Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Urged Linux Retaliation
Rossalina W Sanchez writes: "Yahoo is reporting that an internal Microsoft memo from August of 2000 urged employees to 'work underground' to hurt companies, like Intel, who support Linux. When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them ..."
I'd imagine the internal letters between linux developers on crippling microsoft are 100x worse.
Exactly how is the unearthing of this memo going to dent their $40 billion in cash reserves or their dominance in the marketplace. They've already been sued by the U.S. gov and the states as well as by their peers and competitors.
But this memo will haunt them.
I think it's pretty obvious that Microsoft is, in part, so arrogant precisely because this stuff never really does haunt them.
Let them eat cake!
Just pick-up and join in on the Be lawsuit (www.beincorporated.com). Be has a much stronger case than the states in my opinion.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The memo was dated August 2000?
Sounds to me like they haven't been terribly successful thus far.
Sharpies don't just sniff themselves.
Does it really shock anyone? It's like everyone expects them to get along? When was the last time you saw two competiting grocery stores run newspaper ads supporting each other. It's just the way the US business world works, you make your money at the expense of others. I'm not a Microsoft fan but jeez it's not like this sort of stuff doesn't happen in every other corporation. Bad mouthing the competition and saying how great your company is, is a tatic to try and get employees motivated, whether it works or not is questionable but the fact that Microsoft bad mouths a competing OS, or tries to force companies to use its software shouldn't surprise anyone.
Because it doesn't hurt them.
Look out there in the business world. See any companies saying "Hey, Microsoft is unfair? We should shift our stuff over and stop using them!"
No, what you see is "Well, we have to change our licensing and pay more money. We don't have any choice."
Of all the things that I don't like Microsoft for, that's the #1 thing. I see people saying "But...I can't get a Mac - it won't work with my stuff", where stuff == Microsoft Office and Adobe Acrobat. I see IT Staffs scrambling to count licenses for fear that the SBA will knock on the door and find that one computer without a piece of paper stating that Windows 2000 was paid for.
I see hopelessness, and I see just a resigned acceptance.
Learn? Why should they learn. Microsoft gets paid because people are either too lazy, or unwilling to see the alternatives. So they won't learn from their "mistakes" - until the day it hits them in the pocketbook. And that's not happening yet.
If ever.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Ah, and then AMD testified in favor of Microsoft out of the goodness of their hearts.
And this just speaks for itself: "I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements -- again without being obvious about it," Kempin wrote.
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
Maybe we're doing something right!
How long has the Linux community been urging Microsoft retaliation? ;-)
Got Rhinos?
Whenever Microsoft gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, they try hard to make up for it. If Intel and IBM got together and said, we're going to put a Linux desktop out there that the average joe wants and can use as easily as windows, Microsoft will have something to fear. I suspect that they will make a lot of conciliatory gestures towards Intel. Kind of an Ike Turner thing -- take me back, baby, I never meant to hurt you!
Do you believe in death after life?
"When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them"
Hopefully never.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
I don't think this is a valid argument from the manufacturers. If Dell or Gateway or Compaq started preloading Linux on their machines, what is microsoft going to do? Say, "OK, we aren't selling windows licenses to Dell anymore." I don't think so. Especially since that is where they get their huge user base. Because most PCs COME WITH WINDOWS ON THEM! Now they might be so arrgant as to think if they stop selling copies of Windows to Gateway, Gateway will cease to be. But I don't think this is the case. First of all, geeks would flock to order PCs where they didn't have to pay the "Microsoft Tax" (i.e. buying an OS license they will never use.) Second, most of the non-geeks that I know think their operating system is Office 2000, so they aren't going to know what Linux means when they order it. Sure this will generate some returns, but most people will either figure it out, or be too proud to admit they don't know what they are talking about. Third, if one does it, the others will, too. And MS can't stop selling licenses to EVERY PC retailer. It would be suicide. One of the big PC companies just needs to step up to the plate and tell MS to sod off, and offer Linux certified systems. With hardware that has available drivers, already set up and configured, with the latest kernel, KDE, etc. I'm telling you it would work.
As for interoperability, most of the software we write these days is CGI or Java, and runs on any modern web browser. Also with StarOffice, I've almost got 100% MS Office compatibility. I can do almost anything on my Linux box that I can with my MS box. (I still can't write Visual Basic programs in Linux, but I'm sure someone is working on that!)
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
What you call a "Common Business Practice" is also called "Illegal Leveraging of Monopoly Power" in the case of a convicted Monopolist such as Microsoft. It's a textbook violation of the Sherman antitrust act, and the states have good reason to introduce this.
No other company in the industry has this power - You think any company would take Apple seriously if they tried to pull this? Sun? IBM? Cisco? Redhat? Get real. This is what Common Business Executives *wish* they could practice, but only Monopolists can pull off.
'ARRGH! Pirate Designers of the Internet, we be!'
What you're talking about is COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE.
That is exactly the point. Microsoft is a monopoly, that means they are not a common business. It means that what other companies use as common business practice is unfair when used by them.
Your average business is competing on equal (or relatively similar) footing. Microsoft, on the other hand, is in an infinately better position than any other company. To the point that if any tech company wants to stay in business they need Microsofts good grace. That is not how business is supposed to work.
Always makes me think of the uncle Ben quote "With great power comes great responsibility." I know, it's kind of cheesy to apply it here, but it's true. No one in the industry has a fraction of the power Microsoft has, and only a small fraction of the industry has the lack of responsibility Microsoft displays.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
It could be because it is irrelevant. This case is specifically about browsers
...which is exactly why the case itself is irrelevant. The browser wars are over now that mozilla 1 is out, people are starting to get decent email clients, and everyone has a fast enough net connection to download netscape as one of the first things they do after installing Windows.
So why are people still arguing about the browser "monopoly"? For goodness' sake, lets allow businesses to LEGALLY SELL OTHER OPERATING SYSTEMS, let's have a publication of the MS-Office formats, and let's have a marketplace where people selling computers without Windows are not routinely accused of piracy!
Undermining competition is what keeps businesses alive
That's like messing up your neighbors' lawns makes yours look better.
Tends to spoil the whole industry and everything else connected to it.
This case is a frequent topic of debate for me and my right wing uncle. He's of the opinion that Microsoft should be at the top not only for making a supposedly better product but for their business dealings. He sees everything their doing completely legitimate for business standards.
/. crowd but maybe to the general public that MS is strong arming the computer industry. It just seems that's everyday business and good business to them.
What I can't get him to understand though is I don't consider Microsoft doing business. Isn't the point of a free economy to stimulate innovation and make sure the best product is the one being produced? I know the current business ethics aren't what my (or maybe most people's) idea should be, but does that mean we should cooperate with the status quo?
Business isn't making an inferior product then letting strong arming or legislation protect your market share, or in this case monopoly.
It's so obvious and just not to the
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
Are you serious? Or just trolling?
Really? Then how exactly do you explain their billions of dollars in sales, versus, say, Redhat's few million?
Anticompetitive business practices.
Most people don't care. They just want the best product at the best value.
Which implies a choice and the ability to choose. A concept that a monopolist cannot stand.
Get a clue. Every company is run the same way.
But every company does not have monopoly control of the market.
I really hope that you do that much research into the internal workings of Colgate-Palmolive before you buy your toothpaste.
This is not a valid comparison because they have competitors.
What if Colgate could work some kind of scheme such that anyone buying toothpaste had to pay Colgate, regardless of which toothpaste they wanted to buy? This would drive all competitors out of the market. If I bought Crest, I would have to pay for Crest, and for Colgate. If I bought Colgate, I would only have to pay for Colgate. This is how MS got to where they are. Not through providing superior products.
Today, they have superior products. But only because they can pour buckets of money into development. Money they can extort at artificially high prices due to lack of any competition.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Of course, only time will tell in this case, but it it would not be unusal for a judge to be extra-deferential to the party that he or she is about to squash like a bug. Doing the opposite is exactly the mistake that Jackson made on the last go-round.
Because presenting a random email from one employee is not the same thing as demonstrating the intent or the actual practices of the company.
Or do you think that you speak for Slashdot?
One opinion is just that: one opinion.
Surely you don't think that if a Microsoft employee had written a "memo" (let's face it, these are just captured emails) advocating that their $40B be used to purchase NASA, that Bill Gates was intending to go into the commercial launch business, do you?
Not entirely true, it turns out. See what AMD has to say about this (source at bottom):
Source:X P.jspa
http://athlonxp.amd.com/overview/microsoftWindows
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
It really doesn't matter what was said. It matters what was done. The memo points out that this vice president hasn't gotte the idea that Microsoft as a monopoly can't do these things legally. However, if Microsoft didn't act on those suggestions, it's not breaking the law.
Maybe Kempin's actions are why he's no longer dealing with Microsoft's relationship with Intel.
Microsoft has got to realize that their no holds barred method of competition isn't legal as a monopoly. They could get away with it many years ago, but not any more.
"...because it's one of their execs openly spouting off like that when he SHOULD have kept his mouth shut "
/. is because people love to hate MS. Yadda yadda yadda.
Umm his job as an executive is to come up with ideas on how to stay in business. Contraversial? Oh yeah! But no proof has been provided showing that any crime has been committed. Frankly, the only reason its interesting to
They really should provide evidence instead of trying to propaganda MS to death.
'MS told Gateway not to sell computers without Windows' -- that is evidence.
'Somebody at MS said they shouldnt allow Gateway to sell computers without Windows' -- not a crime. Free speech. Expression of ideas. No proven illegal action.
I know Ill probably get modded down for this. So just to be clear, Im not saying MS isnt doing anything wrong, IM saying that *this particular piece of 'evidence'* is not very interesting. Its sad that they're using stuff like this to prove intentions instead of using facts to prove guilt.
"Derp de derp."
A monopolized market is not a free market. A truely free market has few (if any) barriers to entry or exit of the market and little (if any) regulation of how one conducts business in that market.
A market controlled by a monopoly or a cartel is essentially the same as a government regulated market. If the government controls your market or if a monopoly controls your market its going to have the same effect: high prices and crappy service -- because new businesses are not free to innovate and compete.
If you think about it, there's little difference between the Microsoft controlled software market and the state controlled markets in a communist country.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
And even when you did buy Colgate you would also have to buy their toothbrushes and dental floss and go to their dentist.
You obviously don't know what "monopoly" means:
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
My point is that it's impossible for Microsoft to be a monopoly at the same time that Linux is successful.
I'm asking the Slashdot populace: which is it, then? I'm really curious as to what most people think.
But they are a de facto monopoly and that's the point everyone (not just slashdot readers) are talking about.
They have a market share of over 90% in the computer consumer os market. They always had competition not only from other vendors. But also by using unfair practices (and being clever) they succeeded to get this huge market share.
Your arguments about or are just plain wrong.
Microsoft is capitalism. In it purest. No, capitalism in its purest is producing a good or service demanded by another individual and being recompensated for your work. To use Adam Smith's centuries old example, a baker doesn't bake ten loaves of bread a day because it does him any good, he bakes it to trade with a third party and acquire a different good which he demands. Microsoft on the other hand seem intent on first producing the good and using anti-competitive tactics to persuade someone to buy their product rather than producing a good because someone demands it. Capitalism doesn't work for the best of majority. Blaming communism for everything bad is just stupid. Capitalism may not work for the best of the majority if left unfettered, but it is the capitalist market system which has led to a huge advance of standard of living in the Western world. To use a simple example, the very computer you used to type that splurge was produced by capitalists, so you have benefited. It is stupid to blame communism for everything bad, but it is even more stupid to blame capitalism.