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!.
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
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?
of work.
If Bill isn't going to employ them, when he's the one who put on the street, then what is he talking about?
--Blair
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?
I'm still waiting for a "what about the children?!?" moment.
Hmm. Then again, I probably shouldn't hold my breath.
There is an HTML version of the 163-page version on Microsoft's web site.
"There is no clear dividing line between where a particular block of "middleware" ends and the rest of the operating system begins," Gates said.
Maybe Gates should go back to being CEO instead of Chief Software Architect!
From this article:
Hey, wait a second...
... fear, uncertainty, and doubt?
Finding God in a Dog
Heres how I feel:
DON'T use linux in the "average joe-shmoe desktop environment". At least not in the conventional way.
Instead, get a project going to make an OS _targeted_ for the desktop. Even feel free to use Linux/*BSD kernels and librarys. Just don't have what the normal Linux distro tends to be - A very UNIX like system with X and maybe KDE or GNOME slapped on top.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
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.
I think the astounding part of this is that Gates has come to the point of arguing that modular software is bad, and not only that, impossible. When in fact Microsoft fully understands the value of modularity and is really in the mainstream of software engineering on the issue of modular == good.
What they really think is that exposing modularity in a fair way will hurt MS, but what they are arguing goes so much further... it's a little worrisome if I thought anyone would believe him at his word.
Odd Thought: I wonder if they really want to stop shipping windows but can only do this if they blame the Government. MSUnix without losing face ("they made us"). (Note: I didn't say MSLinux)
-pyrrho
you mean like Mac OS X?
In written testimony submitted after he was sworn in, Gates argued that penalties the states have proposed would give Microsoft's competitors an unfair advantage.
Good...it's doing its job. That's exactly what this is meant to do. M$ has held an unfair monopoly over the industry for years, and this is meant to give other companies the chance to strip some of their power away.
As a monopoly, everything that comprises Windoze and Office are the result of ill-gotten gains and should be plundered like M$ has done to others in the past.
If it is sucessful, this could be what brings the tech industry out of its current slump...
If your shit was architected properly in the first place, it would be trivial to separate the "toys" from the kernel.
Now, if by removing the extras like IE we're crippling your OS, that's YOUR problem.
Do it and shut up so we can all go home.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
There was this good Register story a while ago where a Sun director talked about customers' expectations from a *software* vendor. The word `sedimentation' was mentioned. And that's precisely the problem: from MS to Redhat to Sun, everyone bundles, is forced to, or goes out of business because that's what the customer wants.
But the people (or their backstage paymasters) focus on buzzwords like `bundling' and push for stupid remedies like ``releasing windows' source'' and all. Yeah right. Like that's gonna happen. The thing to do would have been fine MS (heavily -- they sure can afford it, with 36bn(!) in cash -- for restrictive OEM licenses, cause a world of hurt to their bottom line, and move on.
But for MS' many (whiny) competitors, legal eagles are now substituting for credible tech competition and decent business plans. And so the lawsuit has become a hem-the-giant-in game, even as these very same whiners continue haemorrhaging money. These losers don't deserve any sympathy at all.
"We know you can separate IE from Windows"
Im sure it's POSSIBLE to remove IE from Windows, but man I sure don't trust MS to do it. In IE 6, they removed support for Netscape Style Plugins, yet when you have that type of plug-in in the plugins folder it still installs itself into the registry and tries to run as a mime type. In other words, they turned off one feature but not another.
If they won't take the time to implement a good solution for removing NS Style Plug-ins, I can only imagine the half assed job MS'd do of removing IE.
"Derp de derp."
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.
"Microsoft today is investing heavily in XML Web Services, a next-generation computing platform that holds the potential to unleash new waives of productivity gains in the economy."
Amazingly truthful for a Microsoft statement, but I think it would have been clearer to say "throw away", or "forsake" instead of "waives" productivity gains.
Bill Gates puts a lot of emphasis on the protection of Microsoft's intellectual property and how the nine states' rememdies will "force" Microsoft to give its IP to competitors. Gates is using essentially the same arguments to defend itself in the trial and attacks on the GPL--the need to protect Microsoft's "innovation." Gates is projecting his own interests to be the interests of the world.
The new judge should see Bill Gates' self-centered ego, like Judge Jackson who thought Gates has a Napoleon-like mentality.
Wonder when will Microsoft begin to claim the nine states are "intellectual property destroyers" or are conspiring with Richard Stallman against Microsoft...
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Windows NT4/5/5.1 all based (if not somewhat loosely) on the VMS kernel?
.....
Not to defend M$, but let's call a spade a spade; Windows 2000 is reasonably stable so long as you don't (through ignorance or purpose) destroy the internals. My home machine runs Windows 2000 24/7 and reboots (90% of the time scheduled) maybe once a month. While this is nothing compared to your average FreeBSD machine, it's very impressive in the world of Windows.
In any event, NT != Win9x, but Win9x == DOS to my knowledge.
So we see:
Starting Windows |||||||||||||
Instead of:
Staring MS-DOS......
Or perhaps instead of Starting FreeBSD / - \ | / -
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Do you think attitudes are changing though? Do you think people are actually trying to think about the user? I agree with a number of people who've bought this point up. Just because a lot of people aren't comfortable with computers it doesn't make them stupid. On the contrary, they're probably more competent than us in a number of areas. I for one know that I don't know what the heck goes on in my car and wouldn't be able to fix it if something happened. OTOH, my auto mechanic would, but he is in no way comfortable around computers... Everyone has different strengths
Gates claims today Microsoft's efforts to open its APIs and protocols to developers, so they can develop programs that interoperate with Windows, are enough.
Then the nine states should question Gates over the recently publicized CIFS license incident, asking him why are GPL developers excluded?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
No, it's because Microsoft is classified as a monopoly. Let's put this in simple terms. Microsoft, the monopoly, has an easy in to virtually all the desktops in the WORLD. When Microsoft acquires...er.."innovates" a new widget, be it an internet browser or something else "innovative", that widget becomes a defacto standard and Microsoft has a history of taking advantage of that type of situation.
Apple can come up with iWhatever but because it's not a monopoly and doesn't own virtually all of the desktop market, its introduction of iWhatever isn't seen as a threat.
When you are a monopoly (have I made that point yet?), you must tread carefully. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it IS illegal to use it to your advantage at the expense of others.
Oh yea, Gates makes me ill with the "we innovate" crap. Bill, you got the best of your technology from others, primarily Digital. The only innovation Microsoft has done is marketing.
What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"
If MS Server products are indeed the biggest threat to high-priced Unix provider alternatives, boy oh boy, Sun must be shaking in their boots!
You know what would be even worse for guys selling Unix systems would be if there was a completely free, readily available posix-compliant operating system that would run on PC hardware! AAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!
god is just pretend.
You just have to wonder what kind of moron would come up with something like this. No wonder Windows has trailed the Unix word when it comes to stability.
I'll admit that win2k is a decent piece of software. It does what it should do, fairly cleanly and it's pretty stable too. However, this is only a recent development after Microsoft realized that they were threatened from below by the OSS movement.
Microsoft has a long history of doing its best work (IE3&4 were quite good from a user point of view) when it is in a direct competitive situation. It is clearly in our best interest that they are forced to compete.
Stop the brainwash
Because Apple (not Mac) has not been found guilty of leveraging their monopoly in hardware sales to unfairly compete against competitors such as Real, Microsoft, etc.
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.
Sigh. Once again... Apple is not a monopoly. "Linux" is not a monopoly. You can remove bundled apps from Mac OS and Linux. Neither Apple nor the Linux distributors claim removing these bundled programs will destroy the OS.
--- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith
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!
Look at Everett Rogers' work on the diffusion of innovations. Basically, once an innovation has been picked up by about 25% of the available market, network effects (people talking to each other) take over and adoption becomes virtually unstoppable. Just the use of MS Office gives Windows a thoroughly entrenched position.
Can MS be dislodged? Let's say that the various *NIX factions get organized enough to make a serious run at displacing MS Windows. Rogers lists 5 conditions that are required for an innovation to be successful, and they place alternate operating systems at a disadvantage (definitions from Rogers' site, italicized comments mine):
So, anyone want to make Gates' nightmares come true?
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
Hmm. It occured to me that maybe we are misinterpreting the fight that MS is putting up. They keep whining about the crippling effect the relatively benign settlement would bring about. They keep telling us how it'll hurt them, so badly, and please don't do this.
To me this seems like a great way to avoid a proper, harsh remedy. (Many others have suggested far better remedies that would cause much more pain and be much more appropriate; I don't need to go into those here.) If they yell it loud enough and long enough, maybe people will believe this is a harsh remedy, and apply it, because after all, MS does deserve punishment, and why not use this one, since it's pretty harsh, after all MS said so?
Food for thought.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
How many game theorists out there are gnashing their teeth because of this blatant misstating of the "tragedy of the commons" problem?
--- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith
Once again I hear the word "free". Further proving that people that cry for open-source all of the time are ball numbing freeloaders.
Get a fucking job
Mr Gates, to what do we owe this pleasure?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
"Forget about upgrading like they are currently doing and do a re-write.. making sure everything is secure and works right!"
/. rhetoric works like a charm, never crashes, supports just about every piece of hardware known to man, and, especially in the Home version which isn't IIS-capable at all, is very secure.
Umm...you haven't used Windows 2k/XP much, have you? XP, despite all the anti-MS
Fact is, most of Microsoft's notable "mistakes" regarding security are not with the OS, but with products like Outlook and IIS. Those are not the same as the OS, and 2k/XP's user-based security model is perfectly fine. There have been very few OS-level exploits of 2k/XP.
"Sure they say windows 2000 isn't on MS-DOS but really?
So we see:
Starting Windows |||||||||||||
Instead of:
Staring MS-DOS......"
Are you for real? Text = MS-DOS now? Gee...give the user something to look at while it loads the graphics/display layer and it's suddenly MS-DOS. Wow.
2k/XP are not built on DOS at all. DOS does not exist in either system. There is DOS-emulation, and a lookalike command prompt, but DOS is officialy dead.
"There's no difference.. and while the stabilility has gotten better... it's not good or near linux."
Whatever. My computer hasn't crashed with 2k/XP (I upgraded to XP after using 2k since release) more than 10 times in the last 2-3 years. Almost all of them were due to the Norton Antivirus issues with XP. (Which was Norton's fault, and they admitted it and later released a patch.) The only time I ever reboot is when installing software that requires me to reboot. The Win2K Servers I admin at work haven't crashed since install well over a year ago.
"Active Directories.. don't even talk to me about that! They are confusing and complex! Novell is so much easier to use."
Ooookay. Novell is easy to use. That's a good one.
" Goodness Bill! Just startover.. don't try to release a new O/S every year! Take 2 or 3 and let's make this thing good. We don't need to upgrade and for goodnessgracious Bill, dump the XP 'simplification'"
What you descibe sounds like XP without you "getting it." Don't like the simplification? Go back to "classic mode" skin. Yay.
I'm not gonna say my opinion on the matter for fear of getting this corrective post modden into oblivion...but your post is so obviously flawed it was is desperate need of correction.
-Jayde
What's a sig?
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.
You have raised an interesting point.
When Jobs returned to Apple, he worked to stifle competition from alternate hardware vendors. As for the bundling issue, the packages included on the MacOS include a fair amount of software that has nothing whatsoever to do with the OS itself.
It doesn't really matter about Linux - the bundling is done by distributors. Since there is no one underlying Linux company, the bundling issue doesn't really apply.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
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
Hmm... This is not about some tinkering. It's about taking apart things that were together for more than 4 years, making it completely modular on a kernel level, taking out vital parts, let others reunite them and take the risk of producing a completely torn apart system.
So what's better? Let the less profitable Home applications die and focus on server business or have some dudes screwing with the work of your life? what would you do if you were billy boy?
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
However I will take offense at you comment about desktop usability. This complaint about Linux is a myth. Typically, when people say this what they really mean is "More like windows". Using Windows as the de-facto standard for desktop usability is not only unfair, it destroys the (small amount of IMHO) credibility that usability tests have in the first place.
Taking people from Windows and seeing how they feel with Linux proves nothing. Of course they're more comfortable with Windows. They've allready been using it. If you want to do this right, have people who know nothing about computers, and have never used one sit down and figure it out. You won't get the same results I promise you that.
I won't go off on it, but you also need to remember that there are a large number of desktops for Linux, which are tested, KDE? Gnome? Some of the older desktops? It matters. And someone who wants to prove that Windows is has a easier desktop could easily do so, just by their choice of Linux desktop- to compare to.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
It seems to me that if the States that are suing MS were NOT backed up by another greedy big corporation like AOL, Sun, etc. the Government would have had a much better chance at getting MS than it is now.
If the public can bring a class action suit against MS and it is backed by the States as it is now, MS would not be able to stand the trial as it is doing now.
The fact that AOL, Sun, Netscape, etc. have gotten so involved in this case, it makes the case questionable.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
I wonder how much smoke his hand gave off when it touched the Bible :D
I think that everything should be installed. But the first time I use my brand-spanking new computer or click on a new file type, I have to select one: IE, Navigator, Opera, or Mozilla. But if this application screws me around, I should be able to right-click or cmd-click and select a new default application that's already installed. This even means when a page doesn't display right in IE (or Netscape or Opera for HTML --or Photoshop or Paint .jpgs or .gifs), I can quickly select another application.
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
Netscape, Oracle, Intel, Sun, and Everyone but Microsoft.
cpeterso
Would that be a 2-piece or 3-piece suit? Stripes too?
"He (Gates) told the US district judge, Colleen Kollar- Kotelly, that the remedies demanded by nine states would set Microsoft's Windows operating system back 10 years."
Good. Then they can try to get it right this time.
Kind of like they have to with different versions of Windows today, right?
Customers ARE faced with the prospect of finding and distinguishing among, for example, Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows 2000 (and for Windows NT 3.51 and Windows 4.0 and Windows XP and Windows Me), each with varying capabilities reflecting the underlying capabilities of the version of Windows to which they were written. Software innovation HAS SLOWED as ISVs devote greater resources to (i) duplicating functionality that Windows might otherwise provide and (ii) testing many variations of their products to reflect variations in the underlying operating systems.
What a jerk! He makes money off of doing what he says is bad for the industry! Doesn't anyone recognize this hypocrisy?
Education is the silver bullet.
Yes you are. None of us see Microsoft killing 6+ million civilians and invading and overthrowing foreign governments. Oh, and Godwin's Law.
Is it just me, or is Melinda Gates a pretty hot broad? (exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C) Maybe I'm just horny...
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
...of the executive summary states it all.
Microsoft intends to comply wherever it is both clear and feasable. Translation: Microsoft will claim the language is unclear at every possible instance and will claim that any exact language is impossible to comply with.
How will the courts respond to that?
Can the courts order the incorporation of 3rd party methods of making Windows "lite"? Can they order a 3rd party to rebuild the Windows platform and force Microsoft to accept and support it? Clearly Microsft is unwilling to do this job themselves, so can the courts order someone else to do it for them and require Microsft to accept the results of that work?
If Microsoft will claim all language used to be either too vague or impossible, will the courts find Microsoft in contempt?
So far, I haven't heard any "or else" alternatives. So far it's that Microsoft is expected to comply, but what happens when Microsoft says "I can't do it and you can't make me"?
OEMs, OEMs. Forced to bundle MS apps. Not gleffler, but OEMs.
That's what it's about.
I take it you know what an OEM is.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
UNIX was on PC's and the desktop before MMU's were there. My first Unix was some IBM thing that ran on a PC-XT. MMU? Hah!
It worked just fine.
People overrate memory mapping for single user machines. It is a very good idea, but it simply is not necessary for a multitasking system.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Ever used one of those HP bundles with the special internet keyboard, the special edition of Windows 98 with the special drivers for the special CD writer? (short summary: they're awful) And a little jiggering around will teach you that you can never really de-HP the machine.
Would it be a good thing if more OEM's did things like this? We could all have special pre-installed Bonzi buddies! Worked into the OS so they're impossible to remove for most people! YAY!
Perhaps MS is doing consumers a service by preventing more OEM tinkering.
Also, would MS charge less or more for a machine without Internet Explorer? More of course - MS wants people to have it.
Note that I don't actually disagree with you - MS does screw people into one choice. I'm just saying that there's a good chance other companies would screw Average Joe just as bad as MS does.
.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Is this to be believed? Microsoft cannot tell what their own code does? That explains a lot, but is it really the truth? Somehow I don't think so.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Gates: Don't do this to us! The whole world depends on us. If you hurt us, you'll just hurt yourself.
Unfortunately, that's not the issue here. Microsoft broke the law, and there must be a punishment. If that hurts everyone, so be it. Sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy; in this case it will most likely be extremely painful.
The reason that Apple isn't under antitrust investigation is that they don't have a heavily dominant market share. I know that despite your apparent stupidity you can figure out that Microsoft's 90% market share is much greater than Apple's 5% market share.
Don't forget:
According to Judge Pennfield Jackson, Apple is not in the same market as Microsoft.
As Apple holds nearly 100% of the desktop PPC-based operating systems market, that's a pretty damn surefire monopoly.
Apple's market share is nearly 100% - in its market, as defined by the DOJ.
Doesn't that sound like a monopoly to you?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
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.
you mean like Mac OS X?
Exactly. Considering that it's only in it's "version 1" (kinda), think of where this OS can go - especially with support from the community (at the kernal level), with the commercial support from Apple (dev API's, GUI, etc.).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
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
I'm an honorable businessman. I got dis business down in chicago. Wit dis money I make, I'm creating a loddof, watcha call it, jobs... yea, jobs. On toppadat, I also pay the state and da feds.. sometimes underda table. So in oder words, I'm generating a lot of revenue for da country. Wit dis Ness (or here for an update) mess, you got dis business set back some fiddy years. Do you really want to set us back 50 years and undo all the progress we made? The eco-system that we have created with our blood and sweat? People are working together day and night and the supply chain management is flawless. We have efficiency you don't see in any other industry. We also have the best dedication among any group of organized labor. They are ready to give their life for the good of da business. You want to dismantle us just because we rob banks and supply the alcohol that the consumer wants? Since when is it a crime to supply what the people want. This is what the consumer are telling us -- 'give us more alcohol'. The consumer also wants some redistribution of wealth so we bundled that together as well. We rob banks and give the money to the working class (as long as they're working for us.) People also wants protection. Why have the police as a seperate entity just to provide the protection. We bundled that together too -- just pay us the protection fee. So you see yo 'onor. We are just putting together dis package that the consumer wants. We bundle all these features together and give the consumer what they want. With everyting integreted into one big package, they just have one, how shall i say this, neighborhood representative to talk to for all their daily needs: booze, protection, etc..If you dismantle us we won't be able to function like one large organized business. It will take us years to rebuild this empire. Many more people will have to be killed in the process. Whadabbout all the 'little' people that drive trucks everynight to bring you the booze. In short, yor 'onor, we are one big happy family. We bring people what they want in one big package. It took us years to build this empire. Besides I just gave some money and R&D promise to provide for compition to Steve Jobs' Apple. Don't break us up.
You dissappoint me fredo. (oops.. wrong movie) you dissappoint me yor 'onor.
Sincerely,
Bill Gates
Seriously tho, the similarities about the business/empire and how they are evolving are scary. Bill Gates must be the digital gangsta'. He needs to get a wireless divice shooting bits and bytes all over the place disrupting standard protocol ala Kerberos. let's call it the 'tommy PDA'. wouldn't it be funny when you start hearing .. 'in the news.. Bill Gates is wanted by the feds for questioning for the drive by rebooting.'
who were rumrunners on the Great Lakes - arguing against repealing prohibition.
...
after all, it hurt the business
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Nobody forces you to install anything that is bundled with a distro.
If you sell computers with preinstalled Linux, nobody will tell you what to install on there. You can make your own distro and bundle whatever you like in there.
And Linus will not punish oyu if you do not put Mozilla on every Linix computer.
As i said in the title this should be obvious to you, but since you are an MS troll you may need some explaining.
As far as apple is concerned there are two differences:
- apple is not a monopoly
- apple make their own hardware, and do their own preinstalls, so they are not using their market power to control other companies. They only "control" themselves.
ah! now i know why Office puts all that crap faux html into its "html" documents:
In an echo of previous trials, where old emails were found which directly contradicted Microsoft employees' testimony, antitrust expert Steve Kuney introduced an internal memo.
In it, Mr Gates told employees to stop working on ways of making sure that documents from the Office suite - Microsoft's "killer app" - were compatible with rival web browsers.
"Allowing Office to be rendered very well by other people's browers is one of the most destructive things we can do to the company," he wrote.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
An excerpt form page 149:
"As pertains to elements of collaboration with competitors on aspects of our critical intellectual property and future ability to innovate in an effective manner as described in section, 3d, I really doubt you're reading this anymore. As such is endangered by the dissenting states remedies in a clear attack on the healthy ecosystem of Judge Jackson being a moron, and furthermore how you aren't paying attention linux sux0rs healthy innovation competition intellectual property not make windows anymore... I'm just going to start typing "booger". Booger booger booger booger booger..."
The enemies of Democracy are
Microsoft solutions...
Sigh... I too have hated MS. My brother is the CIO of a billion dollar a year company. Him and I have had many a MS arguments... me against, and him for, in specific cases.
One of his big MS loves has been SQL server. Since 7.0 he has loved it. They have over a billion rows in their accounting DB, and it has performed with out fail.
Me: very recently, I used Oracle 8i. It was OK. Then our group decided to look for alternatives after Oracle decided to change its pricing schemes (which ment a lot more money for us). We reviewed SQL 2000, tried it, ran it through the ringer, and... loved it.
I didn't want to like SQL server. But after having used Oracle, it was a god-send. Things that use to take days in oracle literaly took minutes in SQL server, esp. with DTS.
So now I curse the day that MS made a good product that I like.
I'm truly not an MS advocate. I've used VB on major projects and cursed the day. Not by choice but my management choice. (I quit, by the way).
And now I've been using Win2k for a year, and I like it too... sure, there are issues, like the 'memory could not be read' thing I keep running into. But I can ACTUALLY go weeks without rebooting. That is amazing. And I consistently have 30+ windows open without an issue.
XP, on the other hand, I am a bit scared of. We've run into issues, for example, Office XP won't use LDAP as a directory lookup source... it will only use Active Directory. That makes me and the other techs nervous, as it is a clear indication of the strangle hold MS is trying to put on us. It is a blantant non-use of an open protocol, which perfectly follows the embrace-and-extend method that has moved MS as far as they are.
Well, I'll end it here... and rant for a rant, I say!
What about cost? If the competition, in this case Linux, significantly undercuts the cost of MS and shows at least parity in all the other items you've listed, don't you think that would cause some incredible movement?
Don't forget the value of the allmighty dollar. It's what got Microsoft where they are today, and it's why they're so scared of the GPL.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I'm still not sure if he's just so far removed from the reality of what is going on that he really believes what he's saying, or if he's just impressively two-faced. I suspect the former, just because I don't look for a conspiracy when simple ignorance will do.
and: and: Ok, I would like to see some of this disclosure. Why did the Samba team need to reverse-engineer the Windows file sharing protocol if such information is so widely available?What information did Microsoft need to provide to Sun? More likely, they got information from Sun about the various UNIX protocols so they could embrace and extend them.
If Microsoft was really that open with their specifications, wouldn't writing a Win32 emulator be easier? Instead, it seems to actually be simpler to write a working complete PC emulator and rely on Windows' ability to cope well with different hardware to let it run well than it it to duplicate the ever-changing and never-documented Win32 APIs.
I have no doubt that interoperability played a huge role in development at Microsoft. They needed to talk with other software packages and operating systems in order to gain market share.
At the same time, they could leverage their position as the operating system provider to prevent others from doing the same thing to them.
From the earliest days of DOS, they kept their cards close. The use of those (intentionally?) undocumented DOS calls in Excel gave Microsoft a big advantage over Lotus-1-2-3, who had to go in and either re-implement an existing (but unknown) API that Microsoft had in the OS, or reverse engineer the process to find the undocumented calls that the Excel folks had advance notice of. By the same token, Microsof could and did (deliberately?) change the "undocumented" APIs that Lotus relied on while simultaneously changing the new version of Excel to stop using them.
In short, they seem to have a firm handle on the fact that the path to dominance is to make sure your product can interface with others, but don't let the others interface with you.
"Trialability: the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. OK, Windows fails this too -- but people don't even know there's an alternative to be tried. Where's the *NIX equivalent of AOL's "1000 free hours" preview?"
I can see how that would be helpful.There are still two problems with that; distribution and paying for the disks themselves.
Normal people dont know about Linux. Normal people don't want to download Linux. Normal people don't know that downloading is how you get Linux. Someone needs to fix all that, and AOL has certainly demonstrated that it can be done.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Microsoft was found to be an abusive monopoly that engaged in illegal activity, yet we're somehow supposed to care when Gates whines that the proposed remedies would hurt Microsoft? Isn't that one of the main purposes of the remedies -- to set an example for others to notice?
Thanks, that was fantastic, and is being stolen for a journal entry as soon as I get home tonight!
My Journal
To do this with linux you can switch to another virtual terminal (CTRL+ALT+F2, for instance). If you want an X server, then start one. If you already logged in through XDM, you can still switch to a text console and log in as another user, then run startx -- :1. Then switch between your X servers with CTRL+ALT+F7,F8 (or whichever VCs you are using for your X servers.)
I sometimes do this on the family computer. I'll start an X session for myself on VC8, and leave a guest login on VC7 for the rest of the family.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
You've got issues then. I've had netscape crash.. and other applications... poorly written sfotware should not be able to bringdown the operating system if it's running correctly...
so