Slashdot Mirror
Allchin Admits MSFT Violated the Law
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.'"
"Somebody could say, 'Look, I want to make Microsoft's life miserable; so I'll tell
you what, I'll pay you $10 million a year to torture Microsoft."'
I'll do it for $5 million a year!
'I don't think that I can summarize those,' Allchin said. 'I'm not an attorney.'"
;)
So?
'Nuff said.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
How many others have rigged as a rule? Enron had an entire Energy Securities Trade Center occupying a floor of an office building in Houston. They rigged that demo for the gov't.... The gov't rigged its missle tests (and those still failed!).
No need to mod or flame. I just think its interesting/sad that companies stoop to this level. Now excuse me as I go rig my code so my boss will sign off on it before the deadline...
Build?
Something wrong with just licensing the one that Sun already provides for free? That provides cross-platform portability (more or less) right out of the box?
Oh wait, sorry, I forgot I was talking about Microsoft.
Gee does he? I must have missed where in the article he actually said that.
Plus the big claim that Allchin is admitting some big thing is overblown (admittedly the linked-to article makes the same mistake). If you wade through Allchin's 250+ page deposition, the exchange is (p. 27):
Q. Well, you understand, do you not, that Microsoft was found to have done certain things that violated the law?
A. Yes.
This is just a statement of fact...Microsoft was indeed found guilty. It doesn't imply he thinks Microsoft *should* have been found guilty.
- adam
Regardless of what Microsoft says, anyone who works in IT knows that you can essentially achieve anything you can dream if given enough time and money. They *can* remove IE from their operating system should they decide to do it. Would it cost them alot of money? Would it cost them more than they earned by driving competition from the marketplace?
Seems to me like this suit is something they foresaw so they built themselves a defense by integrating their browser into the OS just in case this argument was needed...
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
With Products like IEradicator from 98lite which removes IE from all the Windows OS versions right up to Win2K and still keeps OS usable, would anyone in their right minds ever believe when Jim says "Forget about any business thing. Technically I just couldn't do it." ?
- Jalil
The actual exchange was:
Q: "What practices do you understand Microsoft was found guilty of?"
A: "I believe that we were found that we tried to maintain a monopoly in the PC operating system space."
Q:"And is it your understanding that Microsoft did that by engaging in certain practices that the courts have held to be unlawful?"
A: "Yes,"
This is like asking someone if they understand the charges against them, or asking them what the court verdict was. If they followed up with the question "do you believe the court's verdict was correct?" and he answered "yes", then it would be an admission.
Simple. A lot of the core functionality in Windows is based on standard web protocols - like the help system. As is thier future business model - .Net is based on SOAP and XML, don't forget. No integrated browser in thier OSes, no lock on thier .Net software/services.
IOW, if IE goes, likely so would a lot of the executives, since a big chunk o' change would be thrown into the hopper. That tends to make shareholders and Boards of Directors slightly pissed off.
BTW, KDE uses Konquerer for it's help system too, does it not? So, an HTML renderer built into a desktop environment isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue. The issue is that Microsoft had criminal intent when it first bundled it's browser into Windows 95 - "cutting off the air suppy" of Netscape. They need this behaviour remedied, nothing else, IMHO.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
It's perfectly possible to know whether or not something is possible (meaning "realistic", since given unlimited time/resources anything is possible) without performing a study to find out.
Given the direction that Microsoft is gone, it probably ISN'T possible to remove IE without rewriting massive parts of the OS. With the amount of in-depth knowledge Allchin has, he can probably state that with 100% certainty - and he doesn't need to do a study to know it for certain.
The question is not whether they can provide an OS without a browser embedded - it's whether it is reasonable to modify their current OS's to that end.
Also, Allchin cannot either confirm or deny whether Microsoft broke the law. That determination is for the courts, and his statement, in either direction, does not make it so.
How can Microsoft state that they cannot create an OS without an imbedded browser, when Solaris, BSD, and Linux are all perfectly viable, and usable operating systems, that do not have the browser imbedded in them. Someone please enlighten me.
They aren't saying that they can not create a new OS without an embedded browser - they are saying that they can not remove the already embedded browser (Internet Explorer) from their current OS's without breaking them to the point where they would no longer function. That's a big difference, and whether or not you believe them is up to you.
I use Opera and Netscape instead.
If you're running Windows 9.x-2000, I suggest you back up your machine completely and then give the MSIE install a try. You should get both satisfactory proof that Ballmer lied AND a better-running computer. Usual warning, your mileage may vary...
As for XP, while MS may have done a better job at kludging IE into the OS to make it harder to untangle this time, I'm sure a development contract to the people at 98lite plus access to the Windows API will result in a very fast and clean solution to the problem.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I seriously wonder what people (the nine states included) would do if MS stripped Windows down until it was just the OS itself. Bye-bye, calc, notepad, wordpad, solitaire, ftp, telnet, minesweeper, icons, windows, menus...
This could be a classic case of "be careful what you wish for."
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
- adam
Microsoft didn't commit perjury. Microsoft, Inc., isn't a person and can't think, speak, or act. It's nothing more than a legal abstraction for an actual body of workers and equipment bound together in a commercial endeavor.
No, Microsoft didn't commit perjury. But folks who work for Microsoft did. Now, if *I* were to commit perjury in a court of law *I'd* go to jail. Why, then, are you protected from punishment when you commit felonies while working for a corporation?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Imagine. If Tim Berners-Lee hadn't invented the World Wide Web, MSFT would have this huge component of their operating system hanging around with nothing to do, and there would be nothing they could do about it.
MS Guy #1: What's this program over here?
MS Guy #2: I call it "iexplore.exe"
#1: What's it do?
#2: Well, nothing yet. I mean, it sends requests
to servers, captures the results and
displays them, but there aren't any servers
it works with, so...
#1: So.... why is it here?
#2: Well, I'll be damned if I know why, but the
operating system just kept crapping out until
I wrote the thing. So, I guess we're stuck
with it.
#1: Sounds good to me.
Yes, the Web Browser is the killer app for desktop operating systems. Yes it makes sense for MS to include one in their system.
What they did was use Monopoly power to kill a competitor. Netscape (with all its problems) was building a user interface system. A cross platform, internet aware system for running applications. Sincer it was crossplatform, you could write an application (albeit a simple, HTML one) and run it anywhere that the system was supported. Mac, Solaris, OS/2, Linux, BSD, Amiga...this was a real threat to Microsoft. By bundling the broswer with their OS, they used their monoply to kill Netscape. The court stepped in to tell them to stop, and they lied to the court. Perjury is a felony, up their with Rape and Homicide in the legal levle. Why is it such a highly prosecuted crime? Because it is the underpinning of our legal system that is at stake.
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org