Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Allchin Admits MSFT Violated the Law

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the ha-ha-only-serious dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes: "CNN is running what amounts to a two part article about the nine states who are continuing their case against Microsoft in which Jim Allchins admits Microsoft violated the law. The first part of the article deals with Jim Allchins assertion that there is no way for Microsoft to remove Internet Explorer from Windows without crippling the OS. However, he admits that the demonstration in court which showed this crippling was in fact rigged and that they have not done studies to se if it would be possible to produce an OS without the browser imbedded in it. The second part of the story involves Allchin admitting that Microsoft has violated the law but refused to specify the violations. 'I don't think that I can summarize those,' Allchin said. 'I'm not an attorney.'"

2 of 576 comments (clear)

  1. this isn't news by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 1, Troll

    Allchin isn't Bill Gates, and he isn't Steve Ballmer. Allchin admitting that Microsoft broke the law would be like if slashdot's janitor came out and said that moderation violates free speech.

    Allchin can't speak for Microsoft and he doesn't speak for Microsoft. There's no news here. Move along. Oh, and this isn't a troll.

  2. A Major OS by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'm sure the Linux crowd won't agree with me, and this will almost certainly be modded down -1 (Troll), but I'm going to say it anyway.

    Monopolies are determined by what percentage of the market share a company owns given a specific market. This market definition can make or break a company.

    I'm not claiming that Microsoft isn't a monopoly, but I'm claiming that the original judge defined the market wrong. In determining MS's monopoly status, Penfield Jackson defined the market as Intel-Based home computers. So freaking what??? If I'm going to restrict the market to Apple home computers guess who has the monopoly on OS's for them?

    Great.. so Microsoft has a monopoly on home OS's, AND Apple has a monopoly on home OS's. Here's my next question: Is that neccesarily bad? One major OS means one major driver for hardware manufacturers, and it also assures me that I can buy pretty much any software at Electronics Boutique without having to wonder if it will support my hardware. Don't get me wrong... there are plenty of disadvantages, but WE CAN'T FOOL OURSELVES INTO THINKING THAT ALL THINGS MICROSOFT ARE BAD (apologies for the caps.)

    Where it not for the ease of use of Microsoft products, home computers would not have taken off nearly as much as they have (try getting a tech illiterate person to install Linux on ANYTHING.) If Microsoft hadn't done it, some other "nasty corporation" would have. Why, you ask? Because it needed to be done. Standardization IN SOME CASES is a good thing... don't forget it.