsoft is still overseen by the government in 30 years, while its competitors are free to manage themselves, this will not have been a success.
What things have to take place at Microsoft before it will no longer be a special exception that the government has to personally regulate?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Back during my college interview days: If you could be any kind of fruit, what kind of fruit would you be?
BTW, isn't MS famous for its off-the-wall interview questions, like why is a manhole cover round, etc? Anyone know of any other examples?
What sort of displinary powers do you think you should have?
W9x:Thanks for the make-work project Bill.
This is actually a pretty good question, perhaps not worded in the best way, but a good question nonetheless.
Does anyone really know what powers he would have if he were given this job? Is this a all 3 must agree to make a ruling type thing? Or just simple majority?
I'd like to know exactly what powers the 3 reps will have when dealing with microsoft.
Do you Gentoo!?
Do you picture MS as more of the thimble, or possible the top hat? I like to think they are the little dog myself.
Please advise.
Well, since any action taken against microsoft is sure to still leave them with countless billions, how do we know that the comitee in question can't and won't be 'bought' off to look the other way while Microsoft continues in it's regular practices?
Something about new tricks and an old dog...
--
Society has traditionally always tried to find scapegoats for its problems. Well, here I am.
Hypothetical question:
If this committee was already implemented 10 years ago and you were a part of it, what strategies and actions that Microsoft took during this period would you consider monopolistic? Would you change anything, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Do you fear, though, that the government might wrest too much control from the industry? The Fed doesn't exactly have a grand track record thusfar with regards to digital rights.
Is this committee like, you know, a beowolf cluster of industry people? Or do you see it as more of a multiprocessor system?
-Adam
How would attempt to keep Microsoft from continuing it's monpolistic practices? The company has a long history of unethical business practices. What do you think you could do to change this? How long do you think it will take to change an untamed beast into a useful competetive company? What makes you believe that this is a possible task?
Um, this is my sig.
Oh well, I guess I am going to have to hit the head without reading my insperational turd peice.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Are your decisions based more on popular thought, or your own ideas on controlling Microsoft? That is, is it your job to decide what happens, or is it ours?
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
How do you think the transition from watching what Microsoft is doing to implementing punishments for bad behavior might actually work?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Where lies in your opinion the boundary between anti-competitive functionality and "improving the users' experience"? .NET Common Language Runtime? Passport? etcetera..
By now, everybody is used to bundling a browser with the OS. But what about video-editing software? The (Sun) Java VM or the
What is your stance on user rights to bought, copyrighted software? Do you feel someone who buys a product can do whatever they want with it, or does the producer (MS) have the right to dictate how their products are used?
What do you see as the future of capitalism in global society? Will ever-larger corporations continue to dominate the world, or is there any merit to the idea of a "free" (both speech and beer) society?
Simple question: how do you regulate what they can do with Windows without hurting their theoretical ability to innovate? Sure they haven't done much innovative work, ever, but who is to say that some new worker won't have a good idea that IS innovative that would get added, but regulation stops it?
Should you get this job, you may very well have to deal with Microsoft execs that 'know' that they are 'right'. How would you go about dealing with people who absolutely possitivelly think that they are right, and yet you know they're wrong, and you have to change their mind? Having 'right' on your side is all well and good in a dispute, but if sides 'know' that they are right, things get difficult.
Maskirovka
you're sitting across from Billy. on the left side of the table, there is a mountain of money, and, and, get this, a free copy of the MS Operating System, (which automatically comes with 'teh' coolest: Messanger), on the other side, you have legal documents, 20 hour workdays (you do know, MS boys are kinda... well, big), little Johny being upset about you missing his soccer game, wife holding up some viagra pills...
what do you do? what do you do?
Innovation and market forces push new product out the door far faster then government regulation can anticipate (look at XP!). What effect, if any, do you feel this will tribunal will have on MS? My thought is that it will be a paper tiger with no real authority, but lots of noise.
You don't really expect him to say "Yes, I will accept bribes", do you?
Can we give a -10: Ubertroll for this one. -1 seems to be too generous.
- Buggy software could be irrefutably demonstrated. Customers demonstrating flaws could expect either a resolution within some reasonable time frame, or financial compensation for migration to a system without the flaw.
- The quality of third party components could be evaluated relative to the specification of interfaces they claim to support.
The obvious issue with this is "who could declare a specification to be rigorous?" Do you feel you have the correct background for this task, or do you see a better way to ensure MS (or any other software vendor for this matter) respects their obligations?As this job is notably one of the most important in the computing world, do you plan on holding yourself accountable to ensure you follow a definitive game plan for
ensuing a mass inspection and reorganization of Microsoft's resources and operation?
this sounds like the best job ever..imagine the money you would make from bribs...both from micro$oft and from other companies.
There's millions of lines of code. Documenting it would take three guys decades.
Best Slashdot Co
Depending on the paticular market (or product) a monopoly may exists because average costs of production are declining beyond the level of output demanded in the market, thus making entry unprofitable and making it efficient for there to be a single firm. This perfectly describes the market for many computer products. Given that the laws of economics encourage a monopoly in this area, isn't government action futile?
We all know that Microsoft has a history of questionable business tactics in terms of legality. Do you see yourself as having a direct hand in executive decision making or carrying out the decisions, or is this position primary a "watchdog" position created to see to it that Microsoft adheres to whatever final ruling the US Department of Justice issues?
To me, this is the core issue of how governments and consumers deal with MS. Customers want convenience in the form of product integration and simplicity, but how do you let a company with a monopoly give people what they (the customers) want, without limiting customer choice in the long run.
Beverly Crusher, Deanna Troi or Tasha Yar?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If you discover microsoft doing something that appears to go against the anti-trust case, how do you intend to enforce your decision? What powers will you be given to enforce that decision? Could this not just end up again with another almighty legal battle?
Given the abundance of galaxy-sized egos at Microsoft (especially when you start approaching the top), are you at all worried that your ability to deal with these people will be hampered due to plain and simple personality clashes (never mind the natural reticence to even talk to you)? Or are you expecting that your mandate (if and when it comes) will be enough?
I think that the last few years and Microsoft could be summed up by saying that they are attacking other markets. How do you feel this is effected by the monopoly status? Do you think they are using their monopoly to get into these markets, or just their cash?
Do you have any fear that the mere fact that you chose Slashdot for your first interview might hurt your chances of getting the job? After all, Slashdot is a renegade group of hackers bent on destroying Microsoft, and they aren't likely to appoint someone who they think will just drive Microsoft into the ground.
-Cheetah
It seems that in industries with high costs of initial production and extremly low costs of replication (i.e. Software), there seems to be an unusually large incentive for becoming a monopoly and an unusually powerful advantage in maintaining that monopoly once formed.
Short of open source, what measures need to be taken to in order to insure that one monopoly (Microsoft or another) isn't dethroned simply to be replaced by a different monopoly?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Do you believe that a three person committee can stay impartial and hold Microsoft to the rules set forth by the court rulings? Or do you think that there should be a checks and balances system to make sure that the committee's rulings are fair?
How many computers do you have a single license of Microsoft 2000 professional running on?
Microsoft is...
1. good
2. bad
3. ugly
4. cowboyneal
Microsft has been granted the ability to not allow porting of code, or information on how to attach to Windows based servers if there is a concern about the 'security' of the solution. What do you define as a 'security' hole, and how would you apply that to projects such as SAMBA and other NT/Linux interoperability projects? (Wine/Winx, LinWin, etc)
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
And just how many standards have you reviewed?
A new market in which Microsoft does NOT hold a commanding lead (yet) is the handheld market (Palm, Windows CE, etc.)
If you were on the oversight committee, what specific actions or restrictions would you place on Microsoft's behavior in this Marketplace?
As a followup question:
If Microsoft included a "hotsync" capability built into its OS (so that Windows CE handhelds automatically sync with the desktop machine), would you consider that acceptable behavior?
If you were appointed to this MS oversight committee of three, what would trigger you to propose that the committee be disbanded?
In other words, what would cause you to feel you no longer need access to MS corporate books, source, or staff?
Possible examples: [A] another product gains market penetration equal to the MS Windows variants, [B] no complaints from industry competitors for 6 months, [C] MS "gives away" IExplorer and/or MS Office source via a GNU copyleft (makes it publicly-owned code).
Thank you.
--Adam
Thursday 13 December 2001
# # #
Ok, so you want to watch over Microsoft. This has of course generated much interest in the computer community. It is next to impossible for me to avoid hearing about this, every where I turn I see news about this, and all of my friends are talking about this. One of the things I do not hear or see mention anywhere; How do you plan to work in what is most likely going to be a very hostile environment?
For example, when I was working in a very politically oriented environment I noticed my coworkers and management behaving in a fashion that made it impossible for certain individuals to do their jobs properly, by either withholding data or modifying expectations in the middle of a job. In your case I would expect this be be slightly different, and to take the form of things like insufficient privileges to access some resources, lost data, deleted directories, and possibly even too much data. How do you plan to combat things like this?
What is your greatest strength?
What is your greatest weakness?
ACK! Sorry, those were the SUCKIEST questions ever. In fact they are almost pet peeves of mine. PLEASE let all those HR departments out there that still use these MORONIC questions to just STOP, please. Damn, if anyone ever asks me those questions AGAIN I will blow a NUT.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I know this is an American settlement, but do you think Microsofts behaviour should be regulated in the rest of the world as well? How would you go about that?
In Murphy We Turst
Given the last 2 controversial proposed civil settlements by microsoft (that may not be punishment in the long run). What do you think a fair settlement for microsoft would consist of?
:)(smile)
competent, fair & trustworthy
One major question remains in my mind....
Say you have a company like microsoft, who rightly or wrongly acts as if it has the political clout to do whatever it wants. You see them do things like break compatibility with competing products (lotus/borland), dump software info a thriving market to starve it's competitors (netscape/qualcomm), deny deserving employees fair and equitable benefits (MS "Temps"), and block competitive access to markets ( Be/Apple ).
Assuming you can come up with a sound remedy for these types of problems, how can you get them to actually stop abusing it's monopoly power when it's monopoly power is the battleaxe it uses to hack at apart it's competitors in various markets, yet you cannot take it from them?
If you did become part of the panel, what would be the most important power you would seek to ensure that you could actually have any effect? Would it be control over product releases/content, marketing material, business dealings?
Sorry to roll in a second question, but what would be your aim for Microsoft? Would it be to kill it, Free it's ill-gotten gains/IP, make as much money as possible without incuring the wrath of another court, divest it of all extensions (MSNBC, Hotmail, XBox)?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
How do you hope do deal with the limitations in the current agreement? If I have this right, you can't speak publicly, and -- far, far more ominous -- you can't testify.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
The size of your brass balls I mean.
Do you already have specific changes in mind you would like to implement and, if so, what are they and what process do you intend to use to ensure success?
who would you pick as the other two people for the oversight committee and why?
Are you aware that the editors at Slashdot are now deleting posts, not just modding them down?
My previous post about the substance leaking out of the corner of your mouth since your last servicing of Larry Ellision seems to have disapepared without a trace.
So, my question again: when do you plan to wipe off your chin?
Are you now, or have you ever been employed by Microsoft corporation or a third party which in any way was affiliated or working with said corporation? If so, in what capacity were you employed?
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
I think the biggest concern I have is getting M$ to open their API and Office up. I think doing this is near impossible, yet it is what needs to be done. For example they can open it up yet make it extremely hard to work with. How do you prove that in court? As a programmer I want to be able to write programs that can easily communicate with other systems and M$ makes it tough. Having other systems able to interoperate with that system on the lines all other OS's typically interoperate would help competitors have some market share. They also shouldn't be able to have binary office documents other offices can't read. How would you address those two issues?
Yeah. Anyone slashdot picks is going to be 100% fair an unbiased. Oh, and I'm the Pope. Bless you my child.
How do you see the work-flow being structured such that you have a proper ammount of time to look over each project and yet still allow for release timelines to continue in a timely manner? One of my worries is that with the normal flow of software versions and updates coming out of redmond being fairly large, how can any regulators, let alone you, hope to keep up without grinding the whole system to a near halt?
Has anybody thought of using IP laws themselves as a tool to regulate Microsoft? For example, one could choose to selectively enforce their patent or copyright claims.
Considering that it is the *government's* IP laws that help make Microsoft a monopoly in the first place, wouldn't it make sense to start "breaking" their monopoly their?
Just what this country needs - even more Big Government. Why should a company that creates so much wealth for so many people be held accountable to the whims of three little bureaucrats? What a ridiculous notion. That's about a half-step away from fascism. In actuality, it probably would BE fascism, since in effect, M$ will become run by the State.
How is replacing one possible monopoly with a definite monopoly (the government) a good idea, again?
George Orwell, call your office.
Is leveraging a monopoly to create other monopolies legal?
(expected answer: NO)
If not, how will you stop Microsoft from doing so?
~ now you know
An oversight board would imply that a "real" resolution to the problems with Microsoft violating anti-trust laws was shot down. Given that, how do you expect to do anything about any violations that you find Microsoft doing?
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly with Windows and it's strong position with Office, MSN, and Hotmail to force or coerce everyone to use their Passport service. How can you prevent this leveraging of one monopoly to gain another monopoly? Especially given the fact that Microsoft has already gotten away with such leveraging several times before. (Also, can you comment on Microsoft's statement that they want a cut of every Internet trasaction?)
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I mean, will you be able to kick at an office's door, shout at Bill and demand "Show me your Sent Items list"?
Just what kind of privileged information do you expect to have access?
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
What are the biggest loopholes in the proposed settlement, in your opinion? How would you address them?
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Would you be willing to give up some privacy to insure that you are not being paid off or manipulated in any way?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Could you install this beauty there? :-)
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Microsoft can be expected to obstruct the oversight comittee as much as possible. The Microsoft appointed member of the comittee will probably also obstruct the comittee. Not that too much obstruction is needed, since the comittee only has the power to report violations and the current administration does not seem eager to enforce the law. Please explain why you think anyone, and you in particular, can have any affect on Microsoft under these circumstances.
Do you know the proper spells for creating a binding pentagram, entrapping diabolic creatures, protecting one's self from demonic possession, and warding evil?
Do you feel that forcing MSFT to make versions of Office for other OS's will help? Office seems to be a key business application that is a barrier to IT departments choosing Linux or even the Mac OS (since its new versions often follow windows versions by a significant amount of time).
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
If and when Linux or some other open source system becomes commonplace and can be found on every desktop, should we make sure that the federal government is right there, carefully regulating everything it does?
My questions are:
Under what conditions would you support the release of Microsoft source code?
Which programs would you support the release of source code for? Windows XP? All currently shipping versions of Windows? Explorer? Office? Back Office? Or every single product Microsoft sells?
How would you ensure compliance for the release of Microsoft source code?
Would other programmers/companies/geeks etc. be able to use Microsoft source code for their own projects, or would they only be able to use it engineer backwards compatability with their own programs?
Would computer manufacturers be able to compile and load their own version of Windows NT/XP/Whatever on machines without paying Microsoft?
What sort of license would Microsoft source code be released under? GPL? BSD? GNU? Something else?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Some people haven't read the job description for the Technical Committee -- obviously. For those who haven't done their homework, here are some clues.
The full text of the proposed Final Judgment is here. Additional information is in the Competitive Impact Statement.
The portion of the text about the TC is reproduced from the revised Final Judgement is duplicated here for your consideration. Point 10 (in bold) at the end is particularly telling: the TC is effectively gagged.
8. The TC shall have the following powers and duties:
a. The TC shall have the power and authority to monitor Microsoft's compliance with its obligations under this final judgment.
b. The TC may, on reasonable notice to Microsoft:
(i) interview, either informally or on the record, any Microsoft personnel, who may have counsel present; any such interview to be subject to the reasonable convenience of such personnel and without restraint or interference by Microsoft;
(ii) inspect and copy any document in the possession, custody or control of Microsoft personnel;
(iii) obtain reasonable access to any systems or equipment to which Microsoft personnel have access;
(iv) obtain access to, and inspect, any physical facility, building or other premises to which Microsoft personnel have access; and
(v) require Microsoft personnel to provide compilations of documents, data and other information, and to submit reports to the TC containing such material, in such form as the TC may reasonably direct.
c. The TC shall have access to Microsoft's source code, subject to the terms of Microsoft's standard source code Confidentiality Agreement, as approved by the Plaintiffs and to be agreed to by the TC members pursuant to Section IV.B.9 below, and by any staff or consultants who may have access to the source code. The TC may study, interrogate and interact with the source code in order to perform its functions and duties, including the handling of complaints and other inquiries from non-parties.
d. The TC shall receive complaints from the Compliance Officer, third parties or the Plaintiffs and handle them in the manner specified in Section IV.D below.
e. The TC shall report in writing to the Plaintiffs every six months until expiration of this Final Judgment the actions it has undertaken in performing its duties pursuant to this Final Judgment, including the identification of each business practice reviewed and any recommendations made by the TC.
f. Regardless of when reports are due, when the TC has reason to believe that there may have been a failure by Microsoft to comply with any term of this Final Judgment, the TC shall immediately notify the Plaintiffs in writing setting forth the relevant details.
g. TC members may communicate with non-parties about how their complaints or inquiries might be resolved with Microsoft, so long as the confidentiality of information obtained from Microsoft is maintained.
h. The TC may hire at the cost and expense of Microsoft, with prior notice to Microsoft and subject to approval by the Plaintiffs, such staff or consultants (all of whom must meet the qualifications of Section IV.B.2) as are reasonably necessary for the TC to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Final Judgment. The compensation of any person retained by the TC shall be based on reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the individual's experience and responsibilities.
i. The TC shall account for all reasonable expenses incurred, including agreed upon fees for the TC members' services, subject to the approval of the Plaintiffs. Microsoft may, on application to the Court, object to the reasonableness of any such fees or other expenses. On any such application: (a) the burden shall be on Microsoft to demonstrate unreasonableness; and (b) the TC member(s) shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred on such application (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs), regardless of the Court's disposition of such application, unless the Court shall expressly find that the TC's opposition to the application was without substantial justification.
10. No member of the TC shall make any public statements relating to the TC's activities.
----
From the Competitive Impact Statement, this paragraph:
b. TC Duties: The TC will report to Plaintiffs, and will not be under the control or authority of Microsoft in any way. The TC will receive and investigate complaints or inquiries about Microsoft's compliance with the Proposed Final Judgment from third parties, Plaintiffs, or Microsoft's Compliance Officer. The TC has the power and authority to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the Proposed Final Judgment, and will consult with Plaintiffs regarding its investigations. The TC will meet with Microsoft's Compliance Officer at least once during each investigation to allow Microsoft to respond to the substance of any complaints and to attempt to resolve them informally. This "dispute resolution" function reflects the recognition that the market will benefit from rapid, consensual resolution of issues, where possible. [Emphasis added] It complements, but does not supplant, Plaintiffs' other methods of enforcement. If the TC concludes that a complaint is meritorious, the TC will so advise Plaintiffs and Microsoft and propose a remedy. The TC may also communicate with third parties who have made complaints or inquiries about how they or Microsoft might resolve such complaints or inquiries, provided that the TC complies with its confidentiality obligations as explained below. Thus, for example, the TC may explain to a third party various ways of implementing a right granted by the Proposed Final Judgment.
[end]I have read through the pdf file that the DOJ has posted about the settlement details that was linked here on /. a couple of days ago. The settlement is full of available loopholes that any corporation with lawyers like MS could drive truckloads of code and monopolistic business through. How will you attempt to stopgap these possibilities?
I'd be curious about your opinions regarding the breakup of AT&T, and the subsequent behavior/performance of the Baby Bells. Would you be willing to advocate the breakup of Microsoft if it lied to the commission or broke its promises? If not, what would be a suitable punishment? Basically, what are your views of the enforcement of the settlement and the consequences of punishment for failure to abide thereby?
-Styopa
and he's certainly not afraid to speak his mind.
He certainly isn't afraid to write long-winded anesthesia documents, which makes him eminantly qualified to be a government regulator.
The only question I have is "How does it feel to be the beurocratic hack that every member of the smear campaign against Microsoft was hoping for?"
Of course, somehow I don't expect he'll be answering that question.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Do you think that interoperability is (or can/should be) the norm for software?
In the unix world, it was always assumed that there would be multiple flavors of unix, if only to accommodate multiple hardware architectures. From that grew the assumption that interoperability between systems was a worthy persuit.
The 'killer apps' of the internet (email and www) are marvels of interoperability, and the realities of a networked world are making interoperability more and more important.
It seems that Microsoft's approach to interoperability is for everybody to be running the same software. Only their huge market share makes this even remotely feasible.
So...
How important do you think software interoperability is?
Should it be a goal in application design as well as communications and infrastructure?
Can Microsoft be convinced to adopt these goals, and if not, can they be achieved?
Do you think the government should 'encourage' movement toward interoperability?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Who else would you recommend for the position -- who do you think is best qualified, willing, and not you?
What kind of powers do you have to stop microsoft from making its decisions? If they don't listen to you do they go to jail, or fined on personal basis?
Who else do you think should be on such a panel? Why?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Would you be willing to strap a bomb to yourself and detonate it in the middle of the Microsoft HQ "for the good of humanity"? Or perhaps dress as Santa and spread "mysterious white powder" all over the inside of Microsoft, claiming it to be fake snow?
Why do you want to bust on MS instead of doing your own creative thing? Isn't it better to just do your own thing and let the markets determine the relative commercial worth of our creative efforts?
Couldn't you find a better way to disqualify yourself for this position other than appearing on the most popular anti-Microsoft website that there is?
Microsoft's ability to frustrate two key federal judges, to the point where those judges essentially lost their judicial composure, has resulted in whatever escape from the jaws of jutice that Microsoft has achieved here. Those two judges who had years of service behind the bench essetially flipped out over disgust with this company. Then, in the aftermath of those guys blowing their tops, Microsoft successfully labeled them as biased and the substance of their rulings were essentially thrown out.
After dispensing with two federal judges, Microsoft will not find it difficult to ruin your career and reputation if you show even the slighest bias.
Have you no fear of your impending DOOM?
With the understanding that you would wield considerable power over a very large corporation, how would you go about bringing Microsoft into compliance with the federal mandates while still striving to innovate and serve customers? How do you plan to not let these mandates stifle the company into not providing the same return it has given to its investors over the past years?
Before anyone flames...I'm playing devils advocate here...I personally dont care what happens to MS as long as they stop screwing me over.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Franklin
1) b) If you have used other operating systems, (including palmOS) what do you think could be done to make the playing field more even?
2) Do you honestly think that Microsofts monopoly can be controlled?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Microsoft in all reality needs somone to slap them in the face when they try and take advantage of consumers. How in the world will one person, who by the way is not a lawyer, a judge, or a jury, decide whether it is legal for microsoft to make monopolistic decisions. If you get the job and you sit in this committe and oversee what microsoft is about to do and you stand up and say "no no, bad microsoft." why do they have tolisten to what you say?
This job will do nothing and is pointless, there needs to be real action. This would be like us going to osama and saying we are going to send an embassador over to sit in on your meetings to make sure you dont plan any more attacks. if the embassador finds that you are, then he will stop you, by the way the embassador is just the ordinary citizen.
Jerry Pournelle wrote an interesting essay, including a proposal at Byte this week (). One of the things he mentions, and something I believe, is that Microsoft should incorporate some ethical behaviors into their model of operation.
My questions for you is do you think that a corporation should have some ethical motives alongside their profit motive? Microsoft may be a distinct case due to their position in their marketplace (software), but there are probably other similar entities, indeed, AT&T was another example a few decades ago, with others even further in the past.
Thanks for taking your time to participate on Slashdot.
How could you assure the public and the government that your ethics would not be comprimised by Microsoft's heavy bankrole?
After all Microsoft has been described as having, "more money than god."
-- "We now know 1/100th of 1% of what nature has decided to show us."
- Einstein
WURD!!
Who will audit you?
"Piter, too, is dead."
An operating system is a language and a grammar.
All human languages have always been free and open source. Even new invented languages like Esperanto are free and open source. Intellectual property laws were never intended to protect language and grammar.
Do you believe that Microsoft or any other company should be able to invent, promulgate and own an entire human language and grammar? Why?
Should this principle be extended to other technical languages and grammars?
..But do all of your suits have that big red target painted on the back?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
By which I mean to say, do you believe they are guilty of that which the government has claimed they are? Or, conversely, do you feel that the government has over-stepped it's bounds and agressively pursued a company that was merely at the top of its industry because they were the best?
And then go home....
-Ron
How do do expect to deply c#?
So you want to rule Microsoft eh?
Well you had better answer one of their tech interview questions then...
You have two pieces of string that each take 60 minutes to burn (start at one end takes 60 minutes to burn to the other end). The strings burn at different random speeds along their length.
How would you measure 45 minutes with these strings, or failing this re-define 'time' to come up with a good answer (a standard Microsoft practice).
http://saveie6.com/
Do you recognize the importance of the standard OS that Microsoft brought to the computing world and that this played an important part in the computer revolution and in the "dot com" economy?
Would you support preventing Microsoft from using uncompetitive tactics to dominate the video game/set-top box/TV based internet market, even if it meant that a foreign company like Sony would take control of that industry?
What are your views about software freedoms?
Do you support/use free software? If given the authority, would you force Microsoft to move to a GPL or other free license?
So do you picture the committee as overseeing a large group of people who are busy reading code, checking API documentation, analyzing network traffic, etc, or do you see it more as just the three committee members sitting around playing Ages of Empires, waiting for someone to call and complain about something?
- adam
Please describe your views on economics to the greatest extent possible, and the influences that helped you to form these views.
I would particularly like to know what you think regarding monopolies, artificially created and sustained, or naturally occurring, and how you believe consumers (and the marketplace) are affected by them, and under what circumstances consumers may benefit, or be harmed, by them.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
I believe that all the currently proposed remedies are inadequate, and propose that Microsoft simply be permanently banned from producing any Internet based product. Would you consider that an appropriate remedy and would you support it?
EdwardV
...This year, a Senator had tried to stop the release of XP, and this was news posted on Slashdot. But it seems that he was not heard well by the other Senators. But this did make a noise on Slashdot, and some other major news sites.
.NET project, or restrain Microsoft from making products that sends private information back to them, in a case that would violate the privacy of it's user?
Will you help prevent Microsoft from doing this kinds of things? For example: Prevent Microsoft from forcing it's users to sign up for their
Would you also help decide wether or not Microsoft should patent method X for doing this or that, or prevent them from buying a company, or new technology if they like it?
One thing I would like to see happen is that Microsoft be prevented from entering new markets. One example was their release of the X-Box, to attempt compete with PS2 & the GameCube, for the soul purpose of gaining market share, and monopolizing the game market. Another is their attempt in the DVD market. This article was posted yesterday, here on Slashdot. I am not familiar with the details.
--------------------------
Is this a sig?
--------------------------
It seems likely that this would be true to say of any company that attained monopoly status in any field of any significance.
I seriously doubt that any of our anti-monopoly laws would have passed if the only motivation ware to keep bullies like Microsoft from kicking sand in their competitors' faces; competition (and thus losers as well as winners) is a vital component of capitalism.
Our anti-monopoly laws exist to promote the health of markets, something that markets don't always do very well on their own, and the present state of the technology market begs for intervention precisely because of the effect Microsoft is having on our industry.
No one wants to compete against Microsoft, because it means losing, period, end of story. So why would anyone invest R&D money in any product which stands any chance of competing against a Microsoft endeavor? Look at the companies Microsoft competes with now: all the major ones existed before Microsoft's rise to dominance (Sun, Oracle, IBM) or got into their fields before Microsoft established its presence there (AOL/T-W).
So: you hear that Microsoft is investing in research in field X, and you're not any of those companies and you don't already have a vested interest in field X. What do you do? You stay the hell away from field X, and you look for some other way to make money. Over time this is bound to have a depressing effect on the industry as any one company, no matter how much they spend, is still a monoculture. Microsoft has no incentive to promote technologies which compete against one another, so the first thing they settle on becomes their own ad hoc standard. If nobody else is trying to set the same standard, the ad hoc standard eventually becomes legitimized.
They look like the industry powerhouse because they're the biggest one left standing in a smoldering, splintered shack of an industry.
Yes, anything you do to knock down Microsoft causes a dip in the NASDAQ. But that's because the market and the technology industry have developed/been pushed into far too great a dependency on this single entity, and too many people can no longer even envision the possibility of any alternative.
Knock them down hard enough, and after the dust settles, the rodents will come out of their burrows to bury their towering bones, and just maybe we'll have ourselves a vibrant, dare I say relevant field again.
with an 800 Pound Gun of course....
Now that I have your attention....
Do you believe as I do that the way to handle things, isn't really what many other people propose time and time again...spilt up(that was shot down), open code(I love open source too, but its not how their business model is built its never gonna happen), legal(well this gets us more discussion than progress obviously)...
Would you agree that the true path to the M$ promised land, is enforced interoperability...
In otherwords force them to play on the same field that everyone else does, having to make their widgets works with everyone else widgets, and making them face penalties for breaking things(what they call embrace and extend)...
An example it is well known that M$ would like to drop legacy support for the SMB/CIFS way of doing things for network sharing....this would of course break SAMBA with a large part of the community outside of M$ land depends on for interoperating with M$ systems...I would propose that if they do this they must be held accountable for providing whatever is needed to impliment their new protocol to the community.
I guess naother way of saying it, they should be forced to OPEN standards, and implimentations. Since open code is not an option really...
Yes/No? Why?
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Actually, if you apply for this position it is because you want to be Justice's hand but we have to ensure you'll be fair and unbiaised with them.
It has become to easy to blame Microsoft and we can't just let theirfate in one ordinary basher's hands.
Hence the subject of this mail.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I myself make a very decent living writing software which runs on non-Microsoft systems. These systems are developed for our clients, and the clients sell services based on these systems to consumers.
We as the developers were not forced to use Microsoft products, our clients were not forced to use Microsoft products, and their customers are not forced to use Microsoft products. Money changed hands many times and Microsoft's involvement in any of it is entirly incidental. A majority of the users run Windows, but a sizable chunk runs on MacOS, and an impressive (but pretty small) amount even use UNIX systems.
I feel we saved considerable time (and money) ignoring Microsoft's products. To me, Microsoft makes it fairly easy for people to use a computer, but their products are certainly not as appealing to us macho developers. In any case, what exactly is the problem here that regulating Microsoft will solve?
It is one thing to be able to observe, quite another to be able to impact the organization. Nothing like being given a job and then not given the appropriate tools to get it done. For example, how will you stay in the "inside-loop" when the upper management will have a vested interest to keey you in the dark? What sort of punitative mechanism needs to be in-place so that your word has some teeth? In short, what sort of authority is needed for this position and how could power sharing be best distributed?
How do you plan on preserving your integrity working for the richest company in the world? I don't doubt your integrity, I just wonder how you will maintain it and avoid looking out for the interests of the company [Microsoft].
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
The guy is just a loudmouth wanker. Who the fuck cares anyway? This isn't news for nerds. Shit, any stupid prick can kick up a fuss by saying that they're applying for something that doesn't even exist.
Please categorize define who should get to decide which of the following components are installed on a PC - (ie. the OS maker, the OEM/consumer, the device manufacturer, or some other category that I didn't think of. ...)
.wav or raw sound files.
.mpeg or open video codecs.
1) Semaphores, locks, mutexes.
2) Virtual Memory Manager.
3) Threading and thread manager.
4) FileSystem (NTFS, Ext2, Ext3, ReiserFS, NFS,
5) basic / general Device drivers.
6) optimized Device Drivers (sound, video, pci bridges, keyboard, mice, etc.)
7) IP Stacks (TCP/IP, UDP/IP, RawIP, etc.)
8) USB/Firewire manager.
9) USB/Firewire device drivers.
10) A command line interace.
11) A GUI.
12) A basic text editor.
13) An advanced text editor.
14) A WordProcessor.
15) A compiler.
16) An Integrated Development Environment.
17) Operating system security Manager.
18) Document access manager (Digital rights manager? as well as user/owner/security).
19) Ability to upgrade the system.
20) Ability to patch security holes on the system.
21) Ability to detect malicious programs attempting to run/install/arrive on the system.
22) A spreadsheet.
23) A database.
24) An HTML document reader.
25) An XML document reader.
26) An Pluggable/Extendable Markup Language Reader (aka a full featured Web Browser).
27) Ability to read help files.
28) A PDF document reader.
29) A Java script execution environment.
30) A VB script execution environment.
31) A C# execution environment.
32) Requiring a special number to install the OS, where the special number is tied to the hardware configuration.
33) Play
34) Play
35) Play proprietary sound formats.
36) Play proprietary video formats.
37) Internet Access.
38) Accounting Software (Quicken, Quickbooks, etc.)
39) IP Port blocking, filtering, verification.
40) A crippled wordprocessor capable of reading and editing older versions of MSFT Word documents.
41) A CORBA client/server.
42) A COM/DCOM client/server.
43) CORBA/COM objects for HTML, XML, Text, Graphics, Video, Sound, PDF, Proprietary formats, etc.
I know that's a lot of items. But I want to know what you think is essential to an OS, what is bundled as part of a useable OS, and what is better left to the OEM/consumer.
Thanks
Jeremy
---- Smokin' another sig.
As long as Microsoft holds a monopoly status in office programs, competing products must be fully compatible with Microsoft's file formats to be able to compete properly.
How significant a role do you think Microsoft's proprietary file formats play in keeping Microsoft's monopoly status?
I doubt, therefore I may be.
How would you feel about the job if there was a term limit imposed on it? M$ will probably try to influence you, the longer you are in the position, the more likely you will start to see things the M$ way ( I don't think i'm being negative, i mean, they DO have lobbiests). what should your term limit be? Will too short of a term affect your ability to regulate?
What will your power be? what types of punishment will you be allowed to administer? Is three people enough to control an 800-pound gorilla?
What do you feel is the most important problem with Microsoft's business practice and what are the implications of this?
Why stick up for big business?
Microsoft is a private corporation, and as such has every right to do whatever is necessary to increase profits. Therefore, would you allow the management of Microsoft to continue as they have been doing, so as to allow them the freedom that every corporation should have--freedom from regulation of any sort?
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Over the course of the trial, and especially having read the findings of fact (everyone should), it seems that by attacking the bits and bytes of whether IE was 'integrated' or not was pointless and got into technical points where anyone can rationalize any point of view. What matters is what the user is presented when she gets a computer. She is not likely to replace or install any software without very substantial motivation.
This is Microsoft's advantage. With their power over the market they can dictate to the OEMs exactly how Windows and thusly every bit of software (even other OS's, if they are installed on the same model of machine or even moreso if they are installed dual boot) is presented. In their licensing contracts to OEMs they have power to specify almost anything, even down to forcing them to use keyboards with ridiculous ergonomy-lessening extra keys. This is how they have made IE the de facto standard to the extent that it is. No customer ever wanted IE to the exclusion of Netscape, and yet that is exactly what customers got.
This represents a huge area that OEMs could innovate in: the interface and software presented to consumers. On the road toward viable other core OSs, allowing the OEMs to alter the veneer of the software on their machines is only the beginning.
Do you agree OEMs are the direct agent of technically un-savvy consumers (read, 99.99% of them)? How does the proposal give them more freedom from dictatorial licenses and how would you help guarantee adherence to it?
Sincerely, Bryan Seigneur
KLAATU, BORADA, NIh*ahem*
there are certain options in M$ OS's that parade as features, but in practice through their obscurity perpetuate a monopoly.
an example in your opinion are these practices monopolistic?
the odometer lives!
Don't get too excited about this one. I'm sure this committee will be bogus anyway.
It's just a false front to make us believe someone still cares about resolving this anti-trust issue. There will BE NO INTERVIEWS and the candidates have ALREADY BEEN CHOSE. Yes, of course these 'candidates' that were chose were already in favor of Microsoft.
Don't you find it funny that the dogs were finally put to rest when Bush entered office? Payoffs, Political favors, will we ever know?
The Microsoft anti-trust case won't be resolved soon, or at least during these 4 years.
Everyone should understand by now that there is no way you're going to be able to solve the Microsoft problem by forcing them to include this or exclude that from the OS. It just can't work. What this guy should be focusing on is Microsoft's business arrangements, contracts, and tactics. They should not be allowed to make exclusive deals with OEMs or anyone else. They should not be allowed to pressure OEMs into favoring their software with threats of revoking licenses or increasing costs and the like. They should not be allowed to charge per-processor, per-machine, or per-model fees for Windows, or use any other similar criteria for that purpose. OEMs should be allowed to ship PCs with no OS at all if that's what the customer wants. It should be entirely up to the seller, not Microsoft.
Then, if the DOJ isn't completely incompetent, the agreement should be modified to remove all the loopholes that allow Microsoft to get out of revealing their APIs and protocols and whatnot when they deem it to be a security risk. That's utter nonsense and needs to be fixed. If it isn't, then just watch them begin to consider everything a security risk. They blatantly violated the intent of the first consent decree in the same way, don't think they won't do it again if there is even a tiny loophole in the agreement. This guy needs to make sure they comply and that they actually reveal this information. If they don't, he should be able to give us a damn good reason why not.
I read the Cringely article, and I don't have any problem with this guy from what I know of him so far (which is admittedly still very little), so I'm hopefull that he could be a good person for the job. Now, I hear that Microsoft wants to be able to name 3 of the people on the overwatch committee. I don't see why they should get to name anyone for the job. Does this make sense to anyone else? That's like getting to pick one of your friends to be your parole officer.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm afraid that last question is a trick question. If you answered c, you are obviously a part of the conspiracy to take over the world. If you answered b, you are obviously trying to jump on the Linux bandwagon and will do the world no good, since you will more than likely be shot down by Microsoft's lawyers quite quickly, and any effectiveness in your proposed capacity would be stifled. If you answered a, you might just be able to hang in there with the rest of the predators, so let's hope this fight doesn't leave the murky water! ;)
The only problem with M$ is that their products are naff and that everyone uses them. If their products were of better quality would anyone really care about a monopoly?
Anyway, you are chasing the wrong animal. The timing of the Xbox couldn't have been better, M$ have hedged their bets - and have found a way to circumvent any countermeasures and consequently really rule the world. Poor old Bungie.
Cacophanus
http://cacophanus.net
Cacophanus
http://cacophanus.net/
Would you use this position to get chicks, and if so, could you get them to slap bill?
There has been alot of decay of loyalty to the company over the years from recent behaivor of Microsoft as a whole. If you were to truley take an impartial standpoint you would also exist to better the company and to increase their customer base beyond the current way of, "How else are you to remain compatable?" I guess my point is, what methods of restoring the peoples trust in Microsoft would you bring to the group if chosen?
My sausage tree didn't grow, does that make me a bad mommy?
Hey, if he doesn't know all the possible answers to this one, MS is gonna eat him alive!
WHY?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
he's funny. can you believe it? what a twit. mr nobody thinks he's important.
Hopefully this one isn't too late to be considered, but here it goes:
My question is two fold. First off, where do you see yourself if you got this position, and/or didn't get this position? Being that you would interact highly with Microsoft employees, how would you interact with them, and under what situations would you say that what is happening would be 'antitrust' and under what situations would you not say that?
My second part has to do with the two codenamed projects in the works right now, "longhorn" and "blackcomb" [I know that http://www.windowsxp.nu/ has some info, but not much as of yet, and I am unsure if it works in non-I.E. browsers] that are due out in the next 2 and 5 years. What kind of direction would you give to these projects yourself? Would you suggest any kind of addition of things such as opensource, different shells [In the microsoft sense, where the shell is what you interact with the os, just like gnome and kde], you get the picture on this. What kind of restrictions would you place as mandatory?
Oh, and what do you run at your home, and would you be changing to Microsoft products(if you don't run them already) in the case that you do get this position.
Later
Will you be like 'Talk to the hand cause the face won't listen' to Microsoft?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Stephen Satchell's?
We could probably turn Microsoft into a goody-goody company like the Sierra Club in a month or two!
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
What are your feeling on requiring Microsoft to public domain the entire buildable source for no longer supported products?
For example MS-DOS and windows 3.11. By public domain I mean anyone can use the source under any license, maybe with the requirement of acknowledging the code was derived from Microsoft's code.
Why would ANYONE choose mozilla over IE if they had a choice. If IE was on linux, I'd drop slow buggy mozilla in second.
I've read some places that one of the proposed remedies is to force Microsoft to release Office for Linux. It would be a *very* bad idea to force a company to develop and release software that they don't want to succeed. When Office for Linux comes out and it's a steaming pile of camel dung that makes Linux look bad, how can you prove that Microsoft did it on purpose instead of it being just buggy software, basically just version 1.0 problems?
I feel that we could level the playing field to allow other operating systems to compete if only we force Microsoft to require the command, load "*" ,8,1 to be entered by the user before windows will load. What do you think of this solution and how many kilobytes do I currently have free?
The computer OS has become almost as important as water, heat and electric. How would you respond to governing for profit OS companies like a public utility?