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.
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:.
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.
As someone who actually understands your reference to Galt's Gulch, I think you're missing a vital point. (I generally agree with you, so keep reading)
Every piece of functionality offered by Microsoft on the typical PC is provided by numerous other companies. Browsers? We got em. Word processors? We got em. Component based development tools? We got em. Funny little panels with a start button? We got em.
There's only one thing Microsoft has that other companies don't: a monopoly. And that's what this case is about. If Microsoft does a Galt's Gulch, the result will be chaos and mayhem. Not because the industry loses a whole bunch of functionality, but because the industry loses a monopoly at precisely the same time the market is demanding one. (ooh! heretical words!)
Microsoft is one of the few *natural* monopolies seen in the past few hundred years. Unlike the state-sponsored monopolies of the past (railroads, AT&T, your CableCo) Microsoft rose to its position of dominance because the market wants a single company in that position. This is an artifact of the infant consumer software industry. Eliminating state sponsored monopolies is a good thing. But eliminating naturally occuring monopolies is extremely distruptive to the marketplace.
There have been some bona-fide, non-monopoly related, crimes, infractions and illegalities committed by Microsoft. But because everyone's so focused on the monopoly thing, they simply get ignored. Microsoft should be punished for their illegal actions, but allowed to keep its monopoly. The marketplace will overthrow that one on its own when it's good and ready.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
So, what you are saying is: Contrary to popular opinion, violence DOES solve things, and rather quickly.
Bomb Microsoft?
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"