Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trial Wends Onward
Sinistar2k writes: "Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!', Steve Ballmer comes across as a poor, beat down soul in the video deposition (Windows Media or RealPlayer required) released today by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Also available are text depositions of Ballmer and Allchin." gouldtj adds: "Here is a
timeline on the Microsoft trial. It is pretty complete, and it goes back to 1990. It is nice to see all of this in one place, I'd almost forgotten about the old stuff. It just reminds you how long this stuff can take." Finally, ackthpt writes: "The nine non-settling states have modified their requirements, rather than Microsoft having to sell various versions of Windows, they would have Microsoft Windows sold as a modular platform, where the user could opt for different vendors software for different uses.
Just days ago the nine settling states were rattled by Microsoft's end-around, challenging state attorneys' general participation in anti-trust procedings." And if your own computing (or career) depends on a Microsoft operating system, Roblimo suggests that you
stop using it, because Steve Ballmer says Microsoft may take it away.
Fuck Slashdot
Really??
wends \Wends\, n. pl.; sing. [14]Wend. (Ethnol.) A Slavic tribe which once occupied the northern and eastern parts of Germany, of which a small remnant exists.
[15]Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998
The way I read that is quite simple - he's a guy who might actually understand a little bit about the SCOPE of Windows as an OS and knows what an incredibly monumental task it would be to go in and clean up all the little kludges and hacks and all the general design changes it would take to make Windows compliant.
He's not saying "Screw you, DOJ" he's saying "WTF, do you think we're gods?"
The states are being unreasonable and probably indeed bought by the companies he mentioned at least in part - don't you think that Oracle would love to see MS take a fall? I KNOW they would.
AOL? Same thing - I'm sure they would love to market an AOL Windows or their own crappy version anyway. They've talked about it in the past (their own OS) as has Netscape.
Bottom line - MS is not always the evil empire. Sometimes they're the ones getting fucked.
Cheers,
Backov
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
It occurs to me that Microsoft might actually be pleased by this never-ending legal "battle". Besides the nearly constant news coverage which is easy advertising that comes with the relatively marginal cost of the lawyers fees (from a multi-billion dollar corporation's standpoint), it also allows them to continue doing as they please without anything such as an injunction to prevent them from continuing to expand their monopoly and snuff out would-be competitors. During the past 6 some-odd years of high-gear courtroom battles, Microsoft has only had to contend with a single injuction (circa '97) which was later thrown out on appeal. This means they've had plenty of time to virtually wipe out Netscape, Be, and a slew of other companies by using the same illegal tactics they continue using today.
It's been shown for years that Internet Explorer can be removed safely from Windows with only a minimal loss in functionality, yet it remains. Participants have been after the Window's source code for years, yet it remains safely locked behind Redmond's doors. Illegal, anti-competitive practices have been on-going, if not accelerating over the course of the lawsuit. The simple fact is that this on-going court battle has yet to solve a single problem with the software giant, and has probably only helped it. Let's not forget that were some sort of settlement reached with the Federal government some time this year, (don't hold your breath) it would almost certainly have absolutely no real consequences, and if the initial settlement proposal is any indication, may only serve to allow Microsoft to further force its products into the marketplace, giving it further penetration in such areas as schools where it has been lacking.
Then one may look at the other nine states, who appear to be seeking a much better legal settlement against Softzilla. They want the source, they want IE out, and they want other versions of Windows available at a lesser cost without the unwanted "features" Windows buyers pay for. Well first of all, this would probably drag on for years, meaning no changes would take place. Were there to be a settlement, I doubt Microsoft would aggree to anything which does not eventually come out to their benefit; ie. selling a stripped-down version of Windows at a cheaper price would probably increase rather than decrease their sales figures. Were there a judgement issued against them, they would most certainly appeal time and time again, adding yet many more years to the total length of this litigation, by which time, any possible good coming forth from the judgement would have long since lost any tangible meaning.
In all this, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we should be trying Microsoft and large corporations like it in a tribunal much like the ones being used around the world for war crimes. A swifter, more final form of judicial proceeding is obviously needed for a company who's resources allow it to drag on court battles for year apon year, thereby pretty much defeating the judicial system in place. Draconian laws obviously had to be updated to deal with high tech companies, perhaps the courts should take a note from the legislators and realize you can't treat M$ like Standard Oil.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Imagine if Microsoft actually did it, though. I have no doubts the backlash will be Companies and consumers reaffirming their love (addiction) to Microsoft, and making the DoJ look like the bully.
It would be exactly what Microsoft wants, because they know they have their clientele hooked like a heroin addict. Microsoft's presence in the government's agencies would be a signifigant mount of pressure when their support contracts and computer systems are in the hands of a corporation they themselves are trying to censure. I personally wouldn't be surprised if they did it, or at the very least, use this to get favorable media attention and the sympathy they want.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Microsoft had honored the first consent decree they probably wouldn't be in this mess. Instead they thumbed their nose at the court and went straight back to business as usual. They deserve to have their products pulled from the market at this point. The industry would be far stronger if it had to figure out how to live without Microsoft.
"The reason the non-settling states have proposed relief that is significantly broader than the [settlement agreement] . . . is no secret," Microsoft attorneys wrote. "They seek to advance the commercial interests of Microsoft's competitors."
Nine seperate states out to aid Microsoft's competitors? Who would that be, the rest of the computer industry and anyone who's ever dreamed of programing so much as a digital watch? Pathetic paranoia, or rampant propaganda. It's almost as good as today's earlier anouncement that the US government would fail, Universities would stop researching, and the world would end if M$'s software model failed to earn lots of money hawking the same old shit forever to a gullible clientel. From Mr. Mundi's Zdnet quotations:
If there is not commercialization there (because the big bad GPL supposedly denies this, bzzt - wrong!) , a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services. If commercialization was cut down, investors would not support research and development in the IT sector, less projects would be developed, less taxes paid and the government would have less money to run universities, and all the other things that governments do," said Mundie.
They really are afraid, but why? What do they know that we don't? I've read that M$ is a kind of ponzi scheme with the emloyees being paid in stock options, that pay no dividens, instead of cash... Could the Enron disaster be hitting home?
Blah, enough irresponsible speculation tonight. As I sit here at a Debian powered 486 with a big 24 megs of ram and a 420MB hard disk used as an Xterminal to a more reasonable computer, I know it just does not matter. Microsoft can dissapear tomorow and I would not notice. If I can do it, anyone can. Really.
Go away Micro$haft, you have earned your beatings and are begging for new ones with the new XP licensing system, SSSCA, DCMA and other unAmerican activites.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
It seems that the fact that Microsoft could make this threat and make it sound so dire, is further evidence of Microsoft's monopoly position.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
37 billion in the bank and even today, M$ still insists that they are offering consumers "Value".
If they cut the prices in 1/2, they'd still make money hand over fist.
It is quite suprising to me that a company "Clearly convicted of a Monopoly in these United States", can sit there and dictate what they think is clearly harm to consumers. It's like AT&T saying, "If you break us up, who will offer long distance?" "Who will offer phone service?" "Who will supply any type of quality and price competativeness?"
Well, that just goes to show that even AT&T was wrong in there arguments. We still have phone service, and yes mom, we have some, though not alot, of competition.
M$ would have us believe that this ruling would cause a major buckle in the computing industry, but in fact, it would put the M$ developers on the same playing field as the rest of the world.
Live on competition, destruction to monopolies. Innovation exists not in monopolies, but in competition.
An internet browser and/or HTML renderer is NOT properly part of the OS. It is an application that runs ON TOP OF the OS.
So why is this distinction important?
Because of the concept of *leveraging*.
If MS has a monopoly in the OS, and it bundles an application in with its OS for the purpose of leveraging a monopoly in that application's market, this action is illegal under anti-trust laws.
So the argument isn't whether an html renderer is a *useful addition* to *bundle* with the OS. The application being useful to have with an OS is completely irrelevant to the fact it was illegally bundled with the OS, and then the code was comingled to try and make them look like they're the same.
Nah, that sounds just too good to be true
Hmmm... The 'This is my ball and I'll take it away' defense worked really well... when I was 5 years old.
It's especially too good to be true if you consider that the only way for people to use Microsoft products after such an act would be to pirate them.
Just think, Microsoft would be in the wonderful position of having to actively persuade people to switch to other operating systems so that they wouldn't be using Windows.
Heheheh... Don't see that happening any time soon. It's a tactic. Nothing more.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
His position only makes sense if MS management is so weak that they haven't been able to force their programmers to document their internal interfaces and file formats... in which case they should thank the courts for coming in and making those bastards document their work since they're blowing off billg and Balmer.
Yeah, right.
I'm sorry, but this is should be a non-brainer. Every major API and every file format should already be documented - or the person in charge of that group should be fired on the spot for incompetency and his/her replacement's first task will be getting that documentation in place. The same managers should also have in place a review and approval process for changes in that API.
Bottom line - either Balmer can produce the requested documentation by releasing internal documentation, or he's incompetent. Or he's taking his lead from the Enron leadership and deliberately lying because he figures that jail time for perjury and contempt doesn't apply to the likes of him.
(Of course, I'm sure that the internal documentation includes hundreds of unpublished calls that they've denied exist. Tough shit - they made their bed and it's time they lie in it.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
That's only if you believe the Slashdot propaganda. That ten years mentioned in the blurb does not refer to a single case, but several consecutive cases, the earlier ones of which have been settled.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The fact that they CAN and apparently are willing to use pulling their "premiere" product from the market place, I think, shows that they know they are a monopoly. They are essentially thumbing their noses and saying, it's our way or the highway; and while wo know there ARE in fact alternatives, it is not feasible, nor is it plausible, to have the entire world switch away from Microsoft. Yet the fact that they can leverage their monoplolistic stronghold in their own antitrust trial is amazing! just my 2 cents OctaneZ
In the unlikely case that Windows actually does get pulled, the world might not be screwed as Microsoft would want us to believe.
Consider that Apple has programmed MacOS X to be easily ported to new architectures. The underlying OS, Darwin, already runs on many Intel-based machines. With this operating system for the people who lack the confidence required to try linux (most of the market) and linux and BSD for the rest, Apple would have everything to gain from releasing their OS for sale on the Intel platform. The world still might be withing Jobs reach.
Granted, trading one monopoly for another might not be the best thing to happen to the world, but Microsoft would surely try to fight its way back and a strengthened Linux would be fighting away, too.
In the alternative distantly possible case that MS removes IE from their OS in a day after being ordered to do so and prevents Apple from making such a move, at least some MS people might get nailed for lying for years about the feasibility of removing IE from their products. And with the upcoming release of Mozilla 1.0, people really might look at a non-MS browser.
I disagree. Microsoft's "natural" monopoly developed because of our copyright laws. In my view, this makes Microsoft a state-sponsored monopoly. If our copyright laws required disclosure of interfaces and/or source code, others could develop software compatible with Microsoft's, thus destroying their customer lock-in strategy and the entire basis of their monopoly.
No, consumers might all go and buy the full version, but big businesses and government might well use the smaller version. Large businesses typically spend a lot of time creating a build to roll out to their desktops, and then deploy thousands of identical machines with an identical image blown onto them. And this is where, for example, Staroffice might make significant inroads - as part of a corporate standard build.
Assuming that the smaller version was cheaper.
And consider this: You're a large company wanting thousands of identical utility desktops, configured in bulk to be desk ready, and you're going to spend several man years developing this build. All of a sudden the seeds of doubt are sown in your mind as to whether you will actually be able to deploy this build, because the people you must get licences from are suggesting they might pull the product from the market at some point. Would this make you more or less likely to consider developing a desktop build which doesn't depend on getting licences from this company?
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Microsoft did this: "If you want to sell all your prebuilt PCs with Windows95, we'll charge you $X per MS license. If you sell any PCs with another operating system, we'll charge you $3X for per MS license."
When DR-DOS was released way back when, Microsoft announced that they would have a superior product out in six months. So sales of DR-DOS fell well short of projections. Over a year later, MS came out with the latest version of DOS - and it was inferior to DR-DOS. It didn't matter, their lying had the intended affect.
Internet Explorer and Netscape were fighting a war on the desktop for most popular internet browser, and for a while they were about equal for speed and quality. Microsoft jacked up the prices of Windows, and bundled IE with it. Since consumers had no choice but to pay for IE, Netscape sales plummeted. Microsoft now had millions in cash to pump into improving IE, while Netscape scrambled to stay alive. That's when IE got a leg (and an arm, and a head) up over Netscape. IE wasn't better than the Netscape browser until after Microsoft cripped Netscape inc.
There's plenty more. These aren't rumors or rantings of a crazed Linux fanatic (I use MS, dammit!). They're documented. MS didn't get their monopoly by being the best in the market. They clawed their way to the top with a two punch combination of tremendous advertising (which is legal) and screwing their competition any way they could (which is not).