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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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
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!
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?"
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
I wonder how much smoke his hand gave off when it touched the Bible :D
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
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.'
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.
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 ,