Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Antitrust Update
You can't help but know that Microsoft and the Department of Justice (plus several of the states that joined in the suit) are attempting to settle their antitrust dispute. The rest of the states are holding out for a settlement with more teeth, or a continuation of the case. A few links from the past few days: The LA Times looks at the states still opposing Microsoft. Microsoft defended the settlement before a Senate committee, which was crippled by political maneuvering (see also the NYT story). The speech given by the CEO of Red Hat is online. Microsoft filed a brief with the court, unsurprisingly urging the court to accept the settlement. The Register has a story on the proposed settlement, which is available at the DOJ Antitrust website. Linuxplanet has some advice for people who want to comment on the settlement - you've got 60 days from November 28. Finally, Microsoft has named two people to help it comply with the proposed settlement.
I don't understand. Microsoft is going to pay some people to tell them when they're not in compliance?
Does this sound like it's really going to work?
Shouldn't a "Compliance Officer" be appointed by the DOJ or some other agency?
i am getting sick of all this anti-trust talk. i am as anti-microsoft as anyone else, but it has recently become clear to me that microsoft will inevitably lose it's market dominance in it's own due time(a matter of years not decades).
all this trouble going into knocking down the giant could be avoided if people just waited until after it had cut it's ownlegs off.
lysergically yours
...how the DOJ (and by extension everyone else)can possibly see that MS is anything BUT a monopoly. They're growing, not shrinking, and the government seems to detect no problem with this. Under the Clinton administration, the DOJ was after MS with a vengeance-- when and why did they lose their cojones?
"Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., questioned whether the settlement, which he called "an invitation to further litigation, might have "a few too many loopholes."
At lest one of them got it right. As long as it is monolithic and full of $$$, Microsoft won't change much.
It's not a couple of supervisors that are going to change their business practice. It just looks good and they are excellent at making things look good so everybody will fall for it.
Imperium et libertas
Autocracy and freedom
There's a great stress relief tool relating to the settlement now available from Nitrozac and Snaggy at The Joy of Tech!
Enjoy!
Bitchslapped. Neat.
The government isn't turning off Microsoft. Microsoft isn't turning off linux, and AOL owns everything else. There is your new reality. Lets move on.
I used to be hardcore anti-Microsoft only Linux. But, visual c++ 6.0 is really a good compiler and I like the interface so I have to be Microsoft-passive now.
Nyquil = Nectar of the devil
Bill Gates Dart Board Joy of Tech
For relief of tech-related stress, brought about by recent Microsoft settlement offers.
I haven't follow all those law suite.. you know even a geek can try to have a life.. but well no matter who will 'win' those law suite.. the only real winner will be the lawyer.. you know.. Microsodt pay millions to he's lawyer... same on the other side...
The other winner are the Media... we heard about Microsoft law suite here and there... I'M BORED of it... give us a break with that and talk about thing we care... like new technologie that WORK...
"Tui Nati vulnerati."
From the Redhat speech: "The growth and adoption of the Linux operating system now holds a 28% marketshare of the server operating system according to IDC. The Apache web server now holds 60% of the web server marketplace. Both are technologies developed by the open source community and available alternatives to Microsoft products."
Linux is the best competitor microsoft has ever had. If anything, this proves the opposite of the anti-microsoft crowd. And as for the statement that MSFT will try to exploit the settlement to their full advantage, I would expect no less from a solid company. Capitalism at its best(worst) if you ask me.
Of course Microsofts settlement is going to get them money. Do you think ANY company would work to undermine its own cash flow? Microsofts practices, though irritating, and possibly illegal, are unfortunately also what could be called "brillient planning". And the closer they come the reaching a decision in reguards to the antitrust sute, the more money I think they'll go for before they lose. This means more XP like products we'll ahve to deal with in the future. Unless ofcourse, you just avoid Microsoft all together...
Of course, if a Republican senator pulled something like this, Slashdot would have made a big headline item about it, along with three paragraphs of editorializing.
Skevin
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
IANAL, but I wonder to what extent the presiding judge pays attention to the media and how this will affect her decision. On the one hand, judges are not supposed to be swayed by media reporting, yet the judge is supposed to consider public comments about the proposed settlement. To the extent that Senators represent their constituents' beliefs and needs, the judge may give some weight to these types of Congressional hearings.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
O.J. Simpson and former Lt. Col. Oliver North
And these guys don't see this really comeing, therefore they are doomed.
You'll now say that MS attacked linux and the GPL several times already. But will this help them ?
The main share of professional open source OSs is the *BSD series. Linux has a high market share but this is mainly hobbiest stuff and webservers set up by admins with "I dropped out from CS, because all this theory suckz really". The high level, high performance share is *BSD. And MS stated that the BSD licence is "good" therefore making advertisments for their main competitor.
So I think in the long term MS is doomed and all this anti-trust/breakdown stuff is obsolete and a waste of taxpayers money.
Of course a non US-citizen is slightly amused who easily you waste your economic power.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
TIM: I warned you! But did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always the same, I always--
ARTHUR: Oh, shut up!
(VIVE LES LAPEINS)
Dear Judge,
I understand that you have found me guilty of this crime and I am willing to make a mends. I promise not to do the same crime again, or at least in the same way, and I'll also stop doing other bad things, well at least the ones you've caught me doing. I even agree to make sure that I don't do exactly the same crime by hiring a couple of people who will be very strict with me and spank me most serverly if I do it again.
Regards...
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
(from the settlement)
This is the most important provision of the entire settlement.
This eliminates Microsoft's ability to use strong-arm tactics in the ways it has been doing -- not giving special pricing to vendors who don't stay in line with what Microsoft and friends wants to do. It says that if you buy (OEM) licenses from Microsoft that (almost) no matter what you do as long as you buy the same number of licenses as someone else you'll get the same price.
The only thing that I would like better is for the Microsoft License Schedule to be applied uniformly to all customers, regardless of OEM status. Without that, Microsoft may find loopholes to force companies out of OEM status and buy retail licenses (or whatever) but this is still a huge step.
There is lots of talk about MS Word for Linux and such, but I think that would only further the monopoly, and I just don't think it's right for the government to mandate a product line. I think that fair pricing, however, is something totally reasonable and that will, in the end, hurt Microsoft more than most unfair measures we could add.
Having uniform licensing to all (not just OEMs) would be the one change I would make if I got one choice, but if I got two changes I would make Microsoft release all the API specs in a public forum and make them freely available, instead of just on MSDN. Say, on their web site and with the clause that they must be freely distributable in an unmodified form.
I think that those two things would make this settlement even better, but as it stands I think that the settlement is a fair solution.
At least for the abuse of monopoly in the OS realm, which is what this is all about.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Does anyone else remember how wonderful it felt that the DoJ was doing something about Microsoft's bullying tactics several years ago? We all hoped it would finally be the end of the abuse.
Then, the ruling came down... They are a monopoly and they will be stricken down. People-in-the-know were amazed... The DoJ proved it could compete with new-age, tech-savvy companies.
Now, it seems the DoJ has proven just the opposite. They got the affirmation that it was a monopoly and then decided that was "good enough"... we don't need to punish them.
Almost as if they just wanted to prove they were a monopoly but didn't really want to do anything about it.
If the DoJ has there way now, Microsoft is virtually given a carte blanche to (attempt to) dominate our lives in the living room (XBox), on the internet (.NET), in the news (MSNBC), etc.
Truly a sad moment in the history of the US (if not the world).
Nosce te Ipsum
There is one thing that I'm not sure I understand about the culture of /. here. How can a vocal few (not making broad generalizations here) be fine with more government regulation against MS, but want them to keep their hands out of everything else? If Redhat actually ended up doing very well financially, will you support the government stepping in and saying "No, you can't be that big." Why is there so much less out-cry against, Sun-AOL-TW-etc.? (Notice I don't use netscape, they don't exist anymore as a viable entity anymore.) Given the chance to go back in time, any of the CEOs of any of the big software companies would do the exact same things as Gates and MS has done in the past. Apple would be there now, if they didn't make so many bad decisions in the 80s and early 90s.
.I'm done ranting. . .start the moderator's downward spiral....
Why is MS where they are? Cut throught business practices, strategic partnerships, product innovation, and good luck. Why do you think Sun-Tzu's Art of War is required reading at business schools around the country.
Anyone who thinks that McNealy or Ellison would not do the same things that Gates has done is very Naieve. Look how hard Ellison is pushing to get Oracle for a national ID card. Are people lobbying for an open solution to that, even though it is a crappy idea anyway? Ok.
Microsoft should not be allowed to choose their punnishment. No perpetrator has the perspective required to understand the full impact of thier activities, and thus their opinions on the remedy for them. In this case, microsoft hardly believes it has done any wrong, and is therefore unqualified to propose it's own punnishment.
Just my musings.
gus
.. if only.
The Red Hat speech is awesome. Szulik on the OSS Development Model:
This open communication strikes me as so perfectly American. I envision the early leaders of this country drawing up the tenets of our constitution in much the same way--in the open, in pursuit of a solution that is fair and of benefit to all.
This is the best counterstatement to MSs 'Linux is anti-American' garbage I've read so far.
CA's attourney statement that "It's a little like Big Tobacco being found guilty of selling cigarettes to minors, and the remedy is for them to agree to give them free cigarettes."
How can anyone keep up with Micro$oft? Seriously, while we're all focusing on this antitrust suit, they've got like 50 other projects in the works, from M$ TV, the XBox, .NET, Passport, Windows XP, Explorer, and a whole lot more. By the time we hear about an M$ development, it's already too late, 'cause they've got something else in the works. You can't even stop and say, "Hey, Windows XP has some seriously troubled activation issues" because they've got some other product out before you can finish your sentence. They're pushing stuff out so fast that it's not even possible to discuss your misgivings because it's old news in a day. Kind of like a new tendrils poping up that reach into everything we do. M$ encompasses almost everything in the average person's life, from computers to news to the military. And with the xbox, they're trying to get their products into our living rooms. M$ wants to have your entire house running on their software.
Now, I realise that there is always the option of simply not using M$ products, but what about all those other people out there who aren't as "enlightened"? To them, Windows is the computer, not simply an OS. While some might not care what John Q Public is running on his home computer, I do, because with more market dominance, M$ gets more power. And with more power, they can start affecting the lives of everyone, even those people who don't touch M$ products. What if Micro$oft really did manage to pass litigation through that banned OSs without DRM?
Something needs to be done about M$, and not using WinXP isn't going to cut it. If the antitrust suit fails, perhaps we, the people, need to put something into action.
No sig for you.
If we can't help to know then WHY are you posting it?? ... hmmm?
settlement before a Senate committee, which was crippled by political maneuvering (see also the NYT story).
Seriously ... do you know ANYTHING about politics? ... it's what makes america drive and move ... the ability to manipulate people to get what you want. Sorta like how somehow you're able to manipulate people to let you stay at /.
Linuxplanet has some advice for people who want to comment on the settlement - you've got 60 days from November 28.
Ummm I do believe this particular subject will be commented on for the next 20 years. Anyone remember when Standard Oil broke up? ... yeah I do too...
Michael I am very sorry to be coming at you so strongly, but your articles are pure bullshit ... You state facts then go into opinion that has no basis behind it.
Moderators - This is not a Troll or Flame ... I AM commenting on the story.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
If M$ is going to get any fair competition, they need to open their formats on Word and Excel so people are not forced to use MS Office if they have to work with those formats. That would be a big boost for the developers of Abiword, WordPerfect for *nix, Gnumeric, Star Office, etc. They wouldn't have to spend so much time on converters. They could spend their time making great office programs that work with anything someone sends you, and make the office application software battle a fair fight.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
You can read the proposed Civil Settlement (pdf) and the responses as well. They also are pdf files being just scanned images of the letters recieved.
The responses are interesting, most of the ones I have read from School Districts indicate that they are afraid that they get very little value out of the settlement, since the software will be donated, and the hardware will be largely used requiring more maintenance than the benefit it provides. In efffect the schools are saying that they will be saddled with a much greater percentage of the total cost of ownership than Microsoft. So if the intention is to punish Microsoft and reward the schools this is the wrong way to go about it.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Taliban uses BSD,
.....
Taliban is dying,
Therefore BSD is
Filling our kids' classrooms with visible reminders of a company is no way to correct a monopoly any more than it's a way to keep kids from smoking.
Imagine if the tobacco companies had been allowed to settle by saying "we'll put a bunch of stuff we know you can't afford and desperately need into your schools, with our logos highly visible to impressionable young children who will grow up highly inclined to become our next generation of customers
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Senator Leahy had invited Jim Barksdale (co-founder of Netscape) to testify on the effects the RPFJ would have had if it was in place when Netscape was starting up. Microsoft balked at having him testify and said they would have refused to appear if Barksdale was there. So Barksdale was dis-invited, but sent a letter giving his answer. That letter was partially read by Sen. Hatch and said that Netscape would have never received VC funding. Pretty damning stuff.
Leahy asked Charles James (head of Antitrust for DoJ) to respond. He dodged saying that he had not read the letter yet and it seemed like typical hyperbole that was being spouted off (but also said he could not characterize it as such given he has not read the letter). Leahy asked him to formally respond for the record, which will be done in writing (I assume).
It was a little suprising to see such a little used procedural movement to kill the hearing. Leahy was visablly upset, but admitted its a Senator's perogative. Ironically, it was Sen Byrd (who knows every minutia of procedure) who was upset over TPA (fast track trade negotiation authorization for the President on trade treaties) and called that mark-up to a halt--however, it had already been succesfully reported out of committee at that point.
So what was left was 4 Senators upbraiding MS and calling the settlement for the sham it is. The only one defending the settlement was Sen. McConnell who clearly wanted to get his 1 minute in before the first recess (for votes, asked to be heard when Leahy tried to do a 20 minute break so he would not have to come back). All McConnell said was that 70% of the public favor a settlement, so any settlement is good. Leahy responded by saying that he too favored a settlement, but not a meaningless one riddled with loopholes.
FYI, the 4 senators attacking MS were Leahy (D-VT), Kohl (D-WI), Hatch (R-UT), and DeWine (R-OH), a bi-partisan group to say the least.
Quote from the LA times story:
"As a major employer and a leader in our industry, we take our legal obligations very seriously," Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said in a statement.
"These new compliance officers will help us do an even better job of understanding our responsibilities under the law and ensuring that all our people know what's expected of them. We are committed to full compliance with the antitrust settlement, as well as all the other laws and regulations affecting our business."
hehe I find it quite ironic. They take the law very seriously they say, yeah.. their law. Especially when they themselves are writing it.
It seems we all more or less agree that Microsoft is evil and needs to be toppled, one way or the other. Something that people can do, if they're in a position to do it (a company or organisation with in-house counsel, for instance, or attorneys themselves), is to take the time to file an amicus brief.e nts cases.
They aren't as useful as, say, electing a president/representatives less wooed by the $ in M$, but they help. Especially in these highly politicized keep-my-job-as-appointee-by-making-happy-constitu
"Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information." -Samuel Johnson
Now, I realise that there is always the option of simply not using M$ products, but what about all those other people out there who aren't as "enlightened"? To them, Windows is the computer, not simply an OS. .net i am at forthisidespise@myself.com)
Simply not using MS products is not that simple. I recently (les than a year) have attempted to rid myself of MS products but it is close to impossible. I do not use hotmail, nor am i going to get an xbox, but my attempt to move to linux has tapered somewhat. I now dual/triple boot but find myself logging into winME (be quiet) more than redhat or connectiva. I am also a avid Rogue Spear player, and have many friends who I know soley over the ZONE. Of course you know now i needed to get a passportpassport account for that and i lasted a whole 2 days before I signed up for one (by the way, if you want to email me at my new email adderes for
IE is also the browser with it all (not excluding gaping security holes), and my frequent tries at opera and netscape (i use mozilla now when not on IE) have always ended up useless becuase of one plugin or support feature that was not there.
And I work in a PCLAN, emagine how difficult it would be to swap a more clueless user to not usint any of tio bill's products
This has got to stop.
Bitching about how letting MS put it's products into our children's classrooms will only increase their foothold isn't going to help when you only do it on slashdot! Here's the contact info for making your argument known! For those extra lazy people (myself included), they are also accepting emails!
US Postal Services:
Renata Hesse,Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Email:
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Fax:
202-616-9937 or 202-307-1545
Try not to be too rude. Remember, someone has to actually read these, and you'll only make them ignore your arguments if you are snide. Also, try to get records of reciept where possible. (Send by certified mail, use email reciepts, get fax reciepts) Supposedly ALL recieved comments will be published in the Federal Register. So if you don't see your comment in it with all the others, then you will have your reciept to back up your claim that not all comments were considered and included!
what is the shite on B. Gates' face on /.'s MS icon? just asking....?
good thing to be able to correct your own mistakes before they become a problem for others and a liability to you.
something Microsoft should seriously concider in their strategy. But they probably won't know how to make just as much money that way.
Once upon a time the King's court jester offended him so severely that the King decided that the Fool must be punished, and unfortunately the punishment was to be death. The King said to his Fool,"Jester, you have offended me in a way that must unfortunately be punished by your being put to death, but since you have indeed served me for very many years and brought much amusement to my court in the past, I will allow you to choose the manner of your death."
;-)
So what form of death did the Jester choose? Why he chose to die of old age... after all he was no fool.
For the last friggin' time, being a monopoly IS NOT ILLEGAL!!!!
abusing the monopoly power that you have is illegal. MS abused their monopoly power, that's what they're in trouble for.
the act of being a monopoly is not a crime, so shut up about it already.
i can just imagine the stream of sniveling drivel coming to the DOJ about how M$ Sux0rs, and how they h4x to get a m0n0p0ly.
sheet. don't write a letter to the DOJ or anyone else until you know what they did that was illegal for Pete's sake.
I don't recall the name of the metric off the top of my head, but one that is commonly used is the summation of the squares of the market shares of the various companies, or:
.9^2, or .81, which is very high indeed. Traditional industries usually break down into something like .4,.2,.1,.1 + niche players, and I think the legal bound on the overall metric is usually something like .4 for monopoly.
[sigma from 1 to n] (% mkt share) ^ 2
So, if we assume that MSoft has 90% mkt share of business desktops, then their (whatever the name of the metric is) would be upwards of
Of course, the lawyers get involved with the definition of "market," as it's in Microsoft's interest to define market as broadly as possible, and it's in the DOJ's interest to be as finite as possible, since the DOJ can then "prove" that MS has a monopoly over the "secretary level OS sales among Fortune 30 companies involved in airplane wheel manufacture." Meanwhile, MS would claim that they only hold 10% of the "business machine requiring an electrical circuit" market.
Not an answer, but it might help on the question of monopoly scale.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
On a slightly-related note, the UK Government has just discovered that Microsoft is raising its licencing fees by about a hundred million or so dollars, as of next year. Apparently, they're not happy about this and have told Microsoft to either think again, or take a long walk off a short plank. The UK Government is also starting to take a serious look at alternatives.
This is just a thought, but this COULD spell the end of Microsoft as a mega-corp, =IF= the Linux distros can get their acts together. Think about it for a moment. Let's say only a few EU Governments switch to Linux. Well, the Governments are amongst the big spenders for Universities, so Universities will likely follow suit. This'll trickle down into the earlier schools, and from there into the homes.
If Microsoft lose enough European Governments, they lose the European educational (and by extension the home) markets. In consequence, since people generally stick to what they know, there's a decent chance they'll lose the European technical markets, too.
BUT this requires that Linux distributions exploit this potential opening. To do that, they need to include more ease-of-use software. Linuxconf and/or Webmin are getting to the point of being useful to Joe Average, but they generally aren't included. Ximian is nice, but again, it's usually missing. Since home users'll likely be using multimedia stuff, the kernels used need (at least) the low latency patches. For games, where's FlightGear? The Doom-alikes? Speech goes over well, so where's Festival? Office users are likely to need to connect to Windows systems, but Samba rarely gets a mention (never mind configuration) at install time, and Samba-tng seems to have vanished, as far as distros are concerned.
My point? My point is that Linux has everything it needs to take over, and an opportunity is presenting itself over one of the most important continents on the Earth today...
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)
It's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to maintain one.
Okay. But don't forget, there's roads to build and keep up, water supplies to monitor, safety services, civil services, lawns to mow, sanitation to deal with, borders to guard, food supplies, levies to maintain to keep rivers from flooding towns, and all sorts of little vitalities that "revolutionaries" fail to place in the picture.
:P
Not quite as simple as you would think.
Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time-a.
Think about it - after essentially winning their war, the victorious DoJ is willing to surrender and let their foes dictate terms? Does this mean that human souls are migrating into Microsoft employees?
Every company that signed exclusive distribution contracts with microsoft should be fined $1.1 billion.
Anyone that wants to continue using a MS product must pay again the amount they spent to get that product in the first place. This will be their penalty for contributing to the extension of a monopoly.
I think this would be the best solution. I know Linux could pick up the slack for the more tech savvy but I doubt Apple could meet production for the screaming hordes running their way.
t
This is just my opinion... and feel free to bash me on my head when I'm done... but why is everyone messing with Microsoft? They are a coporation, and like other corporations, they wish to make money. And they have made money, lots of it, because there is no competition. Because they destroyed all competition.
Why does the opensource community care? I think it is a weakness, asking for help from the DOJ to "help us bring down the industry bully".
Microsoft are where they are because of the work they put in and the companies that they walked over on the way to get here. It could easily be OS/2 on 90% of the desktop of people if OS/2 would have taken other directions.
I am not a Microsoft fanatic. If I have to use the product, I will. I think that there OSes are some of the largest piles of T-rex dung on the planet. But they are where they are because of the consumer. My first OS, was RedHAt, because I was informed about the situation. I was a budding programmer, who did not want to spend $200 for the OS, another $100 for the compiler, and deal with frequent crashes. I was informed on all platforms. As an excample, I worked with NT 4.0 everyday in my MCSE class in High School. (Yes, I was an MCP.) I asked my teacher why MCSE and Sun, or IBM or something, and he replied, "MS is where the money is."
There are many people who belive that Windows is a better product than Linux, OS X, or BeOS. I belive they are all strong at certain points. But Microsoft is the largest, has the most money(for R&D, but where does it go?), has the most market share, and will remain at the top until something
else comes along.
Scientist do not use windows. They need more power and stability. They are informed individuals, so they choose SGI or Sun or the build their own clusster. I knew, first hand of Microsoft's OS, and chose something else. Would other make the same decision, I don't know. But if something better was out there... the consumer would use it. I mean the average consumer, not you and I who are, _informed_.
Why is everyone bithching anyway? If you are happy with your UNIX variant or whatever, shut up and be happy.
These companies just want MS out of the way so they can get more market share, which = more money. Anyway, is anyone complaining about nVidia?
It's the Herfindahl index. The DOJ, at this site, uses the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which is the same thing, only without the decimals. So, while the Herfindahl index goes from 1 (total domination of market) to 0 (atomistic competition), the HHI goes from 10000 to 0. According to the site, anything above 1800 (or, by the other scale, .18) is considered highly concentrated.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
phuck all yall coming off the wall, I got a ceo in da back swinging from my balls. Uh you want me to set it like some mac 11 kids unleaded.
the point of all this? You are all lame. More power to Microsoft, without them we would all still be using typewriters.
The contrast of how the US judicial system can work is interesting: Dimitri circumvents the protection on some minor piece of software and gets thrown into jail. MSFT leaves behind a trail of dead competitors and obvious monopolistic abuses, their executives basically deceive the court with false or doctored testimonies and they're looking at another slap on the wrist.
Isn't it great what (lots of) money can buy you??
http://stephenadler.org/petition/
Regarding the K-12 thing.
Andrew.
While I agree with the sentiment that Open Source often seems All-American, and generally jives with the ideals of a young Thomas Jefferson - the Constitution was written by a group of elite individuals (perhaps unique in the world at the time because their elite status was not solely based on their parentage), in a closed and sealed up building, where no one was allowed to report the proceedings to the populous at large. After they had created their new document for government they set about to use the tools of mass media (The Federalist Papers, and other forums) to convince everyone else that their Constitution was The Best Thing for America. (Even though most of them thought of themselves as Virginians, or New Yorkers rather than as Americans - Hamilton being the only obvious exception that springs to mind) And it worked, they convinced us to adopt their method of governing. Sure they had to add a patch that some of the end users demanded (Bill of Rights), but their creation was otherwise untouched.... wait a second, this isn't alt.history.colonial, is it? In brief, Szulik's speech was a nice sentiment, but his vision of how the Constitution was drawn up is imaginary.
Antitrust this and that...I'm sick and tired of it. I've been punishing Microsoft for over 2 years now by not using their crappy software at all and the only reason they haven't noticed is because you people still use their crapXP(tm). So instead of wining about M$ choosing their own "punishment" to further extend their monopoly just take a stand today (no not next monday) and throw their shit away, go join a project and live happily ever after.
:)
Side note: How come they never made a version of Monopoly (the game) ? That would be awesome - Microsoft Monopoly(tm). Haha
Do you mean, the way they "kept their hands off" Enron?
Have you heard about Enron? Enron created the illusion of extreme growth and power by using an accounting loophole and "making all of their money from trading". Enron was also in bed with the Bush administration. Enron executives and Enron itself made huge contributions to the GOP. In return, the Energy Department was full of ex-Enron executives. The Enron CEO could dictate who worked in Energy. Needless to say Enron was leading the charge in favour of de-regulating not only energy, but, everything!
The irony of this whole distaster is that Enron might have been saved by regulation! Enron's crash has been compared to a "Run on the Bank" dating back to when there was no bank regulation or deposit insurance. Enron was moving into many of the functions of a bank, e.g. creating and trading derivatives. Of course, Enron would have been constrained by regulation into being a well run, well capitalized company with boring, slow and steady growth, instead of doing an immitation of a skyrocket.
My reading of the Enron debacle, Microsoft's monopoly stifling all of high-tech and airline deregulation (can you say Sept. 11?) leads to one conclusion. Capitalism can only work in the long run if THERE IS AT LEAST SOME REGULATION EVERYWHERE IN THE SYSTEM.
Every game needs some rules. The question is, who can and will set the rules. Enron, Microsoft and the airlines have pretty conclusively proved that the players cannot set and enforce the rules!!!
By the way, Enron must have distracted Dubya's attention away from Microsoft, since he was such a close friend to top Enron executives. Can you imagine what will happen if Enron executives face jail time? Dubya can aleays pardon them at the end of his administration, shades of Clinton's pardons. I am watching and waiting to see whether Dumbya is too dense to learn anything from the valuable Enron object lesson!
There is nothing wrong with having market share or perhaps even being a monopoly. But when you abuse your position to foreclose competition, not only does that hurt competition (which hurts consumers) but is illegal.
That is great that you had that option to choose your OS. However, most people buy their computers through major OEMs and don't have the luxery of building a system and compiling their own OS on the system. They have a system with Windows pre-installed, whether they know they have another option or not. An average user is not going to dl an iso and re-partition their drive to put another OS on it. They are not going to purchase another OS (even for super cheap) at CompUSA when their is an OS right there. And OEMs are not going to offer another OS pre-installed because of MS retalitory conduct (and that part is illegal).
So, the user brings their computer home and it has windows preinstalled. Included is a web browser so the user is not going to dl netscape/opera or whatever else. Also included is a media player (hard bolted into the browser) so they are not neccesarily going to dl another player. Not included is Java, so develepers will stop java development (don't believe me, why do so many web builders, aside from laziness, code pages for IE that look wierd on different browsers).
Another key consideration is office. In a business, files are transferred in MS formats. Why would a company put on an OS that can't handle applications that they need? MS will not port office to linux for this specific reason (and as good as Star Office is, it can't handle conversions flawlessly).
I would suggest that anyone who questions what MS did is illegal read Judge Penfield's findings of facts. Or read this article for a basic summary This details all the ways that MS broke the law. Contrary to what MS says, a conservative 7 Judge Court of Appeals upheld the majority of this decision and found MS behaved illegaly.
What MS does is limit users choice. They do this by taking one monopoly and leaveraging that into another monopoly. I could care less what OS people use, what browser people use, and what software people use. But I do like to have a choice as to what to use, and I like venture capitalists to not fear investing in technologies that MS already is competing in , intends to compete in, or may just so happen to decide later to compete in. As Barksdale, now a VC, said in his letter, a VC will not invest in a technology if MS ever has an intention to use their monopoly to "compete" (read destroy) that technology. And while the open source community is great, VC is also neccesary otherwise these technologies will wither on the vine.
Microsoft celebrates DOJ penalty buy purchasing Red Hat....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I have been a user of Microsoft products since MS-DOS 6.2 I know Microsoft has published quality software and should be allowed to continue doing so. What I disagree on is the marketing tactics that Microsoft has used to expand its business at the expense of third-party competition keeping a level playing field, particuarly in the area of office applications and suites. I feel that an appropriate punishment for Microsoft for its violation of anttrust law is the following:
1: The proposed donation of computer equipment and software to poor school districts should be computer equipment purchased by Microsoft, with no software installed, and software being made available through grant money provided by Microsoft for the school districts to spend on software as they wish. School districts can then decide, with the help of IT professionals such as myself and others, which software packages and operating systems they can purchase and utilized on these donated computers.
2: Any Microsoft proprietary document file formats should be made open, and developers should be allowed to have unrestricted access to software development kits to develop programs that can read from, write to, and modify these documents. With this clause as part of a final judgment, better quality software products, such as a version of Microsoft Outlook that contains very few security holes which can be exploited through the spread of e-mail "worm" viruses can be developed.
3: Any standards and protocols that Microsoft has establshed while it was operating as a monopoly must be made open, with unrestricted access to developer kits and documentation for software and hardware developers wishing to utilize these standards and protocols. Again, this will level the playing field, with better quality products being developed by many manufacturers and developers.
The real issue at hand here is how fair is it to the consumer to allow Microsoft to continue operating under their current business practices.
Sometimes I troll because God tells me it's a good idea.
...all you want, but the ONLY way that things are going to change is through:
1. Voicing your displeasure in Microsoft by:
a) Boycotting Microsoft Products
b) Sending Microsoft and your elected representatives messages about your personal boycott.
c) Encourage others to do the same.
2. Alternative Advocacy:
a) Put Linux on every computer you can.
b) Educate, amuse, and entertain the people you come into contact with about the alternatives. Make it fun, not a chore.
3. Quit talking out of your ass and spewing anti-MS propaganda. It's hard to make friends when you're vilifying someone else out of the other side of your mouth.
The power of the American citizen lies within his and her wallet. When we buy a product, we are sending a message to the producer that we accept *everything* they do with respect to how that product is made, marketed, and consumed. If you want to hurt Microsoft - do it with your power as a consumer. Hit them where it hurts the most - in the P&L statement. Sell your MSFT and invest the funds in a company you admire.
If you _have_ to use Microsoft products, that's fine, but I've found I can convince my employers to switch not by voicing my hatred of Microsoft, but simply comparing Microsoft products side by side with similarly capable open source alternatives.
Three words: Return on Investment.
That is all.
Mmmm... Pistol Whip...
As I recall the DoJ's case focused on particular activities. The one that comes to mind is when Compaq made the decision to preinstall Netscape on their Presario systems and add an icon to said browser on the desktop. That SEEMS harmless enough except M$ wants IE to catch on. So M$ sends Compaq a little letter to the effect [Dear Compaq, since you are putting Netscape on the desktop we are revoking your OEM status in 30 days. Please make arrangements with the VAR of your choice for further licensing of our product. M$] Now technically this is legal and M$ has every right to do this. Where it becomes a monopoly issue is that Compaq now has no option to install. Linux is not ready for the desktop (in 1995 it really wasn't) and even if it were your not going to find a large corporation willing to do without M$ win9x/NT etc. So, since there are no "viable" (that's the key here) alternatives M$'s actions become blatantly monopolistic. If there were more than one company that distributed the latest version of Windows then Compaq could just say "OK, we'll buy Windows from Macrosoft or Microhard". Compaq could have bought their licenses through a VAR like everybody else at retail, yes, but that would have made every unit they sold much more expensive. If the plaintiffs stick to the original argument I don't see how they can be denied. "If the monopoly fits you must not acquit!!!"
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
But we'll be back! just as soon as someone has fuel for the helicopters . . .
hawk, who denies being a member
In Canada, the law that is supposed to protect Canadian consumers and businesses is the Competition Act. The Government agency in charge of upholding this law is the Competition Bureau.
It is funny how the Microsoft has been convicted in the US and EU of illegal monopolistic business practices yet the Canadian Competition Bureau has done nothing. You can email them to ask why here.
If you are Canadian and want to ask the same question of your member of parliment, their email addresses are here.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
I like Bush, I "liked" Sen. Ashcroft. I'm not terribly thrilled with Ashcroft post 9/11. I give the FBI props for doing a great job of rounding up the suspects. I don't like the power grab.
I voted in Florida...
I don't think that Clinton/Reno was attempting to apply Justice, I think that they were making a point to Microsoft that they need to "participate" in the government. Once the "participation" checks arrived, the situation changed.
All the politicians are corrupt to some extent, its the nature of the beast. I refuse to believe that Clinton/Reno were anything but corrupt in this case, as their 8 years of behavior indicated.
Microsoft has criticized the alternative remedy offered by the hold-out states as ``radical and punitive'' measures that ''seem calculated to inflict maximum commercial harm on Microsoft.''
... isn't that the point when someone is found guilty?
Uhmmmm
> But read the appeals court judgement -- the DOJ's
> (broader) case was pretty well undermined.
That's nonsense, even by slashdot standards!
The tying issue was sent back. The findings of fact, however, were upheld in their entirety. The findings of illegal use of market power were upheld.
> Microsoft was a mean boy to the OEMs. That's the only thing that the
> government's got them on,
I'm not sure what to say, other than that you should put the crack pipe down. The *process* by which the remedy was chosen (specifically, a judge breaking ethical rules by granting interviews) was rejected, and one conclusion of law was rejected. Microsoft shills are claiming that the breakup was overturned, which is a willfully false statement. The court was very clear, and even issued a second opinion to make clear, that it had not ruled out *any* remedies.
hawk, esq.
Available for viewing - roughly an hour long.
Here 'tis
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530;
(facsimile) 202-616-9937
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am a computer programmer and consider myself knowledgeable of the computer industry. I am writing concerning the proposed Microsoft settlement with the Department of Justice. Since Microsoft has already been found guilty, I consider the existing settlement to be severely lacking in several areas. As it is currently written, the settlement will not prevent Microsoft from continuing their anti-competitive behavior. Also, it provides no penalty for Microsoft's past behavior. A meaningful settlement needs, at a minimum, the following:
Sincerely,
Michael J. Green
concerned, informed Citizen
*sigh*
> You'll have to come up with better than a little heat from the
> marketing guys to prove there was coercion involved. Citing a
> single instance where Microsoft followed through on their threats would
> be a help. However, nobody presents evidence of a follow-through.
> So you're all blowing hot air.
Never say all. How about DR-DOS? Here's a link where the settlement is mentioned, and I leave it to you to dig into the details of the case if you dare. In several instances (two in Europe and one in the U.S.) Microsoft stated in contracts that the companies in question were not allowed to sell a computer without paying them for a license for MS-DOS, even if they didn't actually install MS-DOS. When the company in the U.S. complained, they were told that if they sold a computer without paying the royalty, they'd lose the right to sell MS-DOS at all. This made computers with DR-DOS more expensive than computers with MS-DOS only, and since these companies couldn't afford not to sell MS-DOS, they had to knuckle under. This pressure came in the form of legal documents from Microsoft's attorneys, not "a little heat from the marketing guys" as you put it. This is one of the parts of the case that has Microsoft in such hot water in Europe.
On a more personal note, I recently got a PC from Dell. It came with Windows Millenium preinstalled, and I could not buy a PC without some Microsoft OS installed. I decided that I didn't really want it, so when I got the computer I clicked "I Do Not Agree" to the EULA. It told me to contact my PC vendor for refund information. I called Dell, and they said they wouldn't refund my money, and that I'd have to contact Microsoft if I wanted my refund. I contacted Microsoft and they told me they wouldn't refund my money either. I reminded them that Dell said they'd pay me back, and they said, "take it up with Dell." I called Dell back and they said they can't give me a refund because they can't get the money back from Microsoft.
Now would you like to tell me about hot air? Or perhaps you'd like to refute my points? Or maybe you'll give me back the money that Microsoft won't for a product I don't want and didn't have a choice about buying? Especially since they lied in their license about being willing to refund it if I didn't agree to their ridiculous EULA?
Didn't think so.
Virg
I won't even begin to wonder why you think Apple hasn't tried to compete with Microsoft, or hasn't poured a lot into marketing, but I don't even need that one. Here's mine:
Digital Research - Published DR-DOS, which was a direct (and fairly successful) competitor for MS-DOS. They were driven out of the market when Microsoft went to computer OEMs and said, "if you offer DR-DOS on any machine you sell, we'll refuse to sell you licenses for MS-DOS." Because OEMs were selling about 40 percent DR-DOS and 60 percent MS-DOS, many of them could not afford to drop support for MS-DOS, so they dropped support for DR-DOS. In addition, when Windows 3.0 came out, during the installation it would check for DR-DOS on the machine, and if it was found, would throw three screenfuls of warnings about possible malfunctions (not a single one of which could they prove when Caldera, who now owns DR-DOS, sucessfully sued them). Many users were scared off by these warnings, and DR-DOS died out.
Maybe you have a different definition of "compete", but this seems to have involved a company (Digital Research) putting "some" money on the line, and getting spanked because Microsoft bullied OEMs.
But hey, thanks for playing...
Virg
The Senate hearings are nothing but an opportunity for polititians to engage in mindless grandstanding. These hearings have no real affect on anything. What, did you fall asleep during civics class?
Who needs reactive legal action when more constructive tactics could work. Here's my suggestion:
US gov't says "here's the format and we will only use word processors that can conform". MS, Corel, Sun, etc. update to read and write that format (in addition to their own). How could they not? The gov't has the mass to force a change like that and a lot of the people could get along with a feature set not much greater than html (not that it has to be quite that limited).
Of course, it would be nice to mostly reuse an existing cleartext format, perhaps something like XML that looks something like Word Perfect's "reveal codes".
Ahhh. Reveal codes. Those were the days.
A split-off MS Apps corporation would have no incentive to make Office for Linux simply because you Linux people don't believe in paying for software. Why would such a corporation spend millions of dollars to port something to a platform whose community would not only not buy the product, but would gladly post it on the web for all to pirate?? It would be much more profitable for the MS Apps corp to simply keep making Office for Windows and Mac, which are platforms that are viable for commercial apps.
Next time, think before you post.
This Reuters story on Yahoo! could cast an interesting light on the case, as these are companies who are not (currently) directly competing with Microsoft.
You admit to using MS products more than your beloved linux, so what's the problem?
This is why MS is successful, because they cater to the needs of the users. OSS sofware only caters to the desires of the programers themselves (except for the programers' desire to get paid for their efforts).
Finally, Microsoft has named two people to help it comply with the proposed settlement.
If you read more carefully:
Guyton will be responsible for making sure Microsoft employees don't run afoul of employment and anti-discrimination statutes or violate laws governing civil rights, competition, foreign trade or privacy, among others.
Probaby a very important thing for a company of this size to do, but this doesn't really sound like it is related to the anti-trust panel.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
This shows why slashdot has no credibility with any stories that it posts regarding MS. Why is it that only news icon that contains editorial comment is the MS icon?? How can a reader put any credence into any MS story posted on this site?
It's refreshing to me to see how many Slashdotters are passionate about the punishment of Microsoft for its abusive practices and the advocation of alternative operating systems on the desktop. What's disturbing, however, is how commonly the same dissenters believe that Slashdot, itself, is a particularly effective forum for argument and proposition!
One of the primary reasons for Microsoft's dominance of the public mindshare (as cited innumerably in various forums) is the lack of education of the average home and office user of viable alternatives. We rant and rave that "Joe Sixpack can't distinguish his OS from his computer!" or "Jane Doe doesn't care about which OS she's using, as long as she gets a fast computer that runs MSOffice!"
What I am not hearing is solutions to this problem! Talking to congress-folk and attorneys-general about the state of the marketplace as a result of Microsoft's continued and largely unpunished dominance will not get us very far if the people in positions of power remain uneducated about alternatives as well! We have to make strong efforts to educate everyone! Especially our average neighbor, who equates "Microsoft" and "Windows" to "computers" and "internet."
I have advocated a strong grassroots education effort on Slashdot before, and I feel it needs repeating. We (programmers, power-users, tech-geeks, computer aficianados, what-have-you) must begin to speak to our communities and politicians about what alternatives are available.
*The most successful social revolutions started and ended with the average citizen!*
And it's not that difficult. Talk to your local library, civic center or school to organize a class. Title it "Introduction to Alternative Operating Systems for Your Home or Office" or something similarly non-intimidating to "Joe Sixpack". Have a simple conversation with your school district's super-indendent. Write editorials for your local newspaper. And simplest of all, just talk to people! Start a non-competitive, purely educational conversation about what computer they COULD have purchased, and WHY. Always, always, always be armed with answers to "WHY?"
The passion is here. The resolve is lacking. I think we all are a bit concerned about what will happen to OUR luxury of choice when Microsoft wrests supreme dominance over multiple markets. What will we do to stop it?
Sometimes the most powerful voices are not the loudest, but the ones that carry.
Otto
Well, in answer to your comment, your logic pans out to "why are you so mad at Microsoft for doing something that companies X, Y and Z would do if given the chance?" I'm mad because:
1.) Those other companies may wish to do these things, but they haven't actually been convicted of breaking the law yet.
2.) Arguing that others would break the law if they could is not an excuse for breaking the law.
3.) They broke the law.
That's a pretty simple explanation. When any of the others break the law, I'll start hue-ing and crying about them.
Virg
Dimitri commited a *criminal* act, therefore Dimitri commited a *crime*, therefore Dimitri is a *criminal*. QED.
On the other hand, MS was found to have violated Anti-trust law. Anti-trust is *civil* law, not *criminal* law, therefore Anti-trust lawsuits are *civil* suites, not *criminal* ones, therefore violation of Anti-trust law is not a *crime*, and the violators are not *criminals*. Therefore MS is not a *criminal* organization. QED.
Yes, violation of Anti-trust law is illegal, but not a *crime*. Similar to speeding. Speeding is a violation of traffic law, and is therefore illegal, but it is not a crime, ans speeders are not criminals (however, failure to pay a speeding ticket *is* a crime).
You admit to using MS products more than your beloved linux, so what's the problem?
the problem is like when ms pulls stunts like it did with zone. Noone i know in the zone likes it but we will accept it for lack of a (serious) alternative, lazyness and that all we know is sone, so everyone is there. thats why.
and please dont say my beloved ms products again. I just ate.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-8152978.html : Senate leaders skeptical of Microsoft deal
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r28941619 : "Senate Panel Skeptical of Microsoft" By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r28965467 : "Skepticism in Senate Panel Over Accord With Microsoft" By STEPHEN LABATON
The romantics say that justice is blind, but nowadays the fair lady has removed her blindfold and has proven to have a very keen eye on business.
They also say that crime doesn't pay. I think recent events have shown that crime does pay, big bux. But the most unfortunate truth is that usually justice does not.
This whole Antitrust-wrestle has been an excellent, but not the only, proof of today's justice-system getting more and more commercial. Microsoft's tactics are simply unbeatable: Keep the law-process running until either they run tired of it or they run out of money, and in case of the latter, buy them out. Can the DOJ be bought? At least Microsoft seems to rely on that.
Need we say more? The feds chasing kids with not-so-moral CD-R collections when there are real criminals out there...Unfortunately FBI too has an economy to run, and the record industry has a lot more money saved for a rainy day than the average victim.
Money can't buy love? Well, then that's about the only thing it cannot, since with money you can buy justice, freedom, truth... you name it.
// Ego sum Nucivorax, me clamare audi.
Changes and evolution of the format would be necessary. Each iteration of the format should be locked down and disclosed ahead of time to 3rd party developers. "Ahead of time" meaning well before MS releases the matching iteration of Word or whatever. This gives 3rd party developers the chance to compete head to head instead of playing catch up through reverse engineering.
* Microsoft's punishment devolves to giving away software that costs them little or nothing to produce... and is likely to build it's market share (not to mention killing any recourse the complaintants may have coming to them.)
* Microsoft essentially gets to pick the people who watchdog them. -- Ain't this a crock of...
* A public forum gathering information about and likely to have a strongly worded and televised position on the antitrust decision - has been effectively shutdown because one senator wanted to be somewhere else at the time?!
Jeezus Kkkkrist! What the heck is going on!? I'll tell you what *I* think... we're getting screwed royally!
Reminds me of the political cartoons I saw while studying U.S. History. The big trusts having powerful connections in government... closing out the voice of the people. I believe the solution was the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Please tell me where's the "justice" on that "DOJ".
If there is any "justice" at all, then M$ shouldn't get away with such lousy excuse of a "settlement".
But ahhhh.... money talks.
Am I the only cynic around ?!?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
...I didn't have a choice, through the very favorable circumstance that someone bought the machine for me as a gift. You could say that I therefore shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth, but the point is not that I could have bought a machine elsewhere, but that I shouldn't have to buy from someone else because they won't keep their word. They flat-out lied to me, and that's why I presented the scenario.
Virg
> You didn't read my post. I said a PC-based OS.
I did read your post. "PC-based" means "runs on PCs" so I didn't naturally compare that to "runs on Intel architecture" like you did. To defend my point, Windows NT can install on PowerPC systems, so even they don't directly agree with your assumption. And, considering how often people and companies buy new hardware, it's not nearly as likely today as ten years ago to be a problem to buy a different hardware platform. Like I said, you could buy PowerPCs (or Alphas) and not have to leave Microsoft if you wanted.
> In any case, I don't think DR's experience 15 years ago is
> sufficient excuse for all the other competitors today.
This belief would be funny if it wasn't so sad. "DR's experience fifteen years ago" happened about ten years ago, and it led directly to the dominance of Windows (and thus Windows 95 and so on) since then. To cite another example of abuse of monopoly power that closed up a market, let's look at the railroad industry. When railroads were first beginning to appear in the U.S., there were literally hundreds of them all over the country. Soon, large rail companies discovered that they could use their size to push out competitors. Their tactics included:
1.) Drive out with prices: the large rail company would set up operations in the area of an established railroad, and begin moving goods for virtually no cost. The large rail company would subsidize this startup so it could run at a huge loss, and the established rail company would have to eat huge losses just to compete. Most of them could not, and when they went out of business, the large rail company would then jack prices up to whatever they wanted. Any time a competitor would appear, they'd drop prices until that competitor was gone.
2.) Large rail companies would engage in "Grange busting" by refusing to ship the goods of farmers who unionized for better pricing. They'd do the same for any company that tried to organize their industry to get better bargaining power. In some cases, specific companies were targetted for elimination (and were mostly driven out of business). This also extended to the practice of refusing to ship any goods for a company unless they used said large rail company for all shipping, so most manufacturers couldn't risk shipping by anyone else, even in part.
Now, if drawing the parallels between example 1 and what happened to Netscape and example 2 and what happened to the OEMs selling DR-DOS, (and by extension, Digital Research) is difficult, you're not paying attention. The moral of the story is that these hundreds of competitive rail companies were reduced by these practices to four (who didn't directly compete because they agreed not to encroach on each other's territory) and entry into the market was made prohibitive because the established giants were too big to fight after they'd chased away everyone else. This is what happened with Microsoft, and this is why there are so many companies taking issue today. They're not decrying MS creating a monopoly a decade ago, they're decrying that MS is using that market stronghold to prevent competition today.
Virg
Should I compare you to a lemon?
> Well I'm not going to quible over the exact number of years,
> but I notice that you haven't given a specific year either so
> perhaps you're not so sure.
The lawsuit was filed in 1996, and encompassed activities during the 1991-1994 time frame. The reason for the delay was that Novell executives (Novell bought out DR) were loathe to try to take on Microsoft in 1994 because they were afraid the fight would bankrupt the company. Ray Noorda (the CEO of Novell) retired from Novell, created his own company (Caldera), bought the rights to DR-DOS, and immediately filed suit. You can claim that 1996 was also ancient history in this industry, but since the antitrust suit began in 1997 and is still being resolved today, that would be a big stretch.
> Your conclusion that Windows is dominant because MS derailed
> DR-DOS seems to me a big leap.
Split it into to logical steps. MS-DOS gained hugely in installed base when DR-DOS was driven from the marketplace. By the time Windows 95 came around, there was effectively no other OS to choose, and Microsoft helped that along by stopping OEMs from selling Windows 3.1 on new machines after Win95 came out. It's not very realistic to assume that if DR was still in the market, that they would not have developed an integrated GUI in the four years between Microsoft's torpedoing them and the advent of Windows 95. Peter Norton's Windows bolt-on (called Norton Desktop for Windows) was doing quite well, in fact, but he (and then Symantec) couldn't get clearance from the VCs and board of directors, respectively, to make it a stand-alone GUI product because nobody thought that it would stand a chance against Microsoft, seeing what they did to DR. That is to me a pretty good indicator that their market share coupled with their monopoly abuse (keep in mind that Microsoft paid up on the case involving DR-DOS so I can say they did abuse their position) doomed other GUI products before they ever got out in the field.
Virg
Hey, how about this????
You know how M$ is doing the ol' "If you're not in compliance with your licenses - the SPA will fine you 245,000" scam? I know a lot of small and medium sized companies are paniking and actually buying those licenses soon. Why doesn't Caldera or Red Head run a promotion like this: If you believe your not in complience, and would have to spend over X amount of money per employee to get in complience - we'll come in a convert your whole company to free software for 1/2 the price! Take a big ass company like Chase - these guys have like 15,000 seats in one NY office alone. That's A LOT of money for Windows and Linux. If for half the price - and the peace of mind that they don't have to worry about an SPA raid - surely Red Hat could come up with a nice LAN install, hire some C++ guys to convert their crusty old proprietary apps, and give their IT staff a few weeks of training. And then, when they've pulled it off - Red Hat would be the first place they'd go to learn about what new goodies the Linux community had to offer (including even proprietary apps if that's what it took), ad-hoc training and support, new IT initiatives. And even if they didn't - the initial project alone would surely be profitable.
Do all the Linux companies even *offer* to send in a sales rep to determine how feasible it would be for them to convert a company to free software? I mean, hey - you send one little geek over there to see what software their using, describe what Linux equivelents there are (or how some good C++ programmers could convert and update their old apps), and point out how much money they'd save, year after year and year (not just on licenses - but in terms of NOT getting attacked by all those MS viruses). And if they groove to it - charge a few though for a more formal business analysis.
Is this being done? Or is it something that's been overlooked? Or is doing a Windows-to-Linux conversion such as herculean task that it's not a realistic option to pitch yet to anyone who isn't that stoked about having a mixed enviorment?