Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Urged Linux Retaliation
Rossalina W Sanchez writes: "Yahoo is reporting that an internal Microsoft memo from August of 2000 urged employees to 'work underground' to hurt companies, like Intel, who support Linux. When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them ..."
Exactly how is the unearthing of this memo going to dent their $40 billion in cash reserves or their dominance in the marketplace. They've already been sued by the U.S. gov and the states as well as by their peers and competitors.
But this memo will haunt them.
I think it's pretty obvious that Microsoft is, in part, so arrogant precisely because this stuff never really does haunt them.
Let them eat cake!
Just pick-up and join in on the Be lawsuit (www.beincorporated.com). Be has a much stronger case than the states in my opinion.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The memo was dated August 2000?
Sounds to me like they haven't been terribly successful thus far.
Sharpies don't just sniff themselves.
why the XBOX2 will have an AMD processor in it.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
urged employees to 'work underground' to hurt companies...
they did a good job, they built WINDOWS XP!!!
Fabio - Sumare/Sao Paulo/Brazil/South America/Earth/Solar System/Milky Way/Universe
http://www.morroida.com.br
...justice officials also noted that an encrypted Microsoft memo read, "!seineew era sreenigne xuniL" and appealed to member of the open source community to help them decode the message.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
From: Bill Gates
To: All M$ Employees and Shills
Re: Anti-M$ Publicity
Kill Slashdot.
Fat bonus to whomever Slashdots those bastards.
xoxox
Bill
hi!
Because it doesn't hurt them.
Look out there in the business world. See any companies saying "Hey, Microsoft is unfair? We should shift our stuff over and stop using them!"
No, what you see is "Well, we have to change our licensing and pay more money. We don't have any choice."
Of all the things that I don't like Microsoft for, that's the #1 thing. I see people saying "But...I can't get a Mac - it won't work with my stuff", where stuff == Microsoft Office and Adobe Acrobat. I see IT Staffs scrambling to count licenses for fear that the SBA will knock on the door and find that one computer without a piece of paper stating that Windows 2000 was paid for.
I see hopelessness, and I see just a resigned acceptance.
Learn? Why should they learn. Microsoft gets paid because people are either too lazy, or unwilling to see the alternatives. So they won't learn from their "mistakes" - until the day it hits them in the pocketbook. And that's not happening yet.
If ever.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
I'd rather be sailing...
Ah, and then AMD testified in favor of Microsoft out of the goodness of their hearts.
And this just speaks for itself: "I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements -- again without being obvious about it," Kempin wrote.
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
How long has the Linux community been urging Microsoft retaliation? ;-)
Got Rhinos?
Linux developers, totally unlike Microsoft, are in no position to punish anyone, much less Microsoft itself.
- Have a picture
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.
Am I a hipster-doofus?
Whenever Microsoft gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, they try hard to make up for it. If Intel and IBM got together and said, we're going to put a Linux desktop out there that the average joe wants and can use as easily as windows, Microsoft will have something to fear. I suspect that they will make a lot of conciliatory gestures towards Intel. Kind of an Ike Turner thing -- take me back, baby, I never meant to hurt you!
Do you believe in death after life?
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.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Don't worry! Its all OK. Geez, didn't you even read the article? See it says right here:
/.'s unwarranted rants.
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
-Sean
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!
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
"When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them"
Hopefully never.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
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.
"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?
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.
Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
I don't think this is a valid argument from the manufacturers. If Dell or Gateway or Compaq started preloading Linux on their machines, what is microsoft going to do? Say, "OK, we aren't selling windows licenses to Dell anymore." I don't think so. Especially since that is where they get their huge user base. Because most PCs COME WITH WINDOWS ON THEM! Now they might be so arrgant as to think if they stop selling copies of Windows to Gateway, Gateway will cease to be. But I don't think this is the case. First of all, geeks would flock to order PCs where they didn't have to pay the "Microsoft Tax" (i.e. buying an OS license they will never use.) Second, most of the non-geeks that I know think their operating system is Office 2000, so they aren't going to know what Linux means when they order it. Sure this will generate some returns, but most people will either figure it out, or be too proud to admit they don't know what they are talking about. Third, if one does it, the others will, too. And MS can't stop selling licenses to EVERY PC retailer. It would be suicide. One of the big PC companies just needs to step up to the plate and tell MS to sod off, and offer Linux certified systems. With hardware that has available drivers, already set up and configured, with the latest kernel, KDE, etc. I'm telling you it would work.
As for interoperability, most of the software we write these days is CGI or Java, and runs on any modern web browser. Also with StarOffice, I've almost got 100% MS Office compatibility. I can do almost anything on my Linux box that I can with my MS box. (I still can't write Visual Basic programs in Linux, but I'm sure someone is working on that!)
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
What you call a "Common Business Practice" is also called "Illegal Leveraging of Monopoly Power" in the case of a convicted Monopolist such as Microsoft. It's a textbook violation of the Sherman antitrust act, and the states have good reason to introduce this.
No other company in the industry has this power - You think any company would take Apple seriously if they tried to pull this? Sun? IBM? Cisco? Redhat? Get real. This is what Common Business Executives *wish* they could practice, but only Monopolists can pull off.
'ARRGH! Pirate Designers of the Internet, we be!'
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.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Let's link to the same story found on Reuters. That's where Yahoo got the story from: The Reuters article
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
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.
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.
I prefer to say it in pictures .
Just too bad they left out BeOS and OS X.
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.
Are you serious? Or just trolling?
Really? Then how exactly do you explain their billions of dollars in sales, versus, say, Redhat's few million?
Anticompetitive business practices.
Most people don't care. They just want the best product at the best value.
Which implies a choice and the ability to choose. A concept that a monopolist cannot stand.
Get a clue. Every company is run the same way.
But every company does not have monopoly control of the market.
I really hope that you do that much research into the internal workings of Colgate-Palmolive before you buy your toothpaste.
This is not a valid comparison because they have competitors.
What if Colgate could work some kind of scheme such that anyone buying toothpaste had to pay Colgate, regardless of which toothpaste they wanted to buy? This would drive all competitors out of the market. If I bought Crest, I would have to pay for Crest, and for Colgate. If I bought Colgate, I would only have to pay for Colgate. This is how MS got to where they are. Not through providing superior products.
Today, they have superior products. But only because they can pour buckets of money into development. Money they can extort at artificially high prices due to lack of any competition.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
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.
Do not touch -Willie
Not entirely true, it turns out. See what AMD has to say about this (source at bottom):
Source:X P.jspa
http://athlonxp.amd.com/overview/microsoftWindows
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
It really doesn't matter what was said. It matters what was done. The memo points out that this vice president hasn't gotte the idea that Microsoft as a monopoly can't do these things legally. However, if Microsoft didn't act on those suggestions, it's not breaking the law.
Maybe Kempin's actions are why he's no longer dealing with Microsoft's relationship with Intel.
Microsoft has got to realize that their no holds barred method of competition isn't legal as a monopoly. They could get away with it many years ago, but not any more.
Let's see...
.net hell where companies are forced into a bizzare dance of upgrade or rebuy.
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
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
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"...because it's one of their execs openly spouting off like that when he SHOULD have kept his mouth shut "
/. is because people love to hate MS. Yadda yadda yadda.
Umm his job as an executive is to come up with ideas on how to stay in business. Contraversial? Oh yeah! But no proof has been provided showing that any crime has been committed. Frankly, the only reason its interesting to
They really should provide evidence instead of trying to propaganda MS to death.
'MS told Gateway not to sell computers without Windows' -- that is evidence.
'Somebody at MS said they shouldnt allow Gateway to sell computers without Windows' -- not a crime. Free speech. Expression of ideas. No proven illegal action.
I know Ill probably get modded down for this. So just to be clear, Im not saying MS isnt doing anything wrong, IM saying that *this particular piece of 'evidence'* is not very interesting. Its sad that they're using stuff like this to prove intentions instead of using facts to prove guilt.
"Derp de derp."
A monopolized market is not a free market. A truely free market has few (if any) barriers to entry or exit of the market and little (if any) regulation of how one conducts business in that market.
A market controlled by a monopoly or a cartel is essentially the same as a government regulated market. If the government controls your market or if a monopoly controls your market its going to have the same effect: high prices and crappy service -- because new businesses are not free to innovate and compete.
If you think about it, there's little difference between the Microsoft controlled software market and the state controlled markets in a communist country.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
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
Two groups:
Slashdot posters.
Linux kernel developers.
The overlap between these two sets: none.
deus does not exist but if he does
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?