Slashdot Mirror
Gates Testifies in Antitrust Suit
teamhasnoi writes "Bill Gates is testifying today in the Microsoft antitrust case.
Here's the 5 page executive summary (pdf) and
here's the 163-page full version (1.1 MB pdf). Bill waxes on about the early days, talks about .NET, xml, and why Microsoft should not be penalized for its role as 800 lb. Gorilla. (Developers, Developers, Developers)" Other readers point to the BBC story on Gates' testimony, as well as a similar one at Yahoo!.
It read more like he was going for a job interview, selling himself, or something. When are they going to learn to question this guy rather than letting him control everything?
We know you can separate IE from Windows.
We know you use your leverage to stifle competition.
You're a 900 lb gorilla, you've been acting like one, now we're going to treat you like one.
Who would have guessed that proprietary software would make itself undesirable because of the extreme aggressiveness of the companies that sell it?
Two days on the stand will cost Bill Gates more money than I will make in a decade if I continue with my current line of work.
Something about that disparity upsets me.
Well, in some sense, yeah. That's about the last time Windows was an operating system and just an operating system, as opposed to a forcibly-bundled OS, browser, media player, photo editor, etc., etc., isn't it?
Isn't that sort of the point? A crippled Microsoft is EXACTLY what the US states want, so giving other companies a chance to fix the mess they've made of the computing industry.
Seriously, why bother. The way the govt's going its pretty much foretold that MS will survive unscathed. It looks impossible that *anyone* or *anything* will stop the Microsoft steamroller.
Unless a lot of changes happen in the Linux world (attitude changes, improvements in desktop usability, improvements in the installation process)
AND
regular users start to become pressured by Microsoft's policies in ways that *directly* affect them...(i.e. people soon become unable to pirate MS products...)
NOTHING will change. Almost no 'normal' user I know chooses Linux - only people who love to tinker with their systems.
I wonder how long it will take before I get modded down for not toeing the party line...a few mins?
that MS keeps talking about the damage to MS and the PC ecosystem.
MS was found to be a monopoly that abused its monopoly status to further its business. why should business that was illegally obtained be protected. it's as though they should be let off of the hook since they got away with it for so long. this is similar to a person stealing a car, getting caught after a year, and then being allowed to keep the stolen car because he'd already had it for a year.
as far as the PC ecosystem is concerned, it is just as ridiculous. MS probably did have a lot to do with standardizing a PC platform way back in the infancy of desktop PC use. but now they are saying innovation will stop and things will be set back if people are allowed to use things other than Windows to do Windows tasks. this is not necessarily the case. if companies are allowed to make emulators/interpreters/compatibilty programs, all of the existing software out there would still work. people would have the choice of using native software or the generic Windows software on their systems. the only ones hurt in this scenario is Microsoft. letting more (non-MS) software interact with Windows would make things even more compatible than they are now. People just wouldn't have to depend on a single OS / Office vendor to provide compatibility.
other companies should not have to help cover MS's r&d expense for MS Office. MS talks about this like they are the only ones who ever thought of making word processor and spreadsheet programs. the only secrets that would be unveiled would be the wacky MS file formats.
in spite of all of this, i think MS will come out of this trial with a slap on the wrist and monopolistic business practices will continue
you probably shouldn't have read this.
you mean like Mac OS X?
I just read an article about how the government is deciding which vendor / vendors to go with concerning the mandated use of some type of "passport" system for all users of the internet in the US.
heres on story on it:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busine
After reading it I realized why Microsoft created
Microsoft's entire new technology shift to XP,
Getting corporate america to sign on to any of Microsoft's new technologies is just a bonus.
Aren't CE and the OS on XBOX versions of Windows? If they can alter Windows for those platforms they can adhere to the state court order. any excuse is bull.
there is a great explanation for this 163 nightmare
proprietary software is not customizeable. all of the rememedies could be made if the software was open source, as vendors could rewrite parts of it, and then submit them. they would get accepted if they were truly better.
i think a judge should look at this, and say 'you produced 163 pages of absolute bullshit why your company cannot exist if we implement these fair remedies. instead of implementing your remedies, we have decided to close your company, you do not serve the public interest, you have lost rights to exist as you know it'
does somebody have to read the whole document? is microsoft counting on them getting tired and giving up?
People use, and figure out how to use, what comes with their computer. What needs to change is M$'s ability to strongarm companies into putting that shit on every system they ship and penalizing them if the don't.
The problem with your scenario is that Microsoft is not giving people a choice. If you buy a computer from Dell, Compaq, etc. you pretty much have to buy Windows because that's the way MS's licensing practices work.
MS has forced all other players out of the game. Perhaps its because of their superior products, but many believe that it's their strong-arming OEMs and the abuse of monopoly power that keeps them on top. In any case, Microsoft doesn't offer a roll-your-own prodcut and since MS punishes OEMs for selling non-MS OSes, it's practically impossible for other OS companies to compete.
There's no choice, so there's no way to know what people would prefer. But certainly one could imagine that if Dell can bundle disparate hardware components, they could just as easily bundle software for their users. And I could happily buy just the products I want for my machine one at a time, the same thing I do with hardware when I need a new computer.
The hardware PC business is actually a perfect example of why your argument is fecescious. There are companies out there who sell pre-built PCs that come in one-of-three standard flavors. There are companies out there that sell custom-built PCs which allow the customer more flexibility. And ther are companies which sell just the components. All these companies co-exist and everyone who buys computers can get what they want.
Sweat
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
You do realize that it seems silly to talk about Linux when OS X has answered most of those questions already?
Attitude: The consumer n00b is your customer
Destkop usability: Aqua, Dock, etc
Installation process: Okay, it's a *bit* hairy, but mostly a lot better than Linux
THINGS change. Lots of 'normal' users choose Mac; that's why Macs are still here, 18 years after they're supposed death, and counting.
GPL Deconstructed
The reason Microsoft will not be disentrenched from the mainstream computer is precisely because that is exactly what most corporations fear the most. In their eyes, MS software has solved even basic corporate organizational problems (think Exchange). The fear of Microsoft picking up its toys and going home is exactly why you are seeing so much appeasement from their end.
At this point, everything has been standardized, IT execs only know MS products, MS services, and IBM compatible computers. They've never known a world where you chose what computer systems had a available version of the software your company needed -- there is no longer such an issue. And they love Bill for that.
Microsoft has developed a monopoly of the market precisely because it saw the needs of the big businesses and filled them as quickly as possible, and worried about quality later. It's unfortunate, but that's how the cookie crumbles.
Has Microsoft really innovated? Of course not -- but that's beside point. The point is they took lots of great ideas, appropriated them, made it illegal for anyone else to appropriate them, and then packed all the most useful stuff into five or six packages which can all be ordered from one place. Game over.
Unfortunately even the U.S. Government is seeing the failure of easy controls on the software market. By the time you put one control in place, the market has already changed. Frankly, if the breakup option is gone, then there is no remedy that will stop Microsoft from continuing to terrorize the software industry.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
This is BG's job. Dealing with his companies crap. If he was on the stand because he witnessed a hit-and-run accident, then he'd be losing money. But right now, he's doing what he's paid to do, representing the needs and interests of his company.
Evil needs. But needs none-the-less.
Sweat
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
You gotta admire this guy's cojones, though. He argues that because of the states' remedy, "competition would be reduced not only in operating systems, but in other key product categories where Microsoft is the strongest challenger to incumbent leaders." Specifically, he mentions online services (AOL), handhelds (Palm), and game consoles (Sony).
:-)
In other words, Microsoft will no longer be able to use its monopoly position in the OS market to heavy-handedly bash its way into new markets. And he spins it like this is a bad thing! Simply amazing.
Come to think of it, what does he mean by "competition would be reduced not only in operating systems"? Is he arguing that the states' remedy will actually increase Microsoft's stranglehold on the OS market? If so, then maybe we need some more severe remedies.
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Come on Bill, you throw out a wild claim like that that has no foundation in reality and it makes all of your other claims suspect.
10 years ago, Windows 3.0 was out. The copy of Windows NT I got 5 years ago allowed me the option not to install IE and it ran fine without it.
He's sounding like a spoiled whining brat.
I guess he just can't tell the truth like "Yes, it'd be possible, but we'd have to spend about x amount of time and y amount of dollars to separate the page rendering code into a callable API to allow alternative browsers to link into it.
I *do* see a benefit to having the OS render HTML in a window of an app I build, and you can do this quite easily with IE currently. Removing it would break apps that expect this to be there. That wouldn't be a good thing. Why doesn't he explain that point instead of throwing a temper tantrum like "If you make us do it, we'll never release another version of Windows ever again, nyah, nyah, how do you like that?"
In linux you can go and select EACH AND EVERY package you want or not. Nothing is forced on you. Dont want Konqueror? Fine, dont install it.
I dont know about mac cause i dont have one.
This
They are locking themselves into their corner. Go back and look at how Unix and MSDOS started. Unix started on expensive time sharing machines, where self protection and security were necessary, multiuser and multitasking from the start. It also ran on different machines. MSDOS started on dinky machines where there was no concept of sharing the machine, thus no security, no multitasking. The hardware grew up to match Unix, whereas MSDOS never grew up to match the hardware.
.NET is a vague buzzword with no meat yet, and not many people fooled so far.
:-)
In spite of all the cruft they've grafted on Windows doesn't, and never will, have the flexibility of Unix.
Plus they have branded themselves so much as the the king of the desktop that they have no other image.
And plus they have branded themselves as terrible partners. Look at all the licensing suqablles, not just with auditing schools, but also doubling the licensing costs for business, other audit raids, and so on.
Do you remember several years ago when the mobile phone companies banded together (Symbian?) precisely because they did not want M$ in their sandbox? Because they were afraid of M$ not playing nice.
Same thing with TV set top box manufacturers. M$ spent a fortune just to get them to promise to look at their code, I think only one bit, and they later dropped it because M$ was so late.
X-box disappoints. Pocket PC sales disappoint. They can't get out of their corner.
In other words, M$ have painted themselves into a corner of their own choosing. If they were smart, they'd use the antitrust trial as an excuse to totally revamp their business, and go forward. But they are so arrogant and greedy and shortsighted that they are just using it to apply ever more coats of paint around their corner.
At some point, I bet in 5 years or so, they will find themselves locked out of every market except the desktop, which will not only have become a amrginless commodity, but will also have been invaded successfully by Linux.
That's how I think they will die. Time will tell
Infuriate left and right
Appearing in person for the first time [second time actually, first time he behaved like an ass which probably has a lot to do with the fix he's in now] in Microsoft's four-year antitrust battle, Gates warned U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of dire consequences["If you don't play according to my rules, I'll take my ball and go straight home"] if the judge accepts suggestions that include a version of Windows that can be customized by computer makers and rival software designers [Which, heaven forbid, would lead to some real innovation, not just that dictated from Redmond] .
Gates said the nine states threaten Windows' existence as a stable platform[Watch out for perjury, Bill] that allows a wide range of computer hardware [PC's, soon to be phased out Alpha's and the odd multi processor system] and software [Mostly theirs] to work together, and would deny Microsoft the incentive[Huge profits only realized by monopolies and other criminal activity] to make continual improvements [Rather than make it secure, stable and open].
"The (states' ideas) would undermine all three elements of Microsoft's success [Getting rich, richer, richer still], causing great damage to Microsoft [Excluding the damage they do to others and themselves], other companies [Partners yet to be screwed] that build upon Microsoft's products [Which used to be made by other companies now out of business or holding less than 5% of the market], and the businesses and consumers that use PC software," the world's richest man [who gained much of his wealth from predatory and monoplistic practices] said in his 155-page written submission [Doubtlessly not composed in Word Perfect].
Some legal analysts have said Gates' failure to take the stand at the original trial damaged the company's defense [No worse than heavy sighes, evasive answers, and contemptful attitued toward the court]. The Justice Department [Soon to be part of the Microsoft empire] (news - web sites), instead, showed unflattering portions of a videotaped pretrial interview in which Gates appeared uncooperative and quibbled over the meaning of common words.
The nine states still pursuing the case have refused to sign on to a proposed settlement of the case reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department in November[Written by Microsoft, agreed to by DoJ].
Appearing as Microsoft's seventh witness at the remedy hearings, Gates credited Microsoft's Windows monopoly with having helped to unite a fragmented personal computer industry[I.e. destroy all the fragments and the companies which were developing them]. "By reducing Windows to some undefined 'core operating system' the (states) would turn back the clock on Windows development by about ten years and effectively freeze it there," he said [Which would actually make it more accessable to consumers and business customers who don't want all the bundled and confusing bloat, thus pulling it out of the dark ages]
Gates said the company's new .NET strategy for Internet-based services [And to kill Java and absorb 95% of that market, too, locking every user into running Windows proprietary software]
would spark a new round of opportunities in the computer industry [Opportunities go bankrupt, to deal with more bugs, to be vulnerable to more security flaws, to spend huge bucks retraining or recruiting new staff, ...],
contradicting some witnesses for the states who feared Microsoft would
use its Windows monopoly to dominate this emerging technology [Which they would].
The demands of the non-settling states are technically impossible, Gates said [And amazingly his nose didn't grow an inch or three]. And he dismissed the idea that Windows' could function properly with add-on features, known as "middleware," that were easily added and removed [i.e. we trust no-one but ourselves and we're basically barely any good at it ourselves].
"There is no clear dividing line between where a particular block of "middleware" ends and the rest of the operating system begins," Gates said[Particularly because Microsoft violates their own API's whenever it will gain them an advantage, hence dirty software].
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Actually Perl, Apache, X
The point is, with this sort of attitude, you run the risk of being called an arrogant prick, but a judge shouldn't even consider it. What's tragic about the MS antitrust case is that the shady OEM deals, the dual-boot prohibition (BeOS suffered because of this), the arm-twisting -- are all subsumed into a weird argument about how Netscape was wronged because Microsoft bundled an effing browser with the OS.
Corporations, which the Supreme Court has essentially declared to be legal entities with rights and everything, act like spoiled children because they have one and only one purpose: make money to the exclusion of all else.
What's the best way to make money to the exclusion of all else? Become a monopoly and abuse it once you have it!
If antitrust remedies don't include really stiff penalties, then every corporation out there is going to be very predictable and attempt to become a monopoly -- and once they do, they'll be even more predictable and abuse that monopoly. And why not? Abusing a monopoly doesn't cost them anything. The worst thing that happens is that they lose their monopoly status, right? But until that time, they bring in the cash hand over fist because of their abuse of their monopoly position.
Abuse of a monopoly should be so horrendously expensive that corporations don't even think of doing it, because the consequences would be too devastating. Much better to play nice and profit reasonably from it than to play dirty and get smacked down hard for it, right? But with the rules as they are right now, corporations have every incentive to abuse their monopoly for as long as they're able, because doing so doesn't cost them anything.
And that's gotta change.
I mean, if individuals are punished under the law for breaking the law, then why aren't corporations? Why are corporations so special, anyway, that we have elevated them to the status of godhood?
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
X-box disappoints. Pocket PC sales disappoint. They can't get out of their corner. .NET is a vague buzzword with no meat yet, and not many people fooled so far.
.NET, but many developers do. Many non-religious, objective professionals claim that it's an incredible development platform (and some say that it's too bad that MS was the creator of it). Let's not forget many of the Fortune 100, Government, and small-medium sized business that have chosen .NET as their platform of choice for future projects.
The Xbox is awesome. True, the PS2 has a far superior game library, but it's also in it's second generation and second year of release, and wasn't released during a very poor point in the world economy.
Pocket PC sales do not dissapoint. The last time I checked, they've been giving Palm a run for their money. Palm has been very static, while PocketPC 2002 is actually very slick.
YOU may not understand
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Or they're worried that someone can pay $200 for their home edition of Windows and get server-quality http and smb daemons with no limitations on the number of users, instead of paying countless thousands of dollars running a MS-based web server.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Yes, MS did bully everyone, and their mother. Yes, MS did make every attempt to stifle their competition. But, that is no reason to force them to strip down their OS to itty-bitty modules.
Linux/BSD/etc's strengths are its modularity and the large amount of freedom of choice a person has when using it. This is why people use it. Everything from the file system to the Window Manager can be customized/changed. In fact, that is also a weakness. It seems like there is a new distribution created every 15 seconds. Many times, programs will only be tested with a handful of the most popular flavors of Linux.
MS's strength is the fact that it is NOT as customizable, in my opinion. The core OS is not amazing by any definition, and isn't really all that valuable by itself. In fact, it is plain mediocre. However, the fact that it is a common interface is very refreshing. The bundled software is not bad. In fact, one could say that some of it is good. I know Slashdot readers love Mozilla, but IE really is a good browser. The value of Windows isn't in the technical excellence of its kernel. Its in the user experience. By bundling everything together, MS is providing their interpretation as to what an OS should do, and they are entitled to their opinion. Is it impossible for them to split the OS from the bundled apps? Probably not, but the OS itself is a cheap commodity, and it really would be more difficult for them to test/support Windows if it was entirely modular.
What they are NOT entitled to do is bully computer manufacturers into not installing additional software on their machines. MS should not be allowed to force them to pay for a Windows license for machines that have no OS, or have Linux.
If you really want a customizable OS, then don't use MS. If you want to punish MS, then fine them, and set up oversite committees to make sure they don't bully distributors. Or find another penalty. Windows shouldn't have to be stripped down.
People keep saying, "Linux on the Desktop is alive and well". "OS X is amazing." So use it.