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 ..."

Comments

So what

[CaffeineAddict2001]

I'd imagine the internal letters between linux developers on crippling microsoft are 100x worse.

Re:So what

[grytpype]

Linux developers, totally unlike Microsoft, are in no position to punish anyone, much less Microsoft itself.

Re:So what

[xcomputer_man]

Yeah, I'm sure all those kernel hackers were really busy sending out emails on the lkml on how they should punish companies that refuse to embrace linux.

Alan Cox must have proclaimed on the lkml that important technical information must be witholden from such companies, and they must face the consequences of committing such a dastardly sin as not using Linux.

They must be threatening such companies with high prices and severance of OEM contracts.

They must be spending 50% of their time focusing on how to write viruses and works to make Windows systems break and puke. They must be working really hard on developing algorithms by which Linux can be used to crack and break Windows systems. Linux is seriously crippling Microsoft's revenue stream right now.

Yeah, I know there is some hypocrisy on Slashdot, but please.

Re:So what

[bourne]

I'd imagine the internal letters between linux developers on crippling microsoft are 100x worse.

Of course, but the reason that monopoly law exists is that there's a huge difference between a bunch of - excuse me - small powerless people and a large corporation with domineering market segment. The large corporation might actually be in a position where they CAN cripple their opposition unfairly.

Note that Microsoft's defense is essentially, "Well, yeah, but that was just wishful thinking, no one actually DID anything about it." It only matters when it is done by someone large enough to have an unfair advantage.

Re:So what

[CrackElf]

I'd imagine the internal letters between linux developers on crippling microsoft are 100x worse.

Developers think code. And MS has already proven that they can dominate the market with unfair business practices even with bad code. That is kinda what the case is about.

Re:So what

[catfood]

mod above: troll

Business is about making a profit.

But anti-trust law is about enforcing some limits on business to preserve some fairness. And that is what this is about.

Re:So what

[bourne]

Unfairly? Says who? I didn't know that business was about being "fair". Silly me. I thought it was about maknig a profit.

Sigh... I know American History is passe, but don't people understand "monopoly" anymore?

The idea of a monopoly is that when a company gains too much power, then those same practices which are perfectly legal for smaller companies become illegal because they are anti-competitive.

The U.S. is a free market system with certain controls. One of those controls is the anti-monopoly legislation. A free market, which you espouse above, involves everyone doing everything they can to make a buck and to stimulate the economy.

However, controls were put into place because someone noticed - suprise - that when a company grows to have too much power, then all the benefits of free trade go out the window. Once a company can use those same "unfair" tactics to thoroughly suppress any competition, then you no longer have any of the benefits - lower prices, greater quality, higher employment, and greater innovation - of a competitive free trade system. The next thing you know, you're a third-world country with huge debt and instable politics.

The difference between a business and a monopoly is the difference between competitive dirty tricks and anti-competitive dirty tricks. The former are legal; the latter are not. While both are about a company making money, the anti-monopoly legislation is about making sure that the system continues to allow other companies to make money as well.

I realize it's a tricky distinction, but it is a valid one.

Re:So what

[gorilla]

And our system of government is not about allowing businesses to make a profit, but about what is best for the people. Businesses would make a bigger profit if they didn't have to worry about child labour, pollution and other similar laws - we don't let me. Microsoft and other monopolies would make more money if they could use their monopoly to maximize their profit at the expense of the people, and thus the aim on anti-trust law is to prevent that.

Re:So what

[fishebulb]

"I cant teach him about business, and he cant teach me about technology" - Linus, that may have been quoted a little wrong, cant find the exact phrase. but its in reference to Bill Gates

Gates has always been one hell of a business man, although not much of a geek. he used to be, but I think he goal was to make a successful business, and hire people to worry about the tech

Re:So what

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Since when have human beings not been murderers?

Is murder bad, and illegal? We are discussing the legal aspect of all this, and how it is enforced. That enforcement aims to make things more fair.

Why am I bothering to explain this to a troll?

Re:So what

[neuroticia]

Let's see...

Linux offers a stable, powerful, secure, and heavily developed alternative OS.

Linux offers an alternative to Windows, which is currently being bombarded by a.) the legal system b.) crackers, and c.) viruses.

Linux offers a way out of the .net hell where companies are forced into a bizzare dance of upgrade or rebuy.

Yes, Linux is in a position to do some pretty damaging things to the other OSes out there if things continue on the path they're currently on. (Microsoft going out of its way to be arrogant and kick itself in the butt by writing memos like this, and opensource developers pushing the envelope and coming out with increasingly feature-filled, stable, and secure software.)

I doubt that Linux developers have the time to write "Let's get Microsoft!", though. They seem too busy developing the OS to participate in the "We have an inferior product, let's squash the competition" insanity that goes on behind the doors of some other developers. =]

-Sara

Re:So what

[jedidiah]

Corporations are "evil" by definition. It does no good to hide from this fact. Corporations exist to limit the liabilities of their members. Corporations are also generally chartered for the express purpose of benefiting their shareholders to the detriment of EVERYONE else, including employees.

Corporate managers can face stockholder lawsuits for merely being "too nice" to the employees.

"making money" has nothing to do with it.

Evil is merely the nature of the beast.

Such creatures simply should be recognized for what they are: wild predators.

Re:So what

[NineNine]

So then corporations are evil, but you still patronize them when they suit your needs? Cute. Very cute.

Re:So what

[Fat Casper]

They must be spending 50% of their time focusing on how to write viruses and works to make Windows systems break and puke. They must be working really hard on developing algorithms by which Linux can be used to crack and break Windows systems.

I thought MS wrote all the software needed to make Windows break and puke. Isn't a nic all you need to crack a Windows box?

Haunt?

[Scotch Game]

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!

Re:Haunt?

[WeirdKid]

Nor will it haunt them in this instance, since the judge disallowed the memo as evidence.

Re:Haunt?

[TheConfusedOne]

Actually, MS is in the process of being sued by its competitors. In particular, Netscape and Be have filed lawsuits. This would probably make a good document to attach to a suit from Red Hat.

The DoJ's suit does not try to redress previous wrongs. It is supposed to keep the behavior from occurring in the future. It is up to individual companies to file suit against MS for the damages from the previous transgressions. Of course, that ol' triple damages 'cause they're a monopoly clause is probably making a few lawyers salivate.

Re:Haunt?

[dattaway]

Why are the courts dismissing the majority of evidence in the cases against Microsoft? I'm sure people have ruined their careers volunteering to be whistle-blowers. Yet it seems the most damning evidence against unethical business practices have been dismissed, allowing it to complete its plans for a monopoly.

Are these lawsuits a waste of time and money? Why don't we just give Microsoft the Whitehouse and the United Nations?

Re:Haunt?

[Fat Casper]

Are these lawsuits a waste of time and money? Why don't we just give Microsoft the Whitehouse and the United Nations?

The lawsiuts may be pointless idealism (you know, trying to force compliance with the law), but the White House got sold in 2000 and the UN couldn't agree on how many of each animal to load into an ark if it had been raining for a month. No danger of them siding with MS.

Re:Haunt?

[Erris]

Exactly how is the unearthing of this memo going to dent their $40 billion in cash reserves...

Ask the folks at Enron what happens when people think you are full of it. What assets does M$ really have? Point please, and if it comes back M$ stock and all the M$ CDs you can eat it ain't worth squat!

Why won't the states

[MoneyT]

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.

Re:Why won't the states

[MoneyT]

Be's case is rather clearly outlinned in the PDF on their web page. It reads like a bedtime story too.

Re:Why won't the states

[egreB]

Be's case is mostly concerning their dual-boot strategy. Be figured out, quite correctly, that replacing Windows overnight is rather futile. So they wanted OEMs (original equiment manufactureres, here: the folks that's selling computers) to sell computers with dual-boot, BeOS and Windows. BeOS would then slowly have a greater market share and larger user base (as BeOS is a great OS), and more application would have been made, and the ball would roll. But Microsoft's tactics on OEMs is.. what to say? Unethical. Anti-competive. Illegal. Read the PDF at http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdfIt 's a really interesting read, and not written in usual advocate-language. Plain understandable english.

I was about to say "may you rest in peace", but I don't want BeOS to rest in peace. Most of all, I want it to raise again, but it doesn't seem possible.. Next thing I wish is that BeOS will set an example for the future. That people would say "look at Be! Don't let that happen again." I want Be to win their case.

Quite a while ago

[KoopaTroopa]

The memo was dated August 2000?

Sounds to me like they haven't been terribly successful thus far.

Re:Quite a while ago

[Lxy]

Sounds to me like you need to read the article. The reason it's being posted is that the 9 states want it submitted as evidence.

Also worth reading

[municio]

Similar startegies:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-912906. html?tag=fd_t op

Now we know...

[TechnoLust]

why the XBOX2 will have an AMD processor in it.

Re:Now we know...

[LinuxGeek8]

Odd, but I always thought AMD was a bigger supporter of Open Source software.
At least they are nice supporters of Mandrake, they supported the webserver of mandrakeuser.org i believe (or was it mandrakeforum.org?).
On a lot of exhibitions they share their space with the guys from mandrake.

Re:Now we know...

[sean23007]

No, but they will buy all the power companies and reap the profits from all the extra energy they're burning...

they did a very good job

[fabiolrs]

urged employees to 'work underground' to hurt companies...

they did a good job, they built WINDOWS XP!!!

And in a related note...

[dmccarty]

...justice officials also noted that an encrypted Microsoft memo read, "!seineew era sreenigne xuniL" and appealed to member of the open source community to help them decode the message.

Re:And in a related note...

[Drachemorder]

...justice officials also noted that an encrypted Microsoft memo read, "!seineew era sreenigne xuniL" and appealed to member of the open source community to help them decode the message. ... at which point, half of the developers created a distributed computing program to attempt to use brute-force to crack the code, while the other half worked on a decryption algorithm. This continued for several months without success, until a ten-year-old boy, who knew absolutely nothing about cryptography or computers, pointed out that the message was simply written backwards.

Memo

[notaspy]

From: Bill Gates
To: All M$ Employees and Shills
Re: Anti-M$ Publicity

Kill Slashdot.
Fat bonus to whomever Slashdots those bastards.

xoxox
Bill

Business as usual.

[papasui]

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.

Re:Business as usual.

[matth]

This is a very good anology. Just as Apple/Linux/Microsoft are competing for business, so also the grocery stores are.

Microsoft is only doing their "job" if you will in bashing other competitors. Granted it would be better if they secured their stuff and got it working right! But hey, you can't blame Acme for having mold all over the floor and BiLo doesn't.. I'll just go to BiLo, and let those other people go to Acme :)

Re:Business as usual.

[JWW]

This is beyond badmouthing. They are "punishing" companies that help Linux.

They have been found to be a monopoly. Monopolies are not supposed to do that.

This whole case is about Microsoft forcing its will on other companies in the Computer industry because they have no choice.

Re:Business as usual.

[NoBeardPete]

This is something that people constantly point out here on Slashdot, so here it goes again. The courts have found the Microsoft is a monopoly. This places them under extra obligations that other businesses are not under. Amongst other things, it limits how they are allowed to compete. Trying to crush a competitor by throwing around their monopoly power is totally different than claiming that your product is better than the product of one of your competitors.

One of the things they talk about here is dragging their feet with hardware companies that support Linux, and giving more favorable deals to those who don't. I'd say that's an abuse of monopoly power.

They won't learn

[Dark Paladin]

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.

Re:They won't learn

[ari{Dal}]

Don't give up hope yet.. not everyone out there is completely apathetic (though the majority are pure sheep). it's because of things like this that my next hardware purchase will be a mac (new or powerbook.. going to the store next week!).

I don't know... Apple gets some bad press because of their stringent defense of the "Aqua" and general mac look, but in general I have less trouble spending $4k on a mac than $2k on a notebook and seeing MS BS every time I turn around...

That and well, macs are just so pretty!

Take solace in the fact that there are some people out there who are turning away from Windows, either to *nix or OSX. It's slow, but it's happening...

*heads off to dream of shiny new titanium powerbook...*

Re:They won't learn

[sheean.nl]

it has a shitty gui(most distros)

when was the last time you used Linux? Check out KDE 3 or GNOME they are sweeeet!

noone writes software that works for linux

It's not purely about how much, it's also about how good, and most Linux software is (imho) good. Before I'm going to write down a list of people that makes software for Linux, just check out sourceforge, download.com, tucows etc... you'll find a lot.

noone writes software that works for linux

Out of the box they mostly have far more beter support, and for most hardware you can get the drivers, only for those products-nobody-have-ever-heard-of-produced-on-ant artica-stuff you won't get drivers nowadays.

And please if you reply, don't write down experiences of distros like RedHat 4.x, use a new one.

Re:They won't learn

[Danse]

Until Linux has an office suite that is 100% compatible with MS Office, Linux will remain a tiny tiny fraction of the market. Aside from that, Linux already has pretty much everything else it needs to succeed. Well, aside from games, but if Linux gets into the business side of things, people will use it at home more too. Then the games will start showing up.

Re:They won't learn

[Gaccm]

You're right, lots of componies are wasting time and money because they use M$ products. All we need is a few componies (which we have) that don't use M$. Those componies will have the advantage that they don't waste time and money, so they are more productive. Everyone here has to remember exponential growth. Linux (to businesses) is still somewhat new, but everyday more and more people switch to linux. The only way this can be stopped is by something artificial such as a law requiring all OSes to use DRM. People need to realize that M$ isn't important as long as people fight all the bad legislation. It doesn't matter that its an unfair battlefield, linux can't "die".

Re:They won't learn

[Darby]

Hello , you'll still be using IE and MS Office..

Hello. He will have the *option* of doing so if he so chooses.

buy a linux laptop from somewhere if you really
wan't to help out

He is tired of MS's crap and looking at an alternative. This in no way obligates him to "help out" any hardware company just because they use linux. Perhaps to do his job (or hobby whatever) he *has* to use software that is only available on MacOS or Windows.

Re:They won't learn

[Danse]

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that "100% MS Office compatibility" was the prerequisite to entry into the marketplace.

Well, now you know better. MS Office is THE standard for businesses pretty much worldwide. Microsoft has cornered the market on office suites. Aside from the occaisional Word Perfect user, practically nobody uses anything else but MS Office on Windows. If you can give a few examples of large corporations using something else to exchange documents with other businesses, then perhaps I'll have to rethink my position. So far, the only other format to make much headway is PDF, and its used almost exclusively for read-only purposes. Everyone needs to be able to read and write MS Office documents in order to be compatible with everyone else. Classic example of network effects.

After all, no matter what they do to Office, it's still going to be 100% MS Office compatible, and thus sell like hotcakes!

In case you hadn't noticed, MS Office DOES sell like hotcakes. It's standard for business PCs, and most home users get some version of it as well.

On the other hand, if 99% isn't good enough for you, we can work on implementing the bugs, security holes, and talking paperclips, to satisfy whatever inner masochistic desires you might have.

I don't know of any office suite on Linux that is even 99% compatible. Sure, there are some that work for most simple documents, but as soon as you get one that uses any of the more complex or esoteric features, it's gonna crap out.

Re:They won't learn

[Danse]

Could it be yearly upgrades of the Office suit?

That certainly doesn't help. Of course if the DOJ had taken my suggestions for the settlement proposal, it wouldn't be as much of an issue since Microsoft would have to disclose the information necessary well before the release of a new version of Office.

Could it be that Microsoft has figured out that the only way to beat linux is make sure that the only Standards that matter are Standards that microsoft has designed?

Yep. That's one of the cool things about being a monopolist. You get to push people around and make them play by your rules.

Could it be that the public hasn't realized that by giving up control of their information they are giving Microsoft control of their personal data?

Right again. People are generally ignorant and apathetic about computer issues (as well as most other issues).

oh well. I wish Microsoft the best. Lets just try to be as nice to Microsoft when OSS has stomped their butt.

The only thing I wish on Microsoft is justice. Looks like that's not gonna happen anytime soon though.

Re:They won't learn

[conan_albrecht]

That's exactly what I did. I absolutely love my Powerbook. Apple is not perfect, but they are no MS.

And, BTW, I don't use IE and I only use MS Office when idiots send me attachments in MS formats. Otherwise I use LaTeX and other apps.

Probably...

[NorthDude]

I'd imagine the internal letters between linux developers on crippling microsoft are 100x worse.


Yes, but they are GPL'ed and everyone can use/modify them

This must be the reason why MS bashing post on Slashdot are so redundant, they are just different distros.

Re:Probably...

[rtaylor]

Damnit, some of us use a different kernel and messageland in our microsoft bashing posts but still supports the same fluff.

However, other slashdot posts claim that message type is dying -- and has been for many years now.

The AMD smoking gun?

[pq]

"Kempin said Microsoft should withhold technical information from Intel and "work underground" to promote its competitors in the computer chip industry"

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.

Re:The AMD smoking gun?

[Coward, Anonymous]

Ah, and then AMD testified in favor of Microsoft out of the goodness of their hearts.

This has already been reported

disallowed?!?

[Maditude]

from the article:

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly disallowed the Kempin memo -- along with several others -- during Gates' testimony after Microsoft's lawyers objected to it.

I'm having a hard time imagining why the judge would have agreed to disallow this memo from being presented. Seems like a pretty good corroboration of the actions they are alleged to have done -- why would a memo stating that "hey, we should do this" NOT be allowed?

Re:disallowed?!?

[blakestah]

I'm having a hard time imagining why the judge would have agreed to disallow this memo from being presented.

It could be because it is irrelevant. This case is specifically about browsers. Really, it is about Microsoft using its OS monopoly to leverage into the browser market. More generally, the case MAY also be about Microsoft using similar tactics to leverage its monopoly into other markets, such as email clients, media players, ISPs, etc.

But the case is NOT about Microsoft using its monopoly to prevent entry into the OS market. And this memo speaks directly to that issue, but not to any issue relevant to leveraging the OS monopoly into new markets. From an antitrust perspective, those are not the same issue.

Re:disallowed?!?

[Peyna]

It happens all the time, dare I mention the O.J. Simpson trial, but a significant amount of incriminating evidence that wasn't obtained through proper procedures was not allowed.
It makes sense, otherwise, what is the 4th amendment for? If the cops can walk into my house without a warrant, and find a crop of marijuana, they can arrest me, and I'll be convicted, because the evidence would be allowed; even though they didn't follow proper procedure.
It can suck sometimes, but it does protect our freedoms.

Re:disallowed?!?

[bourne]

I'm having a hard time imagining why the judge would have agreed to disallow this memo from being presented.

I have notices that Judge Kollar-Kotelly appears to be clearly giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on most evidentiary matters. Two possible reasons come to mind:

• The hearings are a sham, and MS will be rubberstamped with a "Get out of jail free" card.
• After seeing how Judge Jackson was discredited after the previous trial for being clearly opinionated, Kollar-Kotelly is being extremely careful that her objectivity cannot be questioned by Microsoft after the trial.

I'm actually leaning toward the latter. Nobody wants to pull an Ito, and (I'd like to believe) judges are a lot harder to buy or exert pressure on than politicians - there are plenty of examples of Judges quite happily making horrendously unpopular and, if one could be objective, perhaps unjust judgements without any real censure.

Re:disallowed?!?

[peddrenth]

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!

Re:disallowed?!?

[gosand]

Seems like a pretty good corroboration of the actions they are alleged to have done

Because they aren't alleged accusations. Microsoft has already been found guilty of monopolistic practices. It is the settlement that is the issue. I think everyone is tired of hearing about what a big bad company MS is, I know I am. It is accepted fact.

Now I just hope they punish them into the stone-age for it.

Microsoft + Monopoly = Micropoly

Re:disallowed?!?

[TheConfusedOne]

The problems have to do with the rules of cross-examination. New evidence can only be entered in during cross-examination of it directly corroborates or contradicts a statment of the witness. Cross-examination isn't the time to enter unrelated evidence into the proceeding. That is supposed to be done during the prosecution's presentation. This is also why the Judge was so reluctant to admit the later cancelled XP Embedded demonstration into the proceedings.

The game has certain rules, granted they don't make much sense, but they have rules nonetheless.

<#include std.IANAL>

Re:disallowed?!?

[blakestah]

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!

There has been no contention in this court case that Microsoft has used its monopoly to thwart OS competition. That will take another case, and another day. The evidence should not be admitted - not because it doesn't indicate a corrupt corporate culture at Microsoft, but because it doesn't relate to leveraging Windows to dominate Windows application markets.

Really, the big issue now is whether the issues related to browsers should be extended to other Windows application markets. That is the principal argument for the dissenting states. The memo also doesn't address that issue. Really, linux should be a complete non-issue in this case - bringing it up is just clever legal obfuscation by Microsoft.

Re:disallowed?!?

[Elias Israel]

why would a memo stating that "hey, we should do this" NOT be allowed?

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?

Re:disallowed?!?

[blakestah]

In antitrust law, remedies have always been limited in scope to the antitrust violations established in the case.

In this case, antitrust violations have been established about the browser, and more generally about using a monopoly to leverage Windows application markets. Violations have NOT been established about preventing competition in the operating system market - although other court cases (like BeOS) may establish such violations.

As such, the judge cannot turn this into a free for all (this is not an independent counsel). The judge has to make the remedy fit the violations, and linux is just not relevant in this case. The first set of remedies were thought by the appeals court to be inappropriate - they treated Microsoft as though it had used its monopoly to prevent competition for operating systems, whereas the findings of fact did not establish such violations.

I am not defending Microsoft's actions wrt other OS's - just pointing out that this case is unlikely to care about what Microsoft does wrt linux. Another case, one about an operating system getting crushed (BeOS), would be a MUCH more relevant case.

Re:disallowed?!?

[sheldon]

"Really, linux should be a complete non-issue in this case - bringing it up is just clever legal obfuscation by Microsoft."

I thought it was the non-settling States lawyers that brought it up by trying to introduce this memo?

Re:disallowed?!?

[srobert]

"As a citizen of the UK I'm having difficulty understanding this whole US judicial process."
The main reason that our US system doesn't work is because our judges and attorneys don't wear proper little wigs such as you have in the UK. :)

Re:disallowed?!?

[Erris]

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?

No, troll, I don't.

But I might believe that when a "Microsoft Executive" suggests crapping on Intel and others for working with Linux that they might and we see the results all the time. So, without further delay, you Fuck Head, LET'S QUOTE THE ARTICLE:

In the memo, Microsoft senior vice president Joachim Kempin complained to Gates and other senior executives that computer chip-maker Intel Corp. (NasdaqNM:INTC - News) was encouraging computer makers to support Linux and funding development of new devices that would work with Linux.

Kempin said Microsoft should withhold technical information from Intel and "work underground" to promote its competitors in the computer chip industry, according to portions of the memo disclosed in the states' legal filing.

"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.

Now why would anyone believe that? Go away asshole, and take your robot posters and self mods with you.

If Microsoft is afraid of Linux...

[antirename]

Maybe we're doing something right!

And?

[zpengo]

How long has the Linux community been urging Microsoft retaliation? ;-)

Re:And?

[Lxy]

How long has the Linux community been urging Microsoft retaliation?

Linus has never wanted to take over Microsoft. He states that time and time again. While a lot of linux enthusiasts/contributors may be on a mission to take out the evil empire, the goal of linux was and still is to make a POSIX based UNIX clone for the PC. Nothing more than that.

To say that the linux community has been urging retaliation is a moot point. It'd be no different if a bunch of MS programmers had a little "let's take out linux" cult meeting. For all we know, they might do just that and Microsoft can't be held responsible for it. It would never be used in court. IN THIS CASE, the memo is from head official A to head official B. If this memo was written:

AC: "Linus, I'm pissed at Microsoft. Let's include anti-MS FUD into the 2.5 kernel tree."

Then I'd agree. Neither that memo or anything like it has transpired because Linus and AC are -NOT- trying to take out Microsoft! What individual linux geeks do in their spare time is not important to the case.

Re:And?

[fishbowl]

>Linus has never wanted to take over Microsoft.
>He states that time and time again.

Of course not. Microsoft would be petty, insignificant collateral damage in the pursuit
of world domination.

Re:And?

[Tony-A]

It's not the Linux community urging Microsoft retaliation, it's the Microsoft community urging Microsoft retaliation, or at least those of us in the process of moving from the Microsoft community to the Linux community.

How this will hurt them...

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

...is with their relationship with Intel. Intel must have known that Microsoft was giving them a bit of the cold shoulder, but it's hard to address that diplomatically. But now the Intel management can act shocked - shocked! that Microsoft would be secretly scheming against them.

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!

Re:How this will hurt them...

[Zathrus]

Hrm... so you expect Intel to go running back to IBM now?

The same IBM that fabs two competing lines of processors? PowerPC and Athlons?

In general running to IBM expecting help is like fleeing from the Romans into the lion's den. You may be safe from your former agressor, but that's just because they know you're done for.

what else is new

[theCat]

Joachim Kempin was thinking out loud, so they say, and nothing came of it. The truth is, these kinds of discussions go on all the time in business. Business is all about relationship building and sometimes you use a carrot and sometimes you use a stick to keep partners in line (and a lot of business people have no great skill other than creatively wielding carrot/stick, IMHO).

What gets M$ into trouble is that they have a monopoly and a one-sided advantage because of it, so their "relationship building" always looks like Hitler invading Poland. You can draw out that comparison to it's logical conclusion if you care to.

Re:what else is new

[EnderWiggnz]

you dont understand.

once you are a monopoly, the rules change. MS has been declared a monopoly, and is continually breaking the rules.

tip of iceberg

[Cryogenes]

When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them ...

Always? I think it is more likely that perhaps one percent of those notes come back to haunt them.

Do you believe in death after life?

Re:tip of iceberg

[Cryogenes]

So did I.

Poppycock!

[4of12]

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.

Well, that's simply preposterous!

I mean, <boost target="microsoft">how could one the worlds foremost respected software manufacturers, a company that literally spends billions on research and development specifically addressing customers needs for an integrated business experience based upon Microsoft Innovation® possibly stoop to such tactics?

I mean, give me a break, you <create_mud target="Linux"> DeCSS-hacking, copyright-infringing, intellectual property destroying, Linux zealots have some good points now and then but on this you're way off the mark!

Copyright © 2002 Microsoft Slashdot Posting Engine, All Rights Reserved. Not to be reprinted without permission.

Don't Worry!

[smoondog]

Don't worry! Its all OK. Geez, didn't you even read the article? See it says right here:

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said Kempin's memo was "irrelevant" because the company never acted on his ideas.

I knew this was another one of /.'s unwarranted rants.

-Sean

And...

[blankmange]

Water is wet

the sky is blue

people lie

This is news???? I am sure that the yet-to-be-disclosed memos from Microsoft (or any other company) are just as bad or worse. Better yet, somebody type up a memo, with [insert company name here]'s letterhead on it, making sure that it says a lot of ugly things about the competition, then leak it to the media so it will get distributed as news.

Come on people -- this is not news!

Re:And...

[Danse]

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!! There are a lot of ignorant people on Slashdot! Hmm.. maybe that should be inserted in your post right after "the sky is blue." This has nothing at all to do with normal business tactics used by everyone. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. They play by different rules. That's why it's news when a Microsoft exec says something like this, but not when someone else does. Besides, most non-monopoly corporations aren't in any position to use these kinds of tactics. They don't have the kind of power that a monopoly does. The whole free market idea is pretty neat, but it only works when there is a good amount of competition in the market. Microsoft has very little competition, in part due to the fairly unique qualities of software. Linux is a fairly strong competitor if you look just at the desktop OS market. But you can't stop there. The office suite market is also strongly tied to the desktop OS market. Then there's PC hardware drivers. These also need to be created for a particular OS before that OS can be a legitimate competitor. There are HUGE barriers to entry in the desktop OS market, and therefore there should be MUCH LESS tolerance of monopolistic behavior than there might be in other markets. Read up on network effects if you need more clarification.

Microsoft PR

[dankinit]

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but if you think about it logically for Microsoft, it's good anytime one of these memos is put together or "leaked". Microsoft continues to trumpet the so called "threat" of Linux and Apple and thus govt and other interested parties are less likely to scream that Microsoft is dominating the software industry. I believe for the same underlying reason they loaned Apple $200 million when they needed it (it hurts Microsoft in the end to be the only one left standing (govt doens't like this)).

This is why every time I read one of these "leaked" emails I just shrug picturing somebody at Microsoft's HQ smiling that everybody here and on various other sites all go into hoots over "leaked" email.

Re:Moving Target

[scott1853]

Don't you keep up with the news. It's not a process it's piracy.

Re:Haunt...

[Svartalf]

Never mind the court case. It's become public knowlege that they were thumbing their nose at the judge (which is what precipitated his off the bench remarks to begin with...). Moreso with this. People won't want to deal with companies that are this corrupt (which is what it is...).

"When will they learn ...."

[Vicegrip]

"When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them"

Hopefully never.

Of course!

[imadork]

Kempin said Microsoft should withhold technical information from Intel and "work underground" to promote its competitors in the computer chip industry, according to portions of the memo disclosed in the states' legal filing.
"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.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said Kempin's memo was "irrelevant" because the company never acted on his ideas.

Nope, if Microsoft would have acted on those ideas, they would have done something like promise to provide support in Windows for AMD's 64-bit architecture instead of a comparable Intel architecture.

Aren't you glad we have Microsoft Spokesmen to set the record straight?

Re:Of course!

[spectecjr]

Nope, if Microsoft would have acted on those ideas, they would have done something like promise to provide support in Windows for AMD's 64-bit architecture instead of a comparable Intel architecture. [theregister.co.uk]

Microsoft already have an IA64 version of Windows available. So... what exactly AREN'T Microsoft doing for Intel in your example?

Simon

Re:Of course!

[Salsaman]

Maybe because Intel jumped when Microsoft told them to.

That doesn't mean this memo didn't have an effect, maybe Microsoft just got what they wanted.

Yes, but...

[TechnoLust]

From the article: Red Hat chief technology officer Michael Tiemann said computer makers had rebuffed his attempts in recent years to pre-install the Linux operating system on their machines because they feared Microsoft's response.

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!)

Re:Yes, but...

[Dark Paladin]

Actually, they do something. In the recent BeOS case, they say:

"Dell, either you knock it the fuck off with this BeOS thing, or we'll charge you double for Windows".

Dell needs Microsoft. Microsoft can do business with Gateway, Dell, HPQ, Micron (do they still make PC's), and a host of others.

Margins are razor thin, and if MS decided to play hardball with Dell, Dell would lose.

That's why Red Hat's complaining - and they're right. That's what the trial is suppose to fix.

Re:Yes, but...

[Dark Paladin]

They couldn't even find them. When you call Dell:

Me: Hi, I'd like to ask about your Linux laptops.
Salesperson: We don't have those.
Me: Yes you do. I read the press releases. I can't find them on the web page. How do I buy them from you?
Salesperson: I'm sorry, sir - I don't have that in my database.

Think I'm kidding? That was pretty much the experience between Dell and IBM when I called. I would up just ordering a machine and doing it myself (this being before my Powerbook days, of course).

Just saying "Hey, they had them and nobody bought them" doesn't mean *anyone could find them*. I'm not sure if that was just on purpose, or they assumed that nobody would buy them anyway so they didn't even try.

Re:Yes, but...

[TheConfusedOne]

I would point at that they sent a letter to Compaq informing them of the cancellation of their OEM license back when Compaq was installing Netscape's Navigator onto their boxes.

At the time Compaq was either #1 or #2, so I don't think that's so far fetched a scenario.

Remember, if they cancelled Dell's license that doesn't mean that MS would suddenly lose all of Dell's customers as Windows buyers. It means that Dell would lose all of its customers to companies that still had an OEM license.

Re:Yes, but...

[Raul Acevedo]

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?

Microsoft is going to charge them more for each Windows license, or be less cooperative in giving them details the OEMs might need to make sure their hardware works well with Windows.

Re:Yes, but...

[tshak]

Microsoft is a monopoly. It is NOT illegal to be a monopoly. It's illegal to be an asshole about being a monopoly. There is a difference.

For those who are not lawyers and/or don't have access to LexisNexis, this law can be found in chapter 4 subsection C of the AntiCorporateAsshole act of 1996.

Re:Yes, but...

[Roblimo]

Actually, if you looked really really hard, back in a gloomy corner of Dell's site there was a page where you could buy their most expensive laptop, packed with all kinds of crud including their most expensive 3-year service plan, with Linux preloaded.

That was their only Linux laptop offering, and when I called by phone none of the sales reps knew about it.

I suspect an Inspiron 3800 or one of their other lower-cost laptops loaded with Linux would have sold just fine. I would have bought one. I've bought three laptops (wife's, mine, backup) since then, none of them from Dell.

- Robin

- Robin

Re:Yes, but...

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

They couldn't even find them. When you call Dell:

"But Mr. Dent, the Linux computers have been available in the local Dell retailer for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the computers were on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the systems, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. They were on display in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'"

All props to the late great Douglas Adams.

Fuzzy

Re:Yes, but...

[clare-ents]

I've bought two Dell pre-installed RedHat boxes. One came with the wrong version [7.0 instead of 7.1] and the other didn't boot. I had to boot Windows NT from the Dell recovery disk in order to install RedHat from the supplied CD's.

I'll stick to blank machines and my own CD's thank you very much. I'll pay RedHat if I have trouble installing since I have to do it myself anyway.

Makes me wonder..

[cOdEgUru]

Remember when rumours were abound about Microsoft going the AMD way for the chip on Xbox2 ? Everyone wondered why they would ditch Intel ?

These guys are committing SNAFUs all year round.

Re:So what?

[swngnmonk]

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.

Not terribly irrelavent...

[Svartalf]

...because it's one of their execs openly spouting off like that when he SHOULD have kept his mouth shut (they were still in the original final throes of the trial over this VERY thing...). Just because they "didn't act on it" openly doesn't mean they didn't act on it or that we shouldn't be deeply troubled about the conduct all the same.

Re:So?

[TheConfusedOne]

In the memo, Microsoft senior vice president Joachim Kempin complained to Gates

Joachim Kempin was head of all OEM contracts. He was considered to be one of the most powerful people at Microsoft (at least as far as the OEM's were concerned). This was not some junior level exec trying to flex his muscles.

Ah, but you see...

[beleg777]

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.

Linux is a virus

[wytcld]

Linux is a virus using human engineering as a vector to infect hardware whose natural symbiont is Windows.

Linux is a woman who gives you the sex for free but then wants you to maintain her forever; Windows is the (sometimes diseased) whore who takes cash up front but then insists you cannot touch her in certain ways.

Linux is a vehicle suited for the smart and poor; Windows is a better ride for the stupid and rich. So if Linux wins, the world ends up with more smart poor; if Windows, more stupid rich.
___

Re:Linux is a virus

[Corporate Troll]

I've been to College.... And I don't really get what you mean. Never went to the "ladies of pleasure", and I won't go there before I'm really completely desperate. Okay, granted, didn't get laid during college either :-)

When?

[TechnoLust]

When did Dell do this? Did they advertise? I never saw anything about it. I know several people who bought Dells, and they couldn't get a Dell with Linux. (a couple of them asked.) If nobody bought them, it's probably because nobody KNEW about them!

We complain about yahoo...

[WebMasterJoe]

We complain about Yahoo, then we complain that nobody is doing anything about it, then we send them lots of traffic. Why??

Let's link to the same story found on Reuters. That's where Yahoo got the story from: The Reuters article

Re:We complain about yahoo...

[WebMasterJoe]

minds of slashdot people are not with that yahoo haters

wha?? I seriously can not understand that sentence.

I still stand by my opinion that if Yahoo does something that upsets lots of /. posters, these posters should make a conscious effort to not make so many requests to the server. I personally was bothered by what Yahoo did, so I post alternate sites for stories when I notice them. If you feel Yahoo deserves less traffic for what they did, then go to alternate sites. If you're not bothered, go to their site. It's your choice, I'm merely posting an alternative.

When indeed...

[swordgeek]

"When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them ..."

Hopefully never. These memos have been invaluable in showing the world (and the courts) how consistently underhanded and criminal MS has been all along.

Re:So what?

[peddrenth]

"When will Slashdot stop drooling over every single god damn "leaked memo" that becomes public?"

Distributed Slashdot Echelon for reading microsoft email. Whoo-hoo!

Re:So what?

[Tony-A]

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.

Re:Stephen Byers...

[peddrenth]

Huh?

"Secretary of State for Transport Stephen Byers"

NEW MS MEMO

[Monkelectric]

Executive Memo, To all Employees and Personnel of Microsoft, NO MORE GODDAMN MEMOS! Signed, Steve Balmer (With Bill Gates hand up my ass like a puppet)

Opeating systems as women.

[Corporate Troll]

I prefer to say it in pictures .
Just too bad they left out BeOS and OS X.

Yes

[TechnoLust]

MS should advertise Linux. NO! They means Dell. As in the company I was just talking about... Are you trolling or just stupid? If you are going to sell a product, it is a good idea to let people know about it, otherwise you don't sell any.

Re:So what?

[tshak]

Ya, I'm sure there's NO internal emails in the Apple mail server archive that says, "undermine MS's crappy OS". And RedHat? Of course not! Especially with the older and mature executives and CEO that they have.

Re:So what?

[Asic Eng]

What you're talking about is COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE

I disagree, what we are seeing here is not common. It's not unheard of, to that point I agree, but the vast majority of suppliers don't work out strategies to screw their customers. They can't afford to treat business relationships that way.

This behaviour only becomes common in market-driven economies when there is no properly functioning market. The capitalist economic theorie is all about huge benefits arrising from competition, that's why monopolies are bad.

Hey, give them a break...

[msouth]

Maybe they thought they just got unlucky with the last time being Halloween...

Business vs. Bad Business

[Parsa]

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.

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 /. 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.

Re:Haunt...

[Danse]

The problem is that Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop OS market. People pretty much have to deal with them if they want to be compatible with everyone else. Not to mention the fact that it's pretty damn hard to buy a PC from a major dealer that doesn't include Windows in the price. Until we have an administration with the balls to really put the shackles on Micrsoft (and if you believe in free markets, you should be behind this since such markets don't work without a significant level of competition) they will continue to laugh off these settlements and go right back to business as usual. I'd like to ask the DOJ what exactly there is in the settlement that would prevent them from doing just that. I expect they could not provide any response other than that they think Microsoft will actually comply this time. Fools.

Re:Haunt...

[ReelOddeeo]

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.

Doesn't Matter

[technomancerX]

It doesn't matter, as MS was already found to be violating antitrust laws.

What's sad is that nothing is going to be done that will even scratch MS. The only remedy that had a chance of even starting to level the playing field in the industry was splitting them up, and that was shot down. That leaves fines and a restriction on their business practices. No fine levied will even touch MS's cash reserve, and we already saw how effective restrictions are from the last time around with the consent decree.

Re:A sad day in mudville...

[bob]

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.

However

[HiThere]

It's also true that dirty tricks remain dirty tricks. And people with any ethics avoid them.

Yes, it is only recognized as a crime (depending, of course, on exactly what "dirty trick" you are referring to) if you are a monopoly (and you are convicted). So? If laws are the basis of your morality, then you don't have one. If laws are the basis of your ethics, then you don't have any.

That said, there's a big difference between a baseball fan shouting "Kill the umpire" and someone who gets out a gun. They may use the same words, but the intentions, motivations, and goals aren't at all the same. One is ethical and moral (if a bit overheated). The other isn't. And the difference isn't a matter of law (though the law does, indeed, attend to the difference).

Re:So what?

[White Roses]

Neither of those companies have to write memos about it. Or hold meetings, or conferences, or develop business plans to discuss the ROI of undermining Windows.

Both companies undermine Windows simply by offering a better product.

MS has memos like this because that's what MS Innovation is all about: PHB memos.

Smart and rich is better

[Arker]

And free software, in general, has a huge efficiency advantage. So it gives us poor smart people help in pursuing wealth as well.

Microsoft hurt Intel by helping AMD

[vinsci]

"Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said Kempin's memo was "irrelevant" because the company never acted on his ideas."

Not entirely true, it turns out. See what AMD has to say about this (source at bottom):

" Tailored for Compatibility with Microsoft® Windows® XP

The AMD Athlon(TM) XP processor offers compelling performance for running Microsoft® Windows® XP operating system, as well as outstanding performance on previous versions of Windows. The raw power and robust features of the AMD Athlon XP processor help enable users to make the most of multitasking and user switching capabilities offered in Windows XP. Microsoft optimized the DirectX 8.0 interface for Windows XP specifically for the AMD Athlon XP processor.

AMD processors were used for the design, development, and testing of Windows XP. AMD processors are designed to deliver high levels of performance with this latest version of the Microsoft Windows operating system.

The AMD Athlon XP processor allows you to take full advantage of the power of Windows XP in multiple ways.

• High quality digital media, such as audio, video, and photos from digital devices benefit from the advanced capabilities of AMD processors and the integrated features of Windows XP.
• The AMD/Windows combination provides an enhanced Internet experience with smoother streaming audio and video.
• Communication with family and friends via video, voice, and instant messaging is quick and easy when powered by the next-generation features found in AMD processors.
• AMD processor-based Windows XP workstations running financial. modeling, scientific, engineering, or graphic design applications have the sheer computing power to handle highly demanding applications.
• AMD processors are designed for the multi-threaded and mission-critical applications of cutting-edge Windows XP Professional software applications.

Through this collaboration, AMD can offer you excellent integration and compatibility in your computer's functioning, resulting in outstanding computing performance across a broad spectrum of applications."

Source:
http://athlonxp.amd.com/overview/microsoftWindowsX P.jspa

Oh the stupidity!

[josh crawley]

I read all these posts mentioning about how the CPU companies are in bed totally with MS. WHY NOT? Hardware companies dont care much for the software aspect, except that driver creation sucks away profits (unless they actually sell software).

Now lets look at the x86 market. We have AMD and Intel. For a while, MS played nice with Intel. Now AMD is big buddy. Truthfully, BOTH of these companies have to be sweet and nice to MS. Why? 1 reason:

if CPU_ID != "Friendly x86 company"
then GPF

What if, for some strange reason, on the next windows, the bad chip company doesnt work cause they didnt support certain functions??? Chip companies that deal with MS know they easily can do that. Its not like MS would get in trouble.

Re:Oh the stupidity!

[spectecjr]

I should know, on one system I've been running Windows XP on AMD Athlon XP for six months, and it crashes often. This is supposed to be Microsofts most reliable operating system... yeah right. At least you could start using Windows 3.1 before it crashed, at least most of the time. :-)

Hmmm... check your memory, and check that your BIOS is the latest - including all of your motherboard chipset drivers.

I've been running Windows XP on an AMD Athlon 1.4Ghz since July (possibly August?) 2001, and it has been running perfectly fine.

Simon

Re:So what?

[swillden]

Ya, I'm sure there's NO internal emails in the Apple mail server archive that says, "undermine MS's crappy OS". And RedHat? Of course not! Especially with the older and mature executives and CEO that they have.

Here's a hint:

While reading the article is optional, it is highly recommended that posters read posts they're replying to.

Here, let me try to reiterate:

All companies look for ways to undermine their competion. And they have internal memos about it. And it's generally legal. But Microsoft is a monopoly, which places them in a different category.

In the late 70s, IBM was under similar scrutiny, and signed a consent decree with the DoJ to end the investigation. Among other things, the consent decree required IBM to "unbundle" hardware, software and services. Every other company in the industry is allowed to bundle these things, but, due to IBM's position of power in the industry, IBM was *not*. And, actually, even though the consent decree has now expired, IBM continues to honor certain of the bundling restrictions, because they don't want to end up in the same position again. They got slapped down and learned their lesson.

Also, keep in mind that much of the vitriol directed against Microsoft arises not because they are a monopoly, or because they have done things that are illegal for monopolies, but because they continue to defy the courts and continue their anti-competitive behaviors. Microsoft also signed a consent decree a few years back, and the current trial came to be because Microsoft openly violated the terms of that agreement. Microsoft got slapped down, agreed to change, ignored the agreement, refuses to admit their misbehavior and absolutely refuses to learn their lesson. Ergo the mistrust and even hatred.

Re:Illegal Monoply!

[Danse]

But McDonald's is also nowhere near being a monopoly. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.

Re:It's not what they said, it's who is saying it

[flatrock]

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.

Is there anything more one can say?

[theolein]

What can one say that hasn't already been said in this case? What more other misdeeds can be brought to light? It seems MS can do anything they please - threaten, bribe, steal, cheat, extort, lie in court - and nothing is ever done to them. Is the reason Enron and Anderson are in court because they went broke or because they broke they law and swindled other people's money away? It seems as long as these huge companies are churning out campaign contributions and employing people, nothing will ever be done to them.

So sad if one isn't a huge corporation. So sad to see a whole county's justicial system be turned into an empty shell of mockery.

Re:So what?

[G00F]

"In the late 70s, IBM was under similar scrutiny, and signed a consent decree with the DoJ to end the investigation. Among other things, the consent decree required IBM to "unbundle" hardware, software and services."

That is the sole reason why OS/2 Warp failed so bad. But if it had secseeded, MS wouldn;t exist the way it does today, but we might of had worse than MS in IBM.

The only thing that can really setr things strait, is something that what java was suppose to be. Pure cross platform/os/whatever programs.

So lets hope.

Your sig

[commodoresloat]

"Cactus Ed Abbey" may have said that too, but certainly Diderot said it first.

Re:So what?

[Danse]

If a company that I champion now ever becomes a monopolist, then I'll be right there in front calling for them to be smacked down as well. For now though, Microsoft is monopolist that needs to be smacked down.

Not so bad...

[Debillitatus]

When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them ...

Actually, maybe the memos DON'T always some back to haunt them... only the few we hear about...;-)

No, seriously, it's possible that all kinds of funny shit in going on behind closed doors at MS, and we'll never hear about it.

Re:Not so bad...

[RedWolves2]

Yeah there is probably a memo about putting cover sheets on all TPS reports.

Um, yeah it is definitely irrelevant..

[NanoGator]

"...because it's one of their execs openly spouting off like that when he SHOULD have kept his mouth shut "

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 /. is because people love to hate MS. Yadda yadda yadda.

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.

Re:Um, yeah it is definitely irrelevant..

[NanoGator]

I see what you are saying, but the memo doesnt show they are behaving that way. It just shows that an executive had some controversial ideas about what MS should do. This memo isnt evidence of anything, only an indication of motive.

Again, Im not saying MS is innocent, Im merely saying that we cannot punish *anybody* until proof has been provided that the crime has actually been commited.

However, I will concede that the court would be well within its right to say to MS 'You better not act like that memo suggests...'.

Windows is communistic, not Linux

[EccentricAnomaly]

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.

Re:Windows is communistic, not Linux

[Decimal]

A monopolized market is not a free market. A truely free market has few (if any) barriers to entry

Forgive my ignorance, but could you name a few established markets here in the U.S. that don't require a silo full of money or backing by a person or company of high prestige? You know, so the common person such as you or I have a reasonable chance of creating new companies that won't burst like the dot com bubble.

Re:Windows is communistic, not Linux

[EccentricAnomaly]

Forgive my ignorance, but could you name a few established markets here in the U.S. that don't require a silo full of money or backing by a person or company of high prestige?

real estate, restaurants, textiles, farming, retail, software markets that microsoft doesn't yet control

I could go on... the less barriers to entry and exit, the freer the market.

Some of the less free markets: automobiles, aircraft manufacture, breakfast cereals, phone, cable, the operating system and/or word processor business

Re:Windows is communistic, not Linux

[Decimal]

Er... how could there be a barrier to *exit*?

Re:Windows is communistic, not Linux

[Anonymous DWord]

You've never been in the mob, have you?

Re:Windows is communistic, not Linux

[Decimal]

Wouldn't it be great if when demand went up for an item you could jump into a market and make a bunch of money and then pull out when demand went down without losing money. There tends to be a lot more competition in a market when there are few barriers to entry and exit of a market.

No. If that was the case, large corporations could manipulate the product market exactly the same way they do the stock market. I'm not entirely sure that it isn't the case right now. Heck, what does Microsoft do when I see someone else doing well in any particular software market? It introduces it's own product, and usually succeeds in squeezing out all the smaller competitors who before were merely competing amongst themselves. Now instead of prices being driven down by competition between small companies (some of which might have actually cared about providing a good product for the customer), the market has to shoulder a single 800-lb gorilla.

The larger a company, the tighter the collar the government needs to keep on it. Open markets to small companies are good. Unregulated, completely open markets to large companies are not. This is also why multinational companies should not be allowed -- how do you get a collar around an 80,000 lb gorilla that freely roams the entire world?

Re:Windows is communistic, not Linux

[EccentricAnomaly]

If a large company enters a market and "takes over" thus preventing other companies from entering a market -- then the market is no longer free. If the market remains free after the 800 lb gorilla enters, small companies can jump back in if the large company ever slacks off (which it will eventually as all human orginization structures decay and fail given enough time).

If there are no barriers to entry and exit companies can enter a market when they can out compete the companies in a market and they can jump out without getting hurt when they are out-competed by another company.

Government should not be in the job of protecting small companies from competition by large companies -- this will only hurt the economy in the long run. It is best in the long run, if government seeks the protect the market itself and to keep the market free from control of large companies or large groups of small companies.

Re:Windows is communistic, not Linux

[Decimal]

If a large company enters a market and "takes over" thus preventing other companies from entering a market -- then the market is no longer free. If the market remains free after the 800 lb gorilla enters,

That is like saying "If the forest remains standing after the fleet of bulldozers goes through"...

Government should not be in the job of protecting small companies from competition by large companies

I believe this should be one of the primary functions of the government.

this will only hurt the economy in the long run.

Explain why.

Re:Windows is communistic, not Linux

[EccentricAnomaly]

That is like saying "If the forest remains standing after the fleet of bulldozers goes through"...

If the bulldozers all take the road, the forest will remain standing.

...as far as government protecting small businesses from competition by large companies being a bad idea...

Well, what if all of the small businesses in a market are doing a bad job and a new small business starts up and does a much better job... this small business grows and grows and becomes a large business. Now the other businesses in a market that are doing a crappy job go to the government for protection and the one business that does a good job is prevented from growing by the government so it is forced to do a crappy job like all of the other businesses in a market.

Now if thie market is something like steel or the airlines then many other businesses throughout the economy will be hurt by the inability to get quality products and the whole economy will slow down and start to decay.

Protecting one segment of a market from competition is the same as blocking free trade via tariffs and subsidies... this will have the same negative effect on the economy.

Now, you might say it's worth slowing down the economy to protect small town show repair stores... fine... but protecting these stores from competition will slow down the economy in the long run.

guess it was stupid for texas to sue tobacco

[SethJohnson]

Hmm. Wasting taxpayer money in these pointless lawsuits.

If you want examples of government intervention in the economy, there are plenty. The links I just provided are examples where the government is subsidising american industries that are unable to compete with foreign exporters. Should the govt. also be subsidising tech companies that are unable to compete with microsoft? If there were more companies than microsoft providing OSs, there certainly would be more jobs available for supporting those OSs and applications.

This lawsuit is about protecting consumers from the perils of the microsoft monopoly just as the texas lawsuit against the tobacco manufacturers was intended to protect the funds spent by the taxpayers on all the medical expenses created by their product.

So what are the perils? How about the lack of competition prompting feature-rich products at competitive prices? In normal markets, competitors have to keep their prices low and continue developing features that are better than other products. Is that pressure on Microsoft? No. Microsoft has the freedom from competition, so it can dedicate all its attention towards how to bilk more money out of consumers.

Faster than you think

[Corporate Troll]

Take solace in the fact that there are some people out there who are turning away from Windows, either to *nix or OSX. It's slow, but it's happening...

Yes, it is happening! And faster than you think. Okay, I can just give anecdotal evidence but consider this: last year I worked as a Consultant at a major german bank and one of my fellow consultants bought a TiBook. Everybody was impressed. Last christmas I bought myself a iBook (sorry, TiBook is not in my budget and the iBook is sooo cute)
But it doesn't stop here: last month I went back to the bank and behold! One of the IT guys bought himself an iBook too and one of his coworkers was drooling over our iBooks...I'm pretty sure that he'll succomb too.

Wait this is not all... The iBook is my personal machine and I take it to work...You can't imagine how many IT-coworkers drool over it. Better yet, I had some management types informing themselves: they thought it wasn't compatible with anything. Showed them what it could do (including Samba, now that freaked them out...), told them about Office (Microsoft, okay), that Lotus Notes will be released for OS X, and I was able to kill some myths ("You can't do video editing on a Mac...", I nearly fell over when this guy told me this....)

Besides, my Mac has often saved our day, because it is the only Unix machine on our network (besides an old RS/6000 running AIX). There are so many things that Windows doesn't let me do...

Re:Haunt...

[ReelOddeeo]

No Competition?

You're talking about now.

You must be too young to remember how things were in 1982.

Microsoft killed off all their competition with inferior products.

If you have only recently joined the party now that the evil deed is acomplished, and you don't know how they got to where they are, then you must wonder why a company that is rich and makes reasonably good products is so bad?

"When will they learn..."

[surfcow]

"When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them ..."

They won't, because memos don't always get out. You only hear about the ones that do.

The really incriminating stuff never gets typed up in the first place. Verbal only. (The CIA manual on assassination offers similar advice. Never put anything seriously incriminating in writing. Verbal only.)

Even if something seriously incriminating did make it to writing, it might never see the light of day. (Ask Reagan's archivists.) And if it did see the light of day, it might not be admissable in court. And even if it is admissable, it might be countered with any of 20 tactics, (like a loud "so what").

=brian

Basis of modern Law

[jmorris42]

Modern law in the Western World is based on the notion that The Law, The Truth and Justice are seperate and unrelated concepts, with Truth and Justice being outside the scope of the courts. And if you believe that anything sensible can come from such an insane view you are part of the problem.

To quote Don Henley quoting the bard, "Old Billy was right. Let's kill all the lawyers, let's kill 'em tonight."

Really, at this point it is the only way out. Until we are ready to kill every lawyer, judge and congressman, raze the law schools, burn all of the lawbooks and just start the hell over, reformulating a new code of laws from scratch, we are going to remain screwed. Every lawyer now practicing is hopelessly tainted by notions incompatible with civilization.

If we are too enlightened to kill em all we can at least brand a big L on their forehead which would prohibit them from holding office, voting or working within 100 yards of a law office, courthouse, bar where people in the new legal profession hang out, educational institution or anywhere else their perverted ideas might resurface or try to infect the next generation.

And before you mod this as flamebait, lets hear YOUR ideas to fix the current mess we are in with out 'legal system.'

Where's the Internal Memo for...

[3seas]

tellin MS employees to infilterate non MS newsgroups and messages boards that have a focus on other platforms....(I.E. Slashdot)

Interesting leak... Intentional?

[GMFTatsujin]

The only way I can see this tactic working is if the companies *knew* that Microsoft was being hard on them specifically for their support of Linux.

I mean, there's nothing too unusual about the legal departments reading contracts the way they want to anyway, right? If I'm a company that gets shut out this way, I'm not going to think to myself first thing, "If only I hadn't released a driver for Linux, they'd be nice to me."

Ergo, they needed to leak this memo, if it's real at all. The whole point of this passive-agressive behaviour was to do it in an inconspicuous way - this document is the only clue a company would have as to why they're getting shut out.

Leaked. Leaked 100%.
GMFTatsuin

Internal Slashdot Memo Urges Microsoft Retaliaton.

[Decimal]

I doubt that Linux developers have the time to write "Let's get Microsoft!", though. They seem too busy developing the OS to participate in the "We have an inferior product, let's squash the competition" insanity that goes on behind the doors of some other developers. =]

You don't visit Slashdot very often, do you?

No no

[G00F]

You got it wrong, MS doesn't want computers, MS wants set top boxes (or ones inside every tv). Well they want everything, but that is their ultimate goal, and has been at least since ~95.

And take a look at who is the new chip for the Xbox. And intel is almost being forced into making a chip compatiable to AMDs hammer.

Here's what you should worry about ...

[gnetwerker]

If this memo, and the behaviour that it endorses, worries you, let me pile it on: neither of the two proposed remedies is likely to correct this kind of corporate culture at Microsoft, at least in the near term.

This is because, no matter how heinous their actions, Intel will never complain to the States or the DoJ about Microsoft. Intel needs Microsoft too much to risk it.

Once upon a time the OEMs feared Intel, because processor supplies were short and Intel was the monopoly. The crossover begain happening in the mid-90s, beginning with Windows95, as Microsoft consolidated their control over the market with well-known highly-restrictive licensing terms.

This is when Microsoft first got a taste for directly threatening Intel, and by manipulating Intel by threatening OEMs. Nothing has changed since then, except that Intel has lost even more market share to AMD, and Microsoft has become more powerful.

Intel continues to hedge its bets (on the server only!) by supporting Linux, but everything desktop-related at Intel is 100% pro-Microsoft, and most of the execs there don't see a problem with that, and wouldn't complain about retaliation even if they did.

Now, don't get me wrong, the States' proposal is much better, in that (theoretically) it would allow an anonymous or confidential complaint to the Special Master, but in practice it's hard to imagine Intel using even that venue.

Bottom line: Linux developers and supporters -- don't look to the anti-trust settlement to stop the dirty tricks. Learn to live with them. Learn to love them. Learn jujitsu.

gn

Re:Haunt...

[Screaming Lunatic]

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.

And even when you did buy Colgate you would also have to buy their toothbrushes and dental floss and go to their dentist.

Could Intel sue?

[theolein]

Could Intel use this as the basis of a suite against Microsoft even if the anti-trust trial does nothing? I assume they've known about this for a long time, but couldn't publicly act on it and now possibly could?

I think that Microsoft needs Intel as much as Intel needs Microsoft at the moment. AMD has a large market share but I doubt it has the larger one and Intel could theoretically exert a lot of pressure on OEMs as well, especially if they keep up their current lead in CPU clock cycles (good for the press and share price), in Notebooks and in servers.

Re:So what?

[tshak]

While reading the article is optional, it is highly recommended that posters read posts they're replying to.

I guess my point (which apparently wasn't clear) is everyone does it and I don't think that MS should not be able to "say or write things" in it's memos just because it has a monopoly.

Re:Internal Slashdot Memo Urges Microsoft Retaliat

[kubrick]

Two groups:

Slashdot posters.

Linux kernel developers.

The overlap between these two sets: none.

Re:Haunt...

[sheldon]

I remember what it was like in 1982. I remember what it was like to own a computer system that was totally incompatible with what others had.

I remember what it was like to have to buy software to load onto your Morrow so you could read Osborne and Kaypro diskettes.

I remember what it was like to be handed a diskette with a Supercalc spreadsheet on it and wonder what you were going to do with it because you didn't have access to an Apple II.

I remember what it was like to buy a TI Personal Computer which promised to run MS-DOS, but wasn't really compatible with any other PCs running DOS and required software compiled just for the TI.

I remember dumping that TI PC in the trash, along with all the software because it was totally incompatible with the new Zenith systems we had bought.

If I sit for a while I could probably remember about AmiPro and the upgrade to WordPro that Lotus released which had memory leaks so bad you could only work with it about an hour at a time before closing it down and restarting, and how wonderfully this was received by the magazine reviewers.

You know the more I remember those times, the less I want to go back. Thank you for showing me how much easier my world is now that consumers have adopted Microsoft's inferior products.

So fucking funny

[NineNine]

I love Slashdot... it's so full of half-thoughts and knee-jerking.
The denizens of Slashdot declare that MS's monopoly is wrong. At the same time, MS is dead, and Linux has taken over.
Funny, I thought that the definition of a monopoly is NO competition.
So which is it kids? Is there a monopoly, in which case Linux is an abject failure, or is Linux a success, in which case there really is no monopoly?

Re:So fucking funny

[mikefoley]

And my question to you is "What the f*ck are you talking about?"

Microsoft is a monopoly. That's a fact.
Linux hasn't taken over. However, it's hurting MS enough for them to put it on it's radar screen and attack it full force.

Linux is a success. Microsoft is a success. The difference is that Microsofts MS is a monopoly and Linux isn't. MS's road is paved with the dead carcasses of DEC and Stack and others.

Re:So fucking funny

[NineNine]

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.

Re:So fucking funny

[aCC]

Yes, Microsoft is not a monopoly by the exact original definition. But the original definition is not used in that strict meaning anymore. That is because most countries try to stop giving companies a monopoly and the economies have changed.

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

linux success == no monopoly

or

linux failure == monopoy

are just plain wrong.

Re:So fucking funny

[Kidbro]

Or are there simply more than one /. reader, with different views on the matter?

Welcome to the net, man =)

Re:So fucking funny

[mikefoley]

No, I'm quite well aware of what a monopoly is thank you.

My point is that Microsoft can be a monopoly AND Linux can be successfull, at the same time. You seem to equate monopoly with success.

If Microsoft doesn't see Linux as being successful, say, in the server space, then why are they doing everything in their power (as a monopoly) to spread FUD about Linux?

Success can be measured on many levels. You just seem to think the only level is monopoly. IBM isn't a monopoly and its successful.

As for your definition of monopoly and how it equates to this arguement, here's my spin. Microsoft, by virtue of its influence and market position, have or exercise control on the PC industry. The reason Linux can thrive in this environment is that it uses the same hardware. "Linux", or a company like RedHat, can't push a Compaq or Intel to incorporate hardware features they want. They don't have the influence Microsoft has.

As to why you got "insightful", I'm puzzled.

Re:Haunt...

[56ker]

"Not to mention the fact that it's pretty damn hard to buy a PC from a major dealer that doesn't include Windows in the price." - damn near impossible short of building your own PC from component parts!

"they think Microsoft will actually comply this time" - if the DoJ ever think this they are more naive than anyone gives them credit for!

intent is not irrelevant

[Tony-A]

Among other things it is the difference between murder and accidental homicide.
Every piece of evidence that shows Microsoft's intentions is interesting.

Re:Haunt...

[Danse]

I might believe that when Microsoft's marketshare drops below 90%. The problem is not just Windows, but Office as well. People use Windows because that's how they can run Office. They could use a Mac too, but that's at least as expensive thanks to Apple's proprietary hardware. The only other alternative had to be developed for free by thousands of people around the globe. There's no way any company could have done it without being driven out of business by Microsoft. Be is a perfect example of that. They had a better OS, but they couldn't get anyone to develop for it because there was no user base, and there was no user base because nobody developed for it. The government is supposed to prevent monopolies from harming consumers. The government is not doing its job. We pay the price.

Re:Haunt...

[Malcontent]

So your theory is that free amrkets allow for monoplies to exist for decades right? How does one topple a monopoly that has been entrenched for decades if not by the force of law? It's impossible.

slashdot == inquirer

[mr_gerbik]

"When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them ..."

When will Slashdot learn that if they continue to pass such unfounded BS, they will go the way of the inquirer.

Slashdot is really becoming the trailerpark of the internet.

Microsoft versus Linux

[Kevin the Tuck]

Whoever posted the link in the comment about a memo that Bill Gates had written to his employees, should take that link out, it costs money to go that link now, 29.95. Why should we pay to go to a website.

One thing to keep in mind...

[cookd]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, so correct me where I am wrong.

From what I understand, the vast majority of Microsoft's actions have normally been legal. Corporations naturally (and legally) tend to do all they can to make as much money as they can. In fact, there are certain stipulations that compel company leadership to act in the best interests of the company (and the shareholders). Just about all of the pressure Microsoft has brought to bear on other companies is normally legal, even if it isn't nice. Nearly all companies act similarly when given the opportunity -- Microsoft has just had more opportunities and has taken the initiative. In some cases, their behavior has been shady and even quite possibly illegal. But I don't know enough about the specifics...

The change came when Microsoft was found to have abused its monopoly position. Microsoft is quite definitely a monopoly -- it is subject to competition, and could lose its monopoly position quickly if something crazy were to happen. But the courts determined that not only was Microsoft a monopoly, but was guilty of abusing that position.

At this point, normal business rules cease to apply. But what replaces them? Well, the antitrust laws are actually quite vague. There is some precedent in previous cases. But for the most part, there really isn't anything that says what a Monopoly can and cannot do, nothing that gives a definition of "abuse of monopoly power," and no standard to determine when a situation has been rectified.

A normal business can always bring pressure to bear on partner businesses. It is a standard business tactic. However, Microsoft was warned that certain kinds of pressure would not be tolerated. But I will leave it to the lawyers who have seen the exact wording of all of the injunctions to determine exactly what they were prohibited from doing.

In any case, it appears that one of the higher-ups started suggesting bringing pressure to bear against Intel. Microsoft and Intel are mutual cash-cows. He was suggesting using "standard business practice" (some pressure) to remind Intel that Microsoft was a good company to keep as an ally. In a non-monopoly situation, this would be fine (perhaps not good business tactics, and it has the potential of damaging the relationship between the companies, but it would probably be legal).

In Microsoft's case, with antitrust litigation pending, other VPs apparently determined that it might be wise to curtail heavy-handed tactics. So nothing was done. So the email was just free speech and nothing more. So nothing illegal happened here. So it was probably a reasonable objection.

Re:So f*cking funny

[Anarchofascist]

So which is it kids? Is there a $situation1, in which case $conclusion1, or is $situation2, in which case $conclusion2?

The readership of slashdot? Inconsistent?

This may come as a complete surprise to you, but slashdot readers have independent ideas. Unlike television, or newspapers, or other forms of mass-media you may be familiar with, on slashdot you will find more than one conclusion drawn from a set of information. Even more shocking is the fact that the people drawing these conclusions are willing to express them, openly discuss alternatives and even (occasionally) change their minds when given more information.

So either go back to your cosy little BBC/ABC/MSNBC/TimeWarner world where all things are safe, sure and certain, or read through the conflicting opinions, grow a brain, and join the discussion.

Re:Haunt...

[sheldon]

I find it fascinating how willfully you wish to lose an argument by discrediting yourself so.

Re:Hey dude

[rtaylor]

Tried to add a BSD reference to the otherwise Linux / Windows oriented discussion. Obviously missed the mark.

Re:A sad day in mudville...

[Eric Damron]

I am very aware that a Judge will exclude evidence that isn't relevant. This evidence IS relevant.

"Congratulations on becoming the poster boy for IANAL."

Bad day or are you just a jerk?