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.
Slashdot uses the word "wends" properly.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
In case you were wondering the nine states that are not settled yet are:
:-)
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Florida
4. Iowa
5. Kansas
6. Massachusetts
7. Minnesota
8. Utah
9. West Virginia
Also the District of Columbia.
I wish they would state this in each article.
Fuck Slashdot
The only thing that keeps you from removing IE is the WFP, Windows File Protection.
:)
.dlls but you can just simply insert them into your SYSTEM32 directory and voila.
1. Disable WFP (registry hack)
2. Delete IE files
3. Wohoo!
You can also create your own Win2k install media where the file lists & install scripts do not even originally have IE along. WFP will not worry about IE being absent
What's the catch? SOME programs require IE to run. Not because they really really NEED IE, but because the developers have re-used some components that come with IE. For instance Media Player requires some
Some programs though check for IE and if absent, just prompt you to install it back. You will have to stop using those programs, but there are always options.
Note that Microsoft can claim that WIN2k requires IE to function properly since some included tools and applications such as the Media Player require its presence. Most likely it will go through in the court as well.
cf. "Last November, Allchin presided over the launch of Windows XP Embedded, which consists of about 10,000 components that can be assembled into custom products..."
Can't, won't or don't?
.:the truth is a lie undiscovered:.
And I don't even want to start thinking about the $$$'s involved... -JT
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.
Except of course that Ballmer is telling a big, fat lie: Microsoft has already produced a stripped-down version of Windows. It's called Windows XP Embedded.
Also, look at it this way: if you can't take a browser away from the OS without breaking it, then you've got a pretty shitty product in the first place. Now, even I can't believe that MS Windows is that shitty, so IMHO Steve Ballmer is trying to pull a fast one here. It is feasible - it might cost a whole lot of money, but it is definitely feasible. Or, if it isn't, it is unavoidable proof that MS Windows was never a well-designed OS in the first place...so, which one is it going to be?
Reminder: find a new sig
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.
Ballmer may just have flubbed up.
There are two possible responses to the threat of Microsoft pulling Windows form the marketplace:
(1) "Oh my god! Windows is far too important, losing it would ruin the American economy!"
... which would be proof that Windows *is* too powerful, and that this extreme dependence on one operating system and one vendor who provides it must be broken -- for the same reason that America can't rely solely on one country for its oil, and the same reason that American farmers can't all grow the same identical strain of corn lest one virus wipe it all out.
(2) "Who cares? Linux can easily fill the void left by the loss of Windows."
... which is a thought Microsoft doesn't want to have cross *anyone's* mind. Can you imagine what would happen if Microsoft pulled Windows and the fallout lasted for a few months and then it was over and people found alternatives and nobody cared any more?
So I really have no idea what Ballmer hopes to achieve by threatening to pull Windows from the market.
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
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
"The Internet Browser shouldn't be a product bought and sold in the marketplace. It's a very basic product at its heart, and should be included with PCs to begin with."
you know what? That's just what I feel about operating systems.
War is necrophilia.