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!.

Comments

At what point

[Slash Veteran]

does the judge just say "enough is enough, stop lying."

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.

Two days on the stand is a lot of $$ for Bill

[Jon Howard]

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.

Ironically, yes

[dant]

"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," [Gates] said.

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?

Re:Ironically, yes

[mcc]

If i'm not mistaken, the entire thrust of the "debundle IE" argument at this point, more or less, is for the benefit of OEMs.

Everyone knows that the average computer buyer just wants a bare-bones platform on which they can roll their own browser, media player, photo editor, etc.

The point is to get a bare-bones platform for the average computer seller so that, say, Compaq, can sell a computer with the bare-bones microsoft OS, and on top of that a web browser, media player, IM client, etc, selected by Compaq.

There are a lot of people on slashdot who want to just get the win32 APIs and a file browser from microsoft, and then have the freedom to "roll their own", as you put it, as far as applications go. There are not a lot of people out in the unwashed masses who want this.

However, who's to say that if OEMs weren't suddenly allowed to offer wildly different initial software setups, some of them wouldn't come up with more usable systems than the uniform setup that microsoft forces everyone to ship now? If Compaq can save X amount of money on each PC sold by not having to pay MS for IE and instead bundling Mozilla, and that X amount of money goes back to developing better products, wouldn't this benefit Compaq's unwashed-masses end users?

Forcing a bare-bones windows system out on the market is not going to change everything overnight, and it is not the only thing that needs to be done. But it isn't exactly an idea to just laugh at , and the gaps in the bare-bones system won't equate to a lot of work for the end user-- they'll just equate to slightly larger variety in the setups of the computers they have a choice of buying.

Remember, this lawsuit didn't start off saying "debundle the browser from the operating system." It started off saying "allow computer companies to sell computers with a netscape shortcut on the desktop by default instead of an IE shortcut"..

Re:Ironically, yes

[Chiasmus_]

I don't know if this is how capitalism works.

Really, "capitalism" is an abstract concept that doesn't exist. I suppose that if I lived in a society comprised of three people, and one of us was a farmer, one of us was a cook, and one of us built and maintained houses, and we all agreed to mint currency and pay each other for our services, that would be capitalism.

In the real world, there are always forces that cause the market to be less free, because it's to their advantage. Many European countries have a sort of "socialist capitalism", wherein the government interferes heavily in the free market, setting guidelines and redistributing wealth as it sees fit.

America, on the other hand, subscribes to "corporate capitalism", wherein competition is carefully controlled by those with enough money to control it. The fact that you cannot buy Pepsi in Burger King is indeed proof that we do not live in a free market or true capitalist state.

Of course, both these forms of capitalism are less than ideal, for reasons everyone is already familiar with. Democrats in America seem to favor "socialist capitalism"; Republicans tend to favor "corporate capitalism"; and Rednecks just like to wave their little striped flags and say we live in a free, capitalist country, without sitting down to think about that.

BBC says it all .....

[IamTheRealMike]

GATES: Microsoft would be crippled

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.

Re: Why Bother

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

I am amused

[subgeek]

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

Re: Why Bother

[doooras]

you mean like Mac OS X?

Re: Why Bother

[SCHecklerX]

My non-technical g/f and her two children use linux. Why? Because it was pre-installed on the machine I built for them.

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.

Blind? Ignorant?

[2nd Post!]

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.

Except this is his job

[sweatyboatman]

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

And we are to taken him seriously?

[weave]

He claims that the state's remedies would set Windows back 10 years and freeze it there.

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?"

Here's how M$ will die

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

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. .NET is a vague buzzword with no meat yet, and not many people fooled so far.

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 :-)

Re:Here's how M$ will die

[kevinank]

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.

The proliferation of hardware MMUs was what allowed Unix to move to the desktop, which is surprising considering that when AT&T first split their research off of Multics, one of their main reasons for doing so was to avoid the high end hardware requirements of Multics such as MMUs.

Initially Unix and DOS were much the same. Unix began as a single user operating system with no address space seperation, and no security (and all Unix flavors to this day can be booted in single user mode.) But you are right that while Unix grew to incorporate these features, DOS never did. These days I think that Microsoft is blind to the need for multiuser processing on a single box. Their adoption of the GUI is so complete that they can't imagine someone needing to adminstrate a headless box.

No punitive action for antitrust violators??

[kcbrown]

I don't know about you, but I think the way antitrust is handled is ridiculous.

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?