Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Case Proceeds
YeOldeCurmudgeon writes "This story just posted on Yahoo: Federal Judge Denies Microsoft Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Case. Microsoft's motion to dismiss the suit filed by the 9 dissenting states was denied. The judge agrees the states can sue." An article in the San Francisco Chronicle summarizes the case's current state and what's coming up next.
So there's still a chance of the OS and productivity software markets opening up to competition, instead of the Bush "settlement" (read: bribe payoff) which gives government protection to the Microsoft monopoly!
The idea of the antitrust suit was to enable competition. Here's a test of the result of the Bush "settlement" - has there been increased investment in companies competing with Microsoft in the OS and productivity software arenas?
M$ should be forced to pay one million ... no one billion dollars to the FSF.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
RMS should be appointed to their board of directors
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Hooray! The Microsoft case continues! Kudos to the judge who agreed the states can sue. This is a happy day for the good guys, because although the war against the EVIL EMPIRE hasn't yet been won, this decision brings us one step closer to a world of freedom, without the limitations and problems Microsoft sees fit to impose on the good people of the world.
This is a happy day for the BSDs, for Linux, and for all the freedom-loving people of the world.
Somebody explain to me why it takes 1187 pages to say "this case can go on" and why it takes this long to figure out a punishment.
This should be all very, very simple. provisional punishments like "you will now allow people to take off IE" does not stop MS from behaving anti-competetively.
I mean, just fine them! in fact, fine the crap out of them. You are found guilty of anti-competitive behavior, you choke up 80% of your profits for the next two years (as from SEC filings) or 10% of the company net worth -- which ever is higher. if you do it again, 90%/15%; third time -- dissolution of charter. (third might be a little harsh, but again, we are following the "simple" route of spirit)
-- when the share holders suddenly realize that, wow, my $$ are going away because the corporate lawyer / managers are screwing up by doing illegal stuff, i don't think they will be happy about the anti-competitive behavior anymore -- i mean, $$ drives the company, so hit it where it hurts; not some bs settlement that they can just circumvent later.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Let's waste more taxpayer dollars, more time, and do absolutely nothing.
Screw suing MS, how about actually DOING something about it? Instead of suing them for 'monopoly practices', which will be next-to-impossible to prove in court, why not just STOP BUYING THEIR SOFTWARE.
Stupid yuppie government decision-making.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
What I found interesting was the Judge's characterization of Microsoft's motion as misrepresenting the holdings of the cases it cited in support of the motion to dismiss.
That's a powerful statement from a judge and should be taken by Microsoft as a warning. It seems that the last thing they should be doing is demonstrating to the Court a complete and utter disregard for truth and for the law.
That's the kind of thing that makes a judge mad and judges are bad people to have mad at you.
Read em here
Please note, this is a joke.
Now go back to your daily lives.
I would like to see this:
.. if you want to be microsoft dependent, you can get it from them..
...... the idea is, Microsoft sortof gets its way, the states sortof get their way .. is that too hard ?!
1. Modular windows for OEM's
2. Retail windows which forces you to use MS products
This setup would mean, basically.. if you want a "nice" version of windows, you have to get it from OEM's
End Result? Microsoft is 50% happy (but who really cares except their investors), OEM's are happy, developers of replacement software (real player, netscape, etc) are happy
"cogito, ergo sum"
I mean, not to sound like I am against the trial, but the length has realy made me apathetic. am I the only one?
True capitalism = lots of similar companies = jobs for everyone who wants one.
Good for the states, and for us!
...
... No wait, I haven't seen her.
Yahoo!:
"Microsoft quotes selectively from a number of cases with the effect of mischaracterizing their holdings," U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote in response to the settlement argument. "The court finds this tactic unpersuasive."
I said "wow!" out loud when I read that. That is fantastic, perhaps we have a judge that isn't going to lay down to all of MS's bullshit this time. Great!
Before her ruling, the judge asked the Justice Department for its opinion. Department lawyers -- as well as representatives of 25 other states that backed up the nine attorneys general -- agreed that the states should be able to bring their case.
Well well, perhaps a few more states can hop on.. If that's possible.
That Other Site:
Each side gave Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly plenty to chew on as she prepares for final oral arguments,
And I was hoping for anal,
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
I work for the government, BTW, so I have a bit of an inside view, here.
The Gov is a big enough purchaser of computers, that this could be feasable - why not build their own? Set up a factory somewhere, and build custom government computers, assembly-line style. Only include hardware and software that's needed, and save money all over the place. Most computer dealers include crap the Gov doesn't need, so it'd work well, probably.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
You're right. Microsoft lost and was found guilty in federal court of monopolistic pratices, but they outlasted us and outlasted the administration that beat them and got the next one to give them exactly what they wanted, including a free pass to keep doing business as usual. Lets not let those few states still fighting them conflict with our short attention span. We might as well realize that no matter what the court says, Microsoft will do whatever Bill damn well pleases.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The document Microsoft filed, encompassing its summary of both the facts and the law at issue, totaled 575 pages, while the non-settling states submitted findings of fact that filled 528 pages and separate conclusions of law that added 84 more pages.
Well duh, of course the judge ruled the states could sue Microsoft. Microsoft filed 37 less pages than the states! Their position must be very weak in comparison!
That would be trivial to implement and verify. And they would have nothing to complain about since that just enforces the status quo.
Any M$ app/OS on anything BUT an x86 box and Gates and Dancing Monkey Boy kiss their assets good bye and rot in jail for as long as the app/OS is available on anything but the x86.
Steve Jobs will just have to learn to like OpenOffice or StarOffice.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Since the mid 80's, the 'operating system' has been extremely important to Microsoft. Making sure everyone adopted Windows 95 and 98 was extremely important for the success of the company, as it locked them into the current architecture (2000/XP etc). This has meant that operating systems are VERY important to MS.
.NET, the operating system is not as important as it once was.. in the future, a proper .NET program will run on any system that has a .NET compatible VM and the correct class libraries!
.NET allows Microsoft's software to dominate on EVERY PLATFORM, and this is a great thing for them. A very clever move, and it may make all this antitrust case very irrelevant.
This may not be the case for much longer. With the advent of Linux, operating systems have been somewhat commoditized. With
Believe it or not, in 5 years, you could see Mac/Linux people buying, and running natively, stuff like Office and Visual Basic.NET, thanks to Microsoft embracing the concept of the virtual machine.
I think Microsoft is going to bank on the success of its virtual machine (.NET) and this whole new platform-independant architecture. Even if Microsoft was forced out of the OS game.. it's not a disaster for them. They still have the critical mass of users to sell software to (Office, etc), and a critical mass of developers used to developing for their platforms.
In essence,
mogorific carpentry experiments
Bad form to reply to one's own post, but.. just remembered.. there's a discussion about Microsoft and possible VM strategy from today here.
mogorific carpentry experiments
sed s/.NET/JAVA/ | sed s/Microsoft/Sun/
I don't think so Tim...
You seem to be implying that .NET will be practically free.
.NET or Microsoft won't make any money!!!
The main complaint about Microsoft's current application software is the very expensive and highly redtrictive licensing agreements.
Either this will continue with
If you had read more carefully you would have noticed that I was opposed to big companies _and_ big governments. And I wasn't saying I knew a better way, either, although it _is_ indeed my opinion that stronger government control is better, provided that the government has a genuine interest in its people. I have come to this belief through various past events, which I am not going to cite here because it has nothing to do with the MicroSoft case.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
In essence, .NET allows Microsoft's software to dominate on EVERY PLATFORM
.NET whether they like it or not. If you want to stick with Microsoft, .NET is not an option, it's what you'll have to use.
.NET implementation.
.NET's virtual machine and class libraries can do WAY more than what Java can.
.NET is just a VM/platform, whereas 'Java' was both the JVM *and* a language. This limited extension capabilities, as well as the conversion of older software. You couldn't load up your old C software, and get it working in Java.. with VB.NET, VC.NET etc.. this is a possibility. People have already created FORTH and COBOL compilers for .NET!
.NET may not be a success, but it has several very important things going for it, and Java had none of them. I mean.. come on.. Sun hardly had millions of users in 1994! Microsoft has got .NET out quickly, and is saturating the marketplace, ensuring their success into the future.
sed s/.NET/JAVA/ | sed s/Microsoft/Sun/
I don't think so Tim...
Microsoft has many advantages now over Sun in 1994.
For a start, Microsoft has an extremely large user base who are going to end up using
.NET is already being ported to other platforms. Ximian are working on something for GNU/Linux, and MS even released their own source code demonstrating a FreeBSD
Java was on lots of platforms, but it was VERY limited in what it could do on each one.
Java limited people to one language, a language that many coders didn't like.
Either way,
I might not love Microsoft, but I have to hand it to them.. they're speculating, and I think it's the right one.
mogorific carpentry experiments
I can't wait for my day in court one of these days. I'm going ALL-OUT Microsoft Defense(tm)
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
An interesting point, but one that is easily answered.
.NET. Okay, some things like 'Windows Forms' are a bit proprietary, but there's still tons of documentation for it. The Ximian guys are even going to be spinning their own compatible version.
.NET solution.
.NET framework on them. This means people can go out and buy Microsoft Office 2005, and it'll run on their PC, Mac, or Linux box. What has Microsoft lost here? Nothing really, infact, they're likely to gain market share.
.NET. Microsoft will lock coders into .NET with its own development systems.. and Microsoft won't care what operating system the resultant programs work on, as long as Microsoft is making money on a) the dev tools, b) sales of its own software across multiple platforms, c) sales of its server software across multiple platforms, and d) the 'faithful' who will stick with Microsoft's own OS.
Microsoft has totally opened up the specs to
But it doesn't matter if the users aren't running Microsoft's VM. Unlike in the old days, Microsoft is not going to get rich by selling its platform anymore. It's going to stay rich by providing the best
Let's jump ahead 3 years. Let's say that Linux and MacOS X have a perfect compatible
Look it in terms of the browser war. Microsoft gave away the browser, but locked developers into its solution with proprietary coding styles. Many pages only appear correctly in IE nowadays! The same will happen with
mogorific carpentry experiments
want to support M$
go buy there overpriced software
Medevo
.NET is being considered serious by many groups who are not Microsoft advocates.
.NET after the Parrot implementation is done.
.NET environment, but not necessarily be strapped to Microsoft's OS. Microsoft doesn't seem to disapprove of this, and in fact highlights how you can port .NET to other operating systems!
For example, it has been mentioned in the Parrot FAQ that Perl 6 may well be developed for
Ximian's Mono project also goes a long way to demonstrate that there are plenty of people who want a
mogorific carpentry experiments
To me, application domination is acceptable- you can always dethrone an application by superior features. People are conscious of applications, they aren't infrastructure. In my mind, as long as something doesn't carry data or isn't infrastructure, it can be proprietary in its methods.
.Net from becoming a moving target.
This doesn't mean that open applications aren't great- what I mean by this is that we do not suffer nearly as much from closed applications as we do from closed infrastructure systems and closed file formats.
.Net has infrastructure elements, but those are remarkably well documented, and the need to standardize will keep major elements of
A
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
who had been given this case came to hate MS, in much the same way as the previous judge had. She hated them because they lied, they cheated and they were trying all kinds of tricks to sway her viewpoint.
Now imagine you were really set to hit them upside the head with a nasty verdict. What would be the smartest thing in the world to do. Right... keep quiet about it. Never give a hint or whiff that you felt that way, or you'd never get your chance to apply a verdict at all. You'd know the previous judge really f*cked up when he talked about the case, so you wont make the same mistake. In fact, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to guess what you were planning on doing.
This is clearly conjecture on my part, but god it would be nice if it was true.
Sun has embraced VM with java and has had much experience with it -- in fact, even IBM and all the high-end server ppl have started with linux VMs.
.NET into everything -- but still if they lose the OS, sneaking .NET would be *much* harder; i mean, i go out and get a java VM for my redhat; i won't be going out to look for a .NET anytime soon.
.NET has seen the critical penetration it needs to multiply. ((haha, critical penetration / multiply... sorry it's late)
True, MS has been sneaking
at the same time, MS has been dissing on java about the speed and all that; but VB running in a VM that is non-natively windows won't have that much of an edge *anyway*. so, the competition is tougher than you have outlined, i believe.
It is all timing, i guess, how fast MS gets squeezed (haha) out of the OS business and if
A few more points: MS is not looking to get out of the OS market; i am sure many have already heard about their ideas of a SQL based file system in the next version of windows (whistler? forgot) -- so there is the $$ investment that will go poopie if they really gets a hit with a vital blow to their OS business.
$$ from OEMs will drop significantly as well, i might add.
so, being the core business of MS, if a really harsh penalty was forced onto MS, they could still be in a world of hurt; and their market position will not be good enough, and i do not believe they will have the resources to do all the crap they have been doing; contrary to your arguments.
counter-point to myself, to make this interesting -- MS does derive a significant portion of its income from pure investments because they have so much (oh, so much) cash, so -- i don't really know either. the above are just a psuedo fact-based gut feeling, after all, i am no economic analyst
My life in the land of the rising sun.
In other words, microsoft is going to stay rich by turning "open .net" into "mostly-open, provided you can't beat us at, .net".
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
It also really doesn't matter if users are running Windows or Wine.
Except for the fact that Microsoft invents new APIs faster than people can clone them, so the compatible solution never catches up. Ximian is a long way from NET 1.0, and my guess is that NET 2.0 ships before they get close.
counter-point to myself, to make this interesting -- MS does derive a significant portion of its income from pure investments because they have so much (oh, so much) cash, so
Clever point. You can make more cash from cash, so Microsoft could, in theory, keep making a profit every year even if they had absolutely no products and just made wise investments.
There's an idea.. they can give up software, and invest their money into Linux and cream the profits off of the next generation of computing!
mogorific carpentry experiments
Fine MS?
If microsoft were to lose the case, they would LOVE a fine. Think about it.
Let's pick a rediculously high number for a fine. Say 20 BILLION. It would never be that high but let's say it is.
Microsoft has 40 BILLION in cash. Microsoft could pay the fine and keep right on doing what they are doing now. They would view it as the cost of business. And worth every penny.
For example. Say 20 years someone offered you a deal. We'll give you 95% market dominance, no real competitors, 40 BILLION in cash, a personal fortune worth 57 BILLION, and BILLIONS of profits every year. the only catch is that after you achieve all of this, were gonna take 20 BILLION away. And the resulting settlement will protect you to keep doing what got you here in the first place.
Every single person would take that deal.
If microsoft were only to be fined, that is simply the cost of them doing business.
the ruling needs to do three things:
Split microsoft into 3 companies; Apps, OS, Internet
Force microsft to use a competitors languages to develop their applications.
Lay bare EVERY single API call in all versions of Windows.
And don't say that would create 3 monopolies rather than 1. Think it through.
I'm sorry but you are _way_ off here. If Microsoft is really betting on making alot of money directly with .NET then all I've got to say is good luck! Sure they can make money, but the corporation/profits will only be a tiny fraction of there current self. And do you honestly think that Office 2005 will even matter anymore? I hate to break it to you, but the office software market is only going to decline/homogenize. The webservices crap has yet to materialize and no one is making a ton of money there. IMHO, the technology/software sector is going to grow ever more boring over the coming years as linux/OS/FS moves in and commoditizes the market. At the very least, if you're looking for exciting developments, do not look at office software for chrissakes ;-)
I've been in the industry long enough to develop a burning hatred of M$FT, right up there with the rest of /.'ers -- but does anyone else have that good ol' free market mentality? The one that says, "If it's crap, eventually 'the market' will reject it" ... OK, I'm smoking crack. But the purist in me still hates gov't intervention!
Its not Microsoft we have to worry about, its United Linux. Even the name suggests 'monopolistic evil'.
Pee Ess
Lighten up its a joke.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
I wasn't highlighting office software as being 'exciting', but it's what users need and want. I think virtual machines are the most exciting things in the programming world right now, but users don't say, 'Gee, virtual machines are so cool, we must go check some out.' Office software was only an example.
.NET will give them penetration on multiple platforms.
I was making the point that Microsoft can make their big bucks on software rather than operating systems.. because
mogorific carpentry experiments
I understand the point you're trying to make, but... I can already buy Office for Mac.
Sure thing Rilpley. Can you give me one reason people tie their work up in bloated, secret, propriatory formats that change once a year so that your previous work must be redone? Oh, that's right, people used Word because that's what the friendly M$ agent gave them in business school, then later it was the only comercial package that you could buy from a large retailer like Dell. So now with so many free alternatives available, you think people are going to continue to flog themsleves with M$ crap?
M$ is going to have to legislate themselves out of their current predicament. Their usual anti-competitive marketing policies will simply destroy their old friends. FUD is failing them as more people free themselves, and dumping is NOT something they can continue forever. Without some kind of horrid digital rights denial laws, the coomiditization of OS is the death of M$ and friends. If the feds want money from M$ they had better fine them or regulate them like tobaco. Otherwise M$ will slip away like glass bottle makers.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
They should do time.
Sling them in the slammer.
Probation after 12 months.
Computer no touchee for at least 3 years.
Why is that not too hash?
- They have created software which is so faulty that it's caused losses to other people counted in the Billions of Dollars. ( The cost of time needed to clean up after all the viruses and worms. )
- They have charged hundreds and thousands of dollars for bits of plastic worth cents. That's a con job netting 40 Billion Dollars.
- They have totally abused their monopoly position, and thus seriously impeded the progress of innovation in the data processing industry.
- They are now demanding money from people on a regular basis to provide continued access to their programs. In my country that's called a protection racket.
Those are the reasons why they are nothing more than a criminal gang and should do time...."Microsoft stock was up 3 1/4 on the news."
fifth sigma, inc.
courts to microsoft: Your corporation has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. Close or Ignore?
Microsoft has been clicking "ignore" for a while, but it looks like its no longer working. Lookes like they'll have to click "close"
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
Every piece of MS software I've used has been lightyears ahead of most other competing SW -- free or not, with the exception of Vis InterDev, Media Player, and VJ++ (ugh -- use JBuilder :-).
The REAL problem is that the reason they can develop such powerful software by paying for research/large dev teams and backing it is because they are already a juggernaut monopoly that needs to be checked. Because of that they shove it down everyones throats by patenting "intellectual property" as a reason to keep their formats closed while using things like undocumented APIs to gain tighter intergration.
I still say split MS into a SW and OS companies.
why run from Vincenzo?
In other words, microsoft is going to stay rich by turning "open .net" into "mostly-open, provided you can't beat us at, .net".
Actually that's Sun's plan for Java..Except for the fact that Sun isn't that rich to begin with..
The one thing that Windows has repeatedly been criticized for is the fact the native APIs are archaeic and obtuse. Everytime one API call finally ended up being expanded to use all the reserved parameters, they'd be forced to introduce a new one under a different name. The entire API is riddled with DoSomething and DoSomethingEx or SomeFunction and SomeFunction2, because when things needed to change, there was no room for growth. The .NET API is MS's attempt at getting that API bloat under control, and to redesign some broken designs in the original Win32 API set.
Secondly, I find no reason to believe that Microsoft Office.NET won't use undocumented/proprietary CLR API calls like any other Microsoft product does with the native Win32 API. They have no intention of giving Linux or any other platform the elbow room to be able to squeeze themselves into a healthy chunk of the market. Microsoft would also be free to introduce API calls that are impossible to re-implement without violating Microsoft patents.
This entire .NET stuff is far more about cleaning up their own platform, rather than allowing for any other into the market.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
He came to hate them too. And went too far as a result. MS turned that to their advantage, just as they did Jackson's missteps. Neither Jackson's or Sporkin's humiliations will be lost on this judge. She will be as careful as she can possibly be.
I think the first two came to hate MS because they could see clearly the utter contempt MS has for the justice system, or anyone else that might get in their way. MS is still at it in this new courtroom. Lies, half truths, FUD, remorselessness, arrogance, self-serving "compliance" and disrespect for the intellegence of the bench are usually not part of a winning formula in court. Eventually, MS will find a judge that does not get provoked, but simply hammers them with the law. Hopefully, this judge will be the one.
And you are 100% wrong. C# code is compiled into DotNet byte code, which is executed through a virtual machine. It works exactly like Java.
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
difference: OS/2 was not free or open source... wheras linux is
i seriously can't see free software ever being taken out by micro$oft...
5468652047616D65
My favorites:
...
1) Forced full and free release of all fileformats they created and will create in the last+next 10 years
2) Held liable for security flaws (this is one for another trial
3) Forced standards compilance for html
4) Some huge powerfull comittie above their head, that needs to approve the defaults and quality of all releases. Install ms haters in it
5) Absolute forbidden to arrange per-oem deals, one price policy, clear and open
6) Full refunds for all ever-bundled software!
...
1 and 5 seem to be the most feasible...
Of course, there is still bill-torture, per crash refunds,
...is that nobody ever does anything about it... (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
When people type that whole M$ crap I just cringe because the majority of you that do it are 15 years
I'm 15, and I don't really like M$...
from your parents AOL connection
lol, does xs4all counts as AOL?
talking about how you run debian this or redhat
I'm not running debian, but I am running an downloaded RH and using linux since SuSE 7.1 (not to long tough..).
CS club will think your cool
I am, I am 8)
When Linux dies, it's because people like you will have turned it into Microsoft.
aha, but Linux is an OS and Microsoft(TM) is an "software"-company
why am I actually posting this? oh, well there goes my karma...
If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
you and your ten friends, besides being thieves, are windows users -- you buy (or steal) windows software, play windows games, live a windows lifestyle... you've done more to help microsoft than to hurt them
if everyone did what you did, microsoft might be poorer, but they'd still be the dominant operating system vendor, and they'd probably be putting even more copy protection software like product activation into their wares, which is a hassle for legitimate users
if you want to be part of the solution instead of remaining a petty thief, look into linux (and legitimately give it away to all your friends) or mac os-x, and stop giving microsoft more market share
i thought, therefore i was...
Your entire argument is sound, and what we would expect from a monopolistic MS. I would, however, like to think that maybe they're going to chill out a bit in the future, and leverage free operating systems for their own benefit.
Businesses can change. Just look at the story about Sony selling songs on the Net for 99 cents a pop.
mogorific carpentry experiments
How would you dethrone Word, if everyone needs to have Word file support, and Microsoft doesn't give you the file format?
OpenOffice seems to have worked it out to a 99% degree of accuracy.
mogorific carpentry experiments
.NET is already being ported to other platforms.
FUD. Of the roughly 1200 classes in Dotnet today, less than 200 are part of the ECMA standards (CLR, C Sharp). Most of the Dotnet functionality is contained in APIs such as Windows Forms and ADO.NET and these are not standardized, and are covered by a number of patents. Ximian may be attempting to clone them but any use of these components will entail risk. This is not the case with the Java (J2SE, J2EE) platform, which is well established on Linux and other OSes.
aha, but Linux is an OS and Microsoft(TM) is an "software"-company
;-)
bit nit-picking, but Linux is strickly a kernel.
but yes, you got a point
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Two things:
Firstly, Microsoft has submitted a few of the .NET specs to ECMA. However, ECMA is a standards organistion that, unlike say the IETF or W3C, allows patented "standards". This means that Microsoft can, and almost certainly do, have patents on key parts of the .NET infrastructure. And that means that they can stop anybody they like from building a .NET implementation, if they so wish.
Secondly, I'd say Windows Forms is one of THE most important parts of the whole framework. Why did Java fail on the client side? Well, the general lameness of the MS virtual machine didn't help, but largely it was because the AWT sucked hard, and Swing was just as bad, except slower. The Java GUIs were always bad, basically. Also, if you look at the Windows Forms disassembled code, you'll see that really it's just a big wrapper around GDI+ - do you honestly think that MS will say "Whoa, we'd better not add feature X to WinForms because Linux/Mac doesn't support it". I mean really, is that likely?
But it doesn't matter if the users aren't running Microsoft's VM. Unlike in the old days, Microsoft is not going to get rich by selling its platform anymore. It's going to stay rich by providing the best .NET solution.
Providing the best .NET solution is easy when you own .NET
Let's jump ahead 3 years. Let's say that Linux and MacOS X have a perfect compatible .NET framework on them. This means people can go out and buy Microsoft Office 2005, and it'll run on their PC, Mac, or Linux box. What has Microsoft lost here? Nothing really, infact, they're likely to gain market share.
3 years? That's optimistic. Wine has been in development for 10 years or more, and they still haven't got a complete implementation of the windows APIs! I think it's pretty likely that Microsoft, with it's huge teams of developers, can outpace any Linux development team at .NET compatability. Maybe there will be .NET for the Mac, in fact I expect there will be, but that'd be bad news for the Mac in the long term too..... I know one thing though, MS hates Linux, never forget that. I seriously doubt they'd want to see a fully working .NET on Linux.
Oh, one last thing. Microsoft seems to have an institutional hatred of rewriting stuff. They did it for Windows, because Windows 9x was such a piece of trash, and now they say they're doing it for IIS, because IIS is getting its ass kicked by Apache. They once tried to rewrite Word though, the project was called Pyramid iirc, but it got cancelled early on, and written off as a huge mistake.
If one day a .NET version of Office does appear, what will it be? A port? A transition to Managed C++? Office bear in mind is surprisingly insular, and uses a lot of its own code which is already present in Windows. A proper, fully paid up .NET version would be a huge undertaking. Then they'd have to do IE, and then they'd hit problems with VM performance and so on. I think hoping that Microsoft, after all these years, will suddenly become "enlightened" and give away a large amount of its intellectual property and try and make money selling the best products is, well, massively over-optimistic.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/kotelly-bio.html
-- You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stay alive.
Predicting judges' rullings from comments is difficult, but the language used here is as telling as we're likely to get.
The first rule of litigation is, "Don't piss off the judge." Microsoft violated this repeatedly in the original tri8al, and then drew a lucky break when the judge that they had utterly alienated (hey, judges get upset by perjury and frauds upon the court; guess which single group was *most* upset with Clinton?) ran off his big mouth and generally acted like the wrong end of a horse.
From the language she used, it looks like they're well on their way to alienating another.
hawk, esq.
They tossed out *everything* that Jackson did following his opening of his over-sized mouth to the press, on the grounds that he'd undermined credibilty of the system. THe court *explicitly* noted that they had not ruled out a breakup or any other remedy.
hawk, esq.
Ok, who put this submission in their cron job?
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I've been selling Linux for nearly 3 years and while servers are simple 'cos of Samba the conversation ALWAYS halts at the "will it open my MS Office docs" point. Star Office is fine until they open a doc with macros or other embedded bollocks and it runs into trouble.
.doc in a new version format that their Office 97 can't open.
Now I know they can convert them but people who use computers as a tool generally don't have the time or the inclination to click through 100 + docs correcting them and saving them from Star Office.
XML should simplify this but until then the killer judgement would be full disclosure of MS file formats. Once you've removed the neccessity for MS Office, Publisher etc to open the old docs I have a LOT of people who would dump MS like a shot and go fully Linux, Server and Desktop purely 'cos there pissed off with crashes, viruses and upgrading MS Office 'cos someone sent them a
Come on judge, Open them file formats, level the playing field and let me make some bloody money for a change!
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Continuing...
Under our legal system a corporation is a legal person and it protects the officers of the corporation from personal liability in may cases. Microsoft, according to the findings of fact, is a monopoly. Microsoft did not make any decisions though, its corporate officers did. After this is all said and done, right or wrong, those persons will still have jobs, will still be rich, and are unlikely to suffer any real consequences.
I would like to see the decision makers suffer personally for the monopolistic behavior of their corporation. Would personal fines and jail time be out of order?
If I become rich and powerful, I can use my riches and power to become richer and more powerful. After having siphoned off billions of dollars into my own coffers, my corporation can be sued but, I am still a billionare. Where is this scheme does justice prevail?
The monopoly has more to do with M$ selling managers on the one stop shopping is better philosophy. If you want mediocre software that is tied together, then M$ is the way to go (And obviously lots of people bought into this). If you want new, different , truely innovative stuff; then you want to avoid the M$ philosophy (Although, I believe that the players would have been forced by customers to starting playing better with each other (If the M$ monopoly didn't exist)) so that we would now have innovative software (way better than the mediocre M$ stuff) that all works together nicely.
But i don't think the MS SW is mediocre at all, and most of their technologies are very innovative -- but their shrewd (read: illegal :) business practices have made other software (for the most part, i know there is some very innovative software out there) forced to the side.
I mean, lets face facts microsoft is not stupid -- for example, they contract some of leading mathmeticians and graphics researchers (such as Hugh Hoppes) to make DirectX and esp Direct3D an EXTREMELY innovative API.
The problem is that they are so huge they can afford to do anything and crush the little guys into using their software no matter if there is better software out there or not.
:P as i wrote this a little bubble had shown up on the corner of my screen that said 'New Update Ready To Download'. heh
why run from Vincenzo?
With .NET, the operating system is not as important as it once was.. in the future, a proper .NET program will run on any system that has a .NET compatible VM and the correct class libraries!
.NET Virtual Machines that will ever be 100% compatible with Office and other leading MS applications will be the one that Microsoft writes itself.
Funny, people were saying the same thing about Java five years ago.
The only
Do you honestly think Microsoft is going to maintain OS X or Linux/x86 versions of their VM with the same enthusiasm as their Windows VM's?
They have done crime with computers.
Who have? Gates and Ballmer? The executive VPs? Hundreds of developers? All Microsoft employees, inclusing the potwashers in the cafeteria?
They have created software which is so faulty that it's caused losses to other people counted in the Billions of Dollars. ( The cost of time needed to clean up after all the viruses and worms. )
1. Microsoft never created and released a product called MS Virus, nor MS Worm.
2. The losses that are reported due to virus attacks are 80% bullshit.
They have charged hundreds and thousands of dollars for bits of plastic worth cents. That's a con job netting 40 Billion Dollars.
IIRC the value of the raw chemicals that make up the human body is under $20. Should people be allowed to kill whatever people they want, so long as they pay twenty bucks?
Value of raw materials is not a meaningful indicator of total value.
They are now demanding money from people on a regular basis to provide continued access to their programs. In my country that's called a protection racket.
My landlady demands hundreds of dollars from me every month to provide continued access to my apartment. In my country that's called a lease.
You, Sir, are the idiot.
.NET will be ported to other OS's is an idiot.
.NET on FreeBSD is also nonsense?
Anyone who actually thinks that
So Ximian's Linux port is nonsense. Oh, and Microsoft's own source code for
I am, however, interested in this OCP thing you mention. What is it?
mogorific carpentry experiments
If Microsoft is going to be split into three companies, it should be split as follows:
1: Microsoft Games
Xbox, WinCE, Joysticks/Mice, Office
2: Microsoft Home
Windows XP, Works, MSN
3: Microsoft Enterprise
Windows 2000, IIS, Visual Studio
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
It may not be a deliberate strategy to goad and provoke the judge but when you do not have a case, that is all you can do.
This last motion was not really that out of line but a bit late and incorrect too.
It is common to make motions even when you think that will loose. If you do not make the motion, you can not appeal on the basis that it was denied. And, no doubt that Microsoft will go back to the appellate court and try to get them to remove the States as plaintiffs.
That is not likely to succeed however. You can read the opinion issued by this judge for the reasons. Too little AND too late as well.
But, what is very clear is that Microsoft will harm consumers and preclude competition without any reserve on its part. Consumers and customers simply do not measure up as being important. They are to be screwed with the forced purchase of Microsoft branded products no matter what.
Even Gates on the stand promised to appeal if he did not get his way with the court. So, Gates will continue to screw consumers as long as he possibly can.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
It is true that the attempted monopolization and tying issues were dropped by the DOJ and the States. Actually, the attempted monopolization issue was decided without remand in the favor of Microsoft. But, that decision does not foreclose AOL and SUN from charging Microsoft with attempted monopolization in their own private law suits. SUN actually assumes that IE is now a monopoly product and the AOL suit charges Microsoft with attempted monopolization.
Of course, Microsoft will publicly claim they were released of that charge by the appellate court. But, that is not true. At the time the appellate court reviewed the record, IE only had about a 50% share of the market. So, it was appropriate for the appellate court to decide against the DOJ on that issue. Facts are now completely different with the IE share near 95% or so. Plus, AOL now knows precisely what this appellate court wants to see by way of evidence for attempted monopolization.
As for the tying issue, that charge was remanded. But, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants wanted to take up that issue on remand. They could have but decided not to do so.
To be honest, the tying issue is better taken up by the AOL and SUN law suits anyway. AOL (same federal district) will have any appeal reviewed by the same court as the DOJ case. But, the SUN law suit is filed in the 9th Circuit. So, SUN and Microsoft will be appealing to a different appellate court. And, there is no telling whether they will agree on the law. The 9th circuit may like the per se tying argument and they may find that the rule of reason test is also met.
And, that leaves open the possibility that both the DOJ case and the eventual SUN case will be appealed to the US Supreme Court on the basis that two federal districts have arrived at different legal conclusions as to tying.
This means that the tying issue could actually remain unresolved for another 5 years or more despite the fact that the appellate court in the DOJ case decided that per se tying was not appropriate.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
I think you actually believe that the justice system of the United States has something to do with "Truth" as a serious concept. Anybody outside the country can clearly see it does not.
The american justice and legal system is a wonderfully complex chess game. You find the cleverest way to use the law to avoid having to tell the truth, and you win.
Microsoft understand this very well.
As much as I love another opportunity to demagogue the issues of the trial and Microsoft's behavior, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the law, this isn't a big deal. It is pretty much pro forma to file a motion to dismiss at every opportunity. The denial of such motions is pretty common also when there is ANY appearence of merit to the case. A conclusion of law from a federal judge and the upholding of that conclusion by an appelate court pretty much ensures that motions to dismiss will not fly. That really has nothing to do with what the ultimate sanction will be.
In other words, this is just the normal grinding of the legal wheels. I am a dyed-in-the-wool MS hater (just so you know my prejudices), but when I sit back and really try to be objective about it, I'm not sure that I can think of a remedy that would be effective that would not also represent a fairly egregious exercise of state power. The best one I can think of would be a mammoth fine (and I mean mammoth). Breakup actually worked for me, but it seems clear the appeals court wasn't going for it (and I'd have had a 3-way split: OS, apps, and media holdings). Forced opening of code seems to me to be a seizure of property which, again given my limited knowledge, seems unprecedented in a case like this. Besides, John Locke would come back and haunt us...
No, I'm thinking a mammoth fine. Something that really devalues the company. Something that will make shareholders spank MS management if they behave this way ever again.
Complicated stuff...
Dude, if Microsoft would do as you suggest, they could still co-operate. The idea of breaking up the corporation should be to bring back competition into the market. But the three companies, as outline, would not be competing over anything. If Microsoft were to be split up, it should be into multiple identical companies, so each new Microsoft can compete in all shared markets.
And the shareholders let two of the companies die, and pick one to live... Won't happen immediately, but within 5 years or so.
Also, small problem that CE/NT/2K/XP all share LOTS of code any more. Every wonder why CE devices require 10x the clock rates of a PalmOS device?
I agree with your opinion about the split. But it's interesting to think of the consequences of such a move.
Despite your assertion that their software is "light years" ahead, MS have no market leading software except for Windows and Office (and Exchange in the server room). They have hundreds of software titles, yet those are the only market leaders. Office alone accounts for 1/3 of their software revenues. A split into an OS and SW (basically an Office) company would have wide-reaching effects: Office revenues would no longer fund ongoing Windows development, such as it is, and I'm betting they would drop many of their other titles to focus on Office and perhaps rethink any sort of a closed approach to software services.
Anyway, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that controlling the operating system as well as the office suite that forces most people to use it (on commodity PCs) is the source of their ongoing monopoly. Would splitting them up end this? I don't know.
Don't forget Visual Studio(!) (and the new VS.NET IDE alone is amazing, but only time will tell how much revenue they get from that alone -- i see a bunch of companies moving to dotnet).
Sure they're sleazy, i think the only good thing they've done in a while was the conception of the *open* (and approved by ecma or something) dotNET CLR.
Also, I think IE and OE 6 are very good products (whether or not they are most targeted for exploits b/c of their popularity is beyond the scope of this discussion, however :), but so are Opera and Mozilla, thankfully, so we get some competition there.
It really is amazing how ppl from across the world can collaborate on such projects to compete with the big boys. I fear how long I can expect to get paid "big bucks" for SW dev, if open source is such a big threat to even MS...
why run from Vincenzo?
Oh yeah, don't forget DirectX -- Direct3D 8 is unbelievable. In the little while i messed around with it, you can build a framework for a simple 3d app in about 15 mins. There's some sick features that even games now aren't using...like vertex shaders and LOD (a LOT of potential there is being passed up by developers. :)
Course OGL will never die, god bless SGI. Some guy even wrote an entire dotnet assembly of interfaces for GL! entirely for free of course!
why run from Vincenzo?