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!.
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
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...
I'll pay for a video of this!
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!
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.
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
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!
...from MS to Redhat to Sun, everyone bundles, is forced to, or goes out of business because that's what the customer wants.
However, the manner in which companies do the bundling varies widely. Take Solaris, for example.
Sun hides nothing when it bundles software and gives credit where it is due. They do this with Apache, Perl, Java, X Windows, and the Berkeley UNIX compatibility tools, for example. The user is never forced to use these tools, but they certainly may choose to. The only component of Solaris a person is really forced to use is the kernel. Otherwise, Solaris is very modular allowing the user to pick and choose pretty much everything else.
The same is true for Linux and the free BSDs, as well. This is not true of Windows.
The difference between Microsoft and everyone else is that Microsoft is arrogant, imposing, and rude towards its customers. Microsoft has lost the notion of working for the customers, which is why more and more people are turning away from Microsoft every day.
Companies should be bending over backwards to satisfy their customers, and they should be honest about it, too. Meanwhile, Microsoft has been steadily dropping in rank on my list of companies that have earned my business. I think it will be very soon before Microsoft drops off that list entirely.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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.
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.'
Yeah, 640 lbs. should be enough for anybody.