Final Arguments in MS vs. the States

Bistronaut writes "Reports are in today on the final arguments between the 9 State Attorneys General and Microsoft (articles from eWeek). CNN also has a summary. Spoiler: States say, "Here are our priorities for reforming MS." - MS says, "We don't need no stinkin' remedy.""

Comments

finally

[idontneedanickname]

so this is finally over...

Re:finally

[Phroggy]

so this is finally over...

Uh, no, the judge still has to make a decision. And then it may be appealed. Sorry.

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

And nothing will happen to MS as they have probably paid off anyone who matters.

Re:finally

[Rasta Prefect]

Uh, no, the judge still has to make a decision. And then it may be appealed. Sorry.

Appeal? @#$%. I'm not sure I can handle this. Screw the CompSci major, does anyone know where I can get information on becoming a witch doctor to some tribe in Brazil thats never even heard of computers?

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bet that MS will appeal if the punishment that the judge decides on is the least bit unpleasant. What does MS have to lose but a little bit more money for attorney fees?

Re:finally

[hdparm]

little bit more money for attorney fees?

Generally, this would be missleading, since it is an oxymoron. Not in this case, though.

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it is over too, but... ;-)

Some pieces of pretty biased opinion reporting could be found on news sites today.
The most blatant (IMO) is the one I found at the Register: "CKK [...] had told the states and Microsoft to come up with some flexibility. The states did, Microsoft did not"

Firstly, they were "told to prepare to answer questions about", not "told to" (or "commanded to", as it was also referred to in the same article).

Secondly, the states weren't any more flexible in changing their demands as MS was in accepting them - actually, instead of showing some flexibility, they did exactly the opposite and added some weight to the one demand they knew very well MS would never agree with.

And frankly, that demand was and is gripped a bit too high (opening up windows sources to other software writers--read: competitors).

I never heard that the sources to Solaris could be downloaded like linux's. Netscape keeps its sources locked. And now MS is supposed to open them up for no better reason than that they're bigger?

I haven't believed for a microsecond that this demand really sprouted from the states' brains anyway, because the public won't benefit from it - only MS's competitors would.

I agree with MS on this: "The state's proposed sanctions were fundamentally flawed, and the states' demands go way beyond addressing the antitrust violations (news.com)

The fact that there are open source developers who think it's beneficiary to publish their sources, does not give anyone the right to demand the same from a company that doesn't believe in that pilosophy.

Re:finally

[yuri82]

here, read up on the subject:

witch tribes

then you can sign up here and get paid while you do your 'work' in the amazon

Re:finally

[whosit]

I can't possibly see why the parent has been modded as "insightful".

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially because symptoms of the opposite are there: the remaining states are the ones being sponsored.

Their number one most important demand (as given extra emphasis as the primary response to the judge's request for flexibility) is, under the slightest bit of scrutiny, beneficial ONLY to competitors who want to have a peek at MS's code without signing any non-disclosure or other agreements, and not in the least bit to the general public.

Let's stop and reflect

[TibbonZero]

Even all that Microsoft has done that is bad, lets think of the good things that they have also done for us. Where would we be without Microsoft's existance? How easy/hard would computers be to use? I don't think that Linux would even be as mature as it is because alot of people started off on Microsoft products, and turned to Linux as an alternative, but found their love of computers using Dos and Win3.1

Just an idea, perhaps they haven't done anything good, but I think that they have done some for us. We should think of this before we totally bash (no pun intended, well just a little) them.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[big_hairy_mama]

For one, without Microsoft I wouldn't have my beautiful Optical Intellimouse or my Natural Keyboard (can't type on anything else). And my friends wouldn't have their XBoxes, and I would never have played Motocross/Monster Truck Madness with my Sidewinder joystick.

IMHO, Microsoft's gaming/input/hardware development has been the shining jewel of their whole company.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

AS easy as the Macs?
Mac, XWindows, the list goes on about easy systems, but we ignore them, MS WAS NOT FIRST YOU DAFT FUCKWIT

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Phroggy]

Of course they've done good. They've also been convicted of breaking the law. Should we look the other way when Microsoft abuses their monopoly power, just because they've made computers more widespread? Should we look the other way when the county sherrif steals money, just because he's helped protect our community? Should we look the other way when a priest molests a child, just because he's done so much good in the church?

Think about what you're saying, and quit trolling for Microsoft.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Rude Turnip]

"...but found their love of computers using Dos and Win3.1"

Funny, when I got into computers back in 1991 I started with DOS and only began the love affair when I discovered OS/2.

Where would we be without MS? Imagine a best of breed OS that evolved from the best aspects of OS/2, BeOS and Linux, all three of which would have had mainstream support and decent marketshares years ago if the OEMs weren't scared shiteless of retaliation from MS.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[ken_mcneil]

Why did you have to go and remind me about Age of Empires 2? Now I'm going to have to go for two weeks without sleep as I get my fix. This will most likely cause me to have to retake all the classes I'm taking this summer. Thus, I wont graduate on time! Good job buddy!

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, without Microsoft there would not have been a Linux. Because of the success of Microsoft there are now hundreds of millions of computers out there that can't run the latest Microsoft bloatware, but are still perfectly good for running Linux. So thank Bill for the inexpensive hardware base we now have for open source!

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

I discovered OS/2.

There's always one. No-one but you cares about OS/2

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[themassiah]

Please notice that MS has -VERY- little to do with designing their own hardware. They outsource the design and manufacture, and just slap their name on it.

Typical MS tactics. Throw enough money around, you're bound to come up with something decent.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Rasta Prefect]

Where would we be without Microsoft's existance? Just an idea, perhaps they haven't done anything good, but I think that they have done some for us.

Running Netscape on OS/2 Warp? Running Mosaic on MacOS? Despite what they'd like you to believe, Microsoft has not contributed anything particularly vital to the ease of use of computers. The basic concepts can all be found elsewhere(and earlier). Windows at Xerox PARC and on MacOS. The mouse was invented well before Microsoft was founded. DOS was certainly nothing special, and Win95 didn't offer anything OS/2 wasn't doing well before. I fail to see any big favors they've done us.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[tomstdenis]

Typical MS tactics. Throw enough money around, you're bound to come up with something decent.

Forgive me for being naive but isn't that what most businesses call "R&D" ???

Tom

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

"Throw enough money around, you're bound to come up with something decent."

Your parents must have been quite poor, for they obviously didn't get anything decent out of you.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[mandolin]

Imagine a best of breed OS that evolved from the best aspects of OS/2, BeOS and Linux

I'd like to point out that while you were fantasizing, you neglected to include Amiga and MacOS.

The other possible response from any Apple die-hard would be "you mean OS X?"

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[kingkade]

you're right, ms was not the first to introduce a windowing system, neither was apple -- xerox was i believe (with Mosaic or something). Watch your language please. It just weakens your already misled argument.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[echelon13]

I'm sure my ignorance about OS/2 is showing, but didn't Microsoft play a role in the development of OS/2, at least in the early versions? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Other than that little detail, I completely agree with your post.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

OS/2 was Windows Warmed Over. Same shit from an even more monopolitic bunch of assholes than Microsoft. You, sir, are a dupe.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[MarvinMouse]

Yes Microsoft worked with IBM on OS/2 in the very early stages of development of OS/2. That is why WIN/OS/2 was quite effective. But then when Microsoft began to realize that OS/2 could be a problem with their market share (especially since it was a direct competitor to Win95), they pulled out. Thus, they didn't have to provide any Win95 abilities to OS/2.

Needless to say, IBM was not happy about this, and a scrum happened shortly after. Now, I think IBM is glad that through Linux and these court rulings they might get their vengence on the company that caused the most headaches for them.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[zod1025]

He means throwing money around to other folks, and getting them to build stuff for M$ to put their name on. The XBox is completely third-party designed and manufactured, with m$ holding the 'creative license'.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[tomstdenis]

What is so amazing about this though? I mean you think the people working at these outsourced companies get to put their name anywhere on it anyways?

For example, say you work for Nortel and designed the 1M modem. You can't call it the TomModem or whatever just because you worked on it.

Tom

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Rude Turnip]

Ooh...you're right...definitely Amiga!

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you mean Jaded.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

Without Microsoft, Linux would have to copy MacOS rather than Windows.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[JoeBlows]

ummm....

1) mosaic was a Web browser.
2) all Xerox had was a concept and a very limited proto type that had very little usability and was not envisioned for anything passed a grafical interface for their copy machines.

apple added all the rest, the desktop metaphore and beyond.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[ObviousGuy]

Along the same vein, most companies that you may consider 'big names' barely do much beyond slap their names on someone else's work. Take Sony for example, they may come up with a spec and basic design of a new device, but they surely don't develop anything themselves. They completely outsource all development and testing to other companies who make a mint doing this for the big names.

TVs, VCRs, and DVD players may look different on the outside, but underneath they are all the same parts put together by the same people, with only the shell being the differentiating factor.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[JoeBlows]

IBM was debatable as a monopolist..the definition of their monopoly was very very narrow in scope...so narrow, that it neglected the likes of digitaland others who competed for the same space that IBM was in.

infact, the DOJ droped the case eventualy becasue of lack of merrit.

OS/2 was as bullet proof as windows xp is today. it was hardly a warmed over version od windows.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[JoeBlows]

Linux would too have been around....Linus made Linux because of his disatisfaction of Dos and Minix.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah! My first love was a Timex Sinclair 1000! No OS, but hey, with a keyboard that cute, who needs one!?

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[pagan26]

Yes, Micr$oft also wrote OS/9 for the TRS-80 Color Computers. I loved it. To bad Tandy buckeled to the IBM clone revolution. :(

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Zeinfeld]

Please notice that MS has -VERY- little to do with designing their own hardware. They outsource the design and manufacture, and just slap their name on it.

Well yes and no, the only reason the hardware division exists is that Bill wanted a funny shaped keyboard and a feedback joystick and there was no other company making either at the time.

Come to that, the only reason they did the flight simulator was so Bill could play it.

Bill is just an uber geek with better toys than the rest of us and a company to build more if he runs out. The only reason MSFT gets stick on /. is that the lesser geeks get jealous.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, MS _licensed_ the flight simulator. SubLogic wrote it, and shipped it under its own name. MS bought the Windows version's license to ship under their own name, but SubLogic Flight Simulator continued to ship for the Apple ][, etc., for many years.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be slightly wrong. A few companies, like Apple and Sony, do internal design and R&D.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

Having worked for Sony as a third party, I have to laugh in your general direction. The clueless PMs at Sony barely have an inkling what the hell they are doing and simply pawn off all the work on third parties. They may have some marketing people working hard coming up with ideas, but beyond that they are another label sticking company.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

History of OS/2:

IBM -- We need a new OS for 286 customers!
Microsoft -- We've got this Windows thing, we could adapt it for you...
IBM -- OK. But first we need to change the names of all the APIs to make it incompatible.
Microsoft -- Just so long as the check clears.

IBM -- These clones are pissing us off. Let's introduce a proprietary architecture to get rid of them. Once everyone switches to OS/2, we can destroy commodity hardware and have total control over all PCs!!

And there's no way it was more stable than NT 3.51, much less XP.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

Think your timeline is a little off. OS/2 came out in 1987. After it didn't sell worth shit for 5 years, MS wrote WinNT and dropped out of the OS/2 project. OS/2 was already dead in the water by the time Windows 95 came out.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[esper_child]

actually linux wouldn't have been around for another reason. The PC would have failed as there would have been no MSDOS (and we all know where IBM went with OS/2). This might have been a good thing in its own right as it would have caused there to be some slightly more competent chips out there in the computer market instead of this 20 year old x86 archetecture. And Apple would rule the world (BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA).
Seriously though, where would the PC have been with out Microsoft's help in the matter. I don't really remember seeing PC's really going anywhere until Microsoft showed up with MSDOS or even Windows 3.1 for that matter. Before that the only computer I remember seeing were Apple ][ and TSR-80 style computers (and mainframes of course, but that is just in the wrong market for this topic). What the PC needed was someone to come around and make things simpler so that dumbasses could operate them. I mean the competition was simple to use, so you must retaliate with a simple product that appears more powerful (and to some extent is).
However, both IBM (until recently) and Microsoft (from the start and till the end of time) have proven themselves both too irresponsible for the amount of power that comes with what was going on in the PC world. What needs to be done is companies behave themselves and allow friendly competition, not this kill all competetors because competion stifles how much dosh we can make. And even if you take that attitude it should be your job to make as useful and well designed of a product as you can, don't go hording your cash and stabing your customers, you should be giving back to the community that gave you so much. This is part of what sucks about capitalism, people just don't know how to play nice. BTW, MS company parties are a real example of their excesses (as is the cafeteria that I visited at the Redmond site.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

And because commercial UNIX for PCs cost several thousand dollars. It's probably more accurate to say that if it wasn't for AT&T/Novell/Sun, there wouldn't be a Linux.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[tshak]

And yet, MAC was ahead of the ball until thet got lazy. And please don't get me started about OS2/Warp. I would have rather had a MAC at the time. MS was a 3rd runner OS once upon a time. It's not MS's fault that the competition sucked for most end users. Now that Apple finally got their act together with OS X, plus the cool hardware designs (iMac and TiBooks), they're definitely gaining marketshare. I know more PC people switching to Mac's then ever before. The same goes for Linux, even though it's still 2-3 years away from being a good desktop OS. Guess what, the market is correcting itself.

MS has done some wrong things (integrating IE NOT being one of them... Netscape sucked get over it), and the should be A) Punished and B) regulated so abuse doesn't happen again. However, the concept that they didn't contribute anything or much of anything to technology and that they should be severely punished as a corporation is purely formed by animosity towards a successful company.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[j_w_d]

MS used lots of code written forOS/2 in the early versions of NT. As late as 3.51 you could list system files in NT and find the "OS2" string in many of their names. When OS/2 first came out IBM was still trying to recover from the embarassment of inventing the open system design and making it possible for PC clones to capture a large part of IBM's market share. IBM further protected themselves from accusations of monopoly by pricing their OS, development and hardware systems well beyond what any sane person would spend.

However, for a brief, golden moment, wiser heads were - well not exactly dominant - at IBM and they started releasing OS/2 at more reasonable prices and shifting from the presentation manager to the Work Place Shell. By the time that OS/2 2.* and later, OS/2 3.0 (Warp) came out, MS was worried that OS/2 would compete successfully with NT. However, OS/2 was best compared with Win95 (whose lunch it could easily eat). Without the internet capabilities of Warp, which automatically set up network connections during installation, and introduced desktop network connection and URL link icons, MS users would still probably be stuck with the glorified MS bulletin board service that originally came with Win95.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[RAMMS EIN]

Funny, when I got into computers back in 1991 I started with DOS and only began the love affair when I discovered OS/2.

Keep in mind, though, that OS/2 was originally a joint MicroSoft/IBM effort. Of course, comparing the products that emerged after MicroSoft split off makes it obvious that all the good stuff comes from IBM. See this page for some more background on the history of OS/2 (as well as some other PC OSs).

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Mad Marlin]

all Xerox had was a concept and a very limited proto type that had very little usability and was not envisioned for anything passed a grafical interface for their copy machines.

Actually they used to have a good-sized computer business. The first computer I ever programmed on was a Xerox running CP/M, around 1985. My father worked for the U.S.D.A. (retired now), and back then he would let me play around on it whenever I would go in to work with him. The Xerox Alto was their graphical computer. I never used one of them myself, but they weren't just "prototypes". You can read about them at this guys website.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be pointed out, also that although Apple does do (most of) the design, manufacturing is outsourced to taiwan or korea. Final R&D is often done in manufacturing (working out the kinks and such). One way ore the next virtually every company offsources something somewhere.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[data_the_android]

Linux doen't have to copy MacOS. Now if KDE is almost exactly like Windows, thats another thing. But Linux didn't copy Windows, luckily.It's a *nix, like unix, not windows.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[tarmo]

Just a reminder, that MS did drive OS/2 out of the market, and OS/2 was in 1993 as advanced as Windows is just about now. So without Microsoft we wouldn't have had these QDOS based (Quick'n'Dirty Operating System) systems all these years.

And people wouldn't think it normal for computers to crash every other hour.

Microsoft labeled joysticks and games are pretty good, but they aren't strictly speaking made by Microsoft. MS is just the publisher.

Windows UI has nothing to do with usability or human interfaces in general. It's a failed copy of the Mac OS interface. It's sad that many Linux desktops are now forced to imitate Windows. Just like the QWERTY-keyboards of today have the same layout that the mechanical typewriters had to slow down typists so that the machine wouldn't get jammed. History never leaves us alone.

Microsoft has done a lot, but I really think that someone else would have done it, had Microsoft been away. And probably done it better, with the exception of Microsoft's marketing department, which is doing an excellent job making people believe they need poorly done software.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

I see references to OS/2 in a few posts here.

Seems like many have forgotten who wrote the first version of OS/2, and with that the basis later versions were built on.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[A_Non_Moose]

Optical mice an innovation of MS? (matter of fact, I think it was a link on/from /.)

Hardly. That honor goes to an engineer at HP if memory serves.

No opinion on anything else, but MTM is really good, mindless fun and the Sidewinder is Second only to The Logitec Wingman (too bad the hat switch did not last worth a damn)...or if you have money to burn...a ThrustMaster (really stiff stick, but, what would you expect from a company called "ThrustMaster"?).

Perhaps they should get out of the software business and make gaming/input hardware?
(joking, BTW...tho that depends on what CKK will say in the near future).

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, Micr$oft also wrote OS/9 for the TRS-80 Color
> Computers.

You sure about that? Not arguing, but I don't
recall anything like OS/9 being a Microsoft product.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[sharkey]

I fail to see any big favors they've done us.

What about humorous videos of sweaty bald men jumping around and screaming, "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVLOPERS!!"?

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[evilpenguin]

Correct. In fact, Windows 3.0 386 Enchanced Mode was the result of a Microsoft programmer and a friend (who wrote the softICE debugger) hacking the virtual 8086 code into Windows one late night "to see if they could." Microsoft's innovation was when they presented the results, it went all the way to Gates who said "go for it." If this had not happened, Microsoft would be just another vedor to IBM. Gates had the brains to see that he could turn their Windows, a lackluster poor performer that had made inroads pretty much only in desktop publishing, into a direct competitor to OS/2. Windows he owned and controlled. OS/2 was jointly owned by Microsoft and IBM (I have copy of Gordon Letwin's book "Inside OS/2" with a foreword by Bill Gates in which he declares OS/2 to be the OS for the 90's).

I'm a big MS hater, but let's face it: Gates' genius is in trusting the creativity of his people.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[kingkade]

Right sorry Mosaic was the pre-nutscrape GUI webbrowser. was trying to think of what the windowing system was called?

Limited prototype -- it was actually in a commercial system Star and Alto that were unsuccessful. google: Xerox PARC, WIMP

IMHO, of course apple and MS both improved on an idea "stolen" from Xerox. i say "stolen" b/c xerox just gave it away and i don't think you can patent the idea of a windowing sys/GUI. They also stole the mouse from those bright engineers..."do you actually expect ppl to use something called a 'mouse'?"

putting "ummmm" in front of your post doesn't make your point more obvious-seeming or make me feel stupid :) It's just fluff

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[chiahong]

Come on. This is business. How would you have done it if you're the strategic business development part of M$?

There are laws. Who gave them monopoly? They earned it because they have foresight.

I am not for M$. Infact, I like *nix but I can understand M$ and why they did what they have done.

Warm regards,
Acidjazz

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[JoeBlows]

the alto predates the Apple I. it was a home brew comuter.

Xerox may have bought the rights and changed it to a graphical computer, however that does not make them the inovater in GUIs. Apple created every thing on top of the GUI. and at the time they tured PARC, the GUI was ot much more that a graphical representation of a pointer for the mouse.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[JoeBlows]

yes there is...because it was.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[JoeBlows]

ummmmmm.....that is all it was intended for :-p

anyway, the mouse was invented in the mid 60's.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[JoeBlows]

well, I would just have to say duh for AT&T since they invented the dang thing.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[darkonc]

OS/9 was NOT (as far as I know) written by Microsoft. It was was also not written for the COCO. It was written for 6809 cpu's generally, and then ported to the COCO late in it's life cycle.

What MS did write for the COCO was the 'Microsoft Basic interpreter'. OS/9 required that you pretty much ditch all the MS code and go to an entirely different OS. I had OS/9 for a while, but I started using Unix a short time later... OS/9 Is essentially UNIX for a 64K address space.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[TimH]

What needs to be done is companies behave themselves and allow friendly competition, not this kill all competetors because competion stifles how much dosh we can make. And even if you take that attitude it should be your job to make as useful and well designed of a product as you can, don't go hording your cash and stabing your customers, you should be giving back to the community that gave you so much. This is part of what sucks about capitalism, people just don't know how to play nice. BTW, MS company parties are a real example of their excesses (as is the cafeteria that I visited at the Redmond site.

The problem is not capitalism. Contrary to popular Darwinist beliefs, capitalism is not based on survival of the fittest and competition, it is based on cooperation.

What is the alternative? Socialism? Socialism grants the same effect of a greedy monopoly, only on a much broader scale.

What we see in modern capitalism is not a problem of capitalism, per se, but rather the effects of a major moral decline, but then we don't like talking about ethics until we are wronged ourselves.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[bsane]

I too use a Microsoft optical intellimouse. I don't know if this is true, but I remember reading that HP did the hardware some no name company does the software and Microsoft specified the ergonomics. IMHO the ergonomics are the worst part of the mouse, they're not terrible just not great.

I do find one thing funny. I use one of the mice on my G4 and I have the middle button set up to command click thus opening a new browser. I can't find any way to do this under W2K. The software won't let you set a modifier with a click....

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Phroggy]

There are laws. Who gave them monopoly? They earned it because they have foresight.

Yes, and as others have pointed out here, having a monopoly is not illegal. There's nothing wrong with that. That's not what they've been convicted of.

Hello gentlemen !

[Anonymous Coward]

I've just poured hot bubble-and-squeak down my trousers!

Re:Hello gentlemen !

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your dog to lick it off quick or it will congeal and you'll be picking bits of cold cabbage out of your crevices for ages.

HTH.

Competitor's Integration...

[manly_15]

The 9 states want other companies to be able to replace Internet Explorer / Media Player / etc with their own products. Would the end user be able to do the same? Could I download the Opera display engine and replace the IE engine? Freeamp and Media player? Or would this be only availible to the large software companies (AOL and Real)?

Re:Competitor's Integration...

[Sabalon]

Or even worse - MS no longer shipping a version with their stuff in it (yeah right), but could you imagine...

I've got Dell Windows (Opera and RealPlayer)
Oh...I've got Gateway Windows (Netscape and Quicktime)
I've got Compaq/HP Windows (Opera and Quicktime)

I still don't see where a technical solution is needed, just a contractual solution.

Re:Competitor's Integration...

[phriedom]

So we would have choices? Real choices? I'm not seeing how that would be a Bad Thing.

Re:Competitor's Integration...

[Moofie]

Umm...

I have Opera, Quicktime, and Real installed on my computer, along with Mozilla 1.0 and IE6. It hasn't blown up yet. I fail to see what the problem is.

Re:Competitor's Integration...

[JanusFury]

That is SO not even possible... it's stupid. Think about it from a programming perspective:

You have to design your entire browser, OS, and all components, with the fact that anyone can rip out pieces of them and put in their own versions, in mind. You have to put in multiple layers of error checking, compatibility features, etc. And publish all your specs, just so Joe Blow can screw around with your libraries and then give your tech support a call, pissed off that they don't work anymore.

As a programmer, this idea pisses me off. If they don't want to be flexible, fine, then don't use their components - forcing them to ALLOW people to cripple their products (Imagine if Netscape crippled IE when you installed it, or if RealPlayer crippled Media Player when you installed it, or if AOL crippled windows' networking when you inst... oh wait, it does that)

It's much better to simply allow you to REMOVE the components - but then you have to deal with the fact that apps that use those components, won't work. The ability to insert a Media Player, Internet Explorer, etc. component into any app when I need a quick solution, is very, very useful. No other company has provided both things until recently (Netscape didn't have any simple embedding solution for a very, very long time, and Mozilla barely has one... QuickTime's embedding support is pathetic, and RealPlayer is just trash.)

Simply, this is a dumb idea. True, Windows should be easier to alter, but forcing MS to overaccomodate their competition and leave themselves blatantly open to attack, is downright stupid. If the same was asked of any other major commercial software company, they'd refuse. Can you replace the Netscape rendering engine? The RealPlayer media architecture? Hell no. Why? Because it wouldn't be realistic.

Re:Competitor's Integration...

[LeBleu]

There is already a product available that lets you modify binaries of programs that use the IE ActiveX component so that they use the Mozilla ActiveX component instead. If a standardized way for replacing the component was created, it would be even easier to do this.

Broken Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats the first time i've seen a broken link on slashdot to one of their own stories. It's fixed though. HORRAY!!!

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of the Macintosh? For that matter, the original DOS was hardly made by Microsoft.

Re:Question

[TibbonZero]

Yes in fact, and in addition I think that Apple has done many great things for the industry as well. Although they also have their problems, but they are getting better and so is Microsoft. And truely, is Mac really that great of a Development platform? I like macs mainly for multimedia, not programming OR Networking

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweetheart, I'm a web developer with over 7 years of experience developing on the Unix platform. Since I discovered Mac OS X, I've been hooked!

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

"web developer"

Considering the poor quality of most of the content on the web, I'm not surprized that a web developer would go for OS X.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

considering the poor quality of windows programming, I am not surprized that a programmer would choose Windows.

thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

for lone gunmening

Expected Outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

MS: Extends wrist
Judge: Whacks wrist
People: Don't care
Geeks: Express Horror
MS: Business as usual

It's never over

[Erris]

This will be over when the judgement is made. I look forward to M$ being punished for their misdeeds almost as much as I look forward to the supreme court hearing of arbitrary copyright extentions such as the Bono fiasco.

M$ is more doomed by Wal Mart's promotion of Linux. It will eat M$'s revenue stream and leave them breaking their apps to dominate an OS that no one wants any more. The end is indeed near. Go Mandrake!

Re:It's never over

[macdaddy357]

The worst that will happen is that Microsoft will be ordered to pay a fine. Compared to the company's net worth, it will be a pittence. Microsoft will then continue business as usual. Anti-trust laws have no teeth. The white collar criminals who violate them never do any time. Taking a million in fines from a billionare is not much punishment.

Re:It's never over

[duckygator]

WalMart's promotion will not eat into M$'s revenue stream at all. People buy home computers to match what they are familiar with at work. Until businesses implement alternate desktop environments, the common person will be too ignorant and intimidated to purchase anything besides what they use at work.

In America we love our freedom but give it all away to Bill
Guess file compatibility's worth more to us than our free will
"Kick" - Irrational Exuberance

Re:It's never over

[Anonymous Coward]

WalMart's stated publicly that the PC's without Windows are selling well, and have low return rates. Given that the Windows license would raise the price of their low=-end PC nearly a third, you can see why they'd be promoting PC's without Windows.

Re:It's never over

[iamplasma]

You are so right, yet so wrong. You're right when you say anti-trust laws have no teeth, but you're wrong when you say they can be ordered to pay a fine. The thing is that the laws have so little strength, they can't even do that! Anti-trust laws only permit structural or conduct remedies. Given that the break-up is almost out of the question now, Microsoft won't even get fined, they'll just have some minor restrictions placed on their conduct, which they will legally circumvent (which they have on multiple occassions before I believe). So basically, a million dollar fine would probably be worse for M$ than most of the likely outcomes of this case.

Well, times do change.

[MarvinMouse]

The two main changes that could be implemented will have such a strange effect on the industry. I really don't know what will happen.

If Modular Windows is required, then I am guessing the windows kernel will remain the standard used by most people since it supports the most software.

but if like the papers say, she chooses the alternative that the data has to be released. One of two things can happen.

1. MS's lawyers will find a loophole and just release enough code to get away with the ruling, but not enough to do anything significant.

2. or (and this is the best of all three) MS will have to release so much code that other OSs can be constructed that will work with MS programs. This is really nice, because then no OS will really be able to monopolize the market again easily.

Just some thoughts.

Re:Well, times do change.

[idontneedanickname]

then again...think about it...they DID make that code...i'm not saying that it would be BAD, just saying a little apretiation is due


don't hurt me *cowers*

Re:Well, times do change.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the event of option #2, Microsoft had a huge, easy, loophole.

Release the next version of all their products.

Microsoft has crappy compatability, so everyone will be forced to upgrade, and we'd all be WORSE off than a few years ago because we'd all know the government would be helpless.

Re:Well, times do change.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're right. I really think forcing MS to release _their_ source code would set a really bad precedent for the future. That is, if your software dominates X percent of the computing industry, you have to release its source code to be fair to competitors -- fuck the fact that you spent all that money and resources to make it in the first place. This would just mean competitors would get a free ride using another company's R&D.

Disclosing Source

[droyad]

Even if microsoft disclosed the source code, It would still be copyrighted. This means that people can't change it and re-distribute. It also means that you can't copy any of their code. I think it would be useless to developers to look at MS source code as they wouldn't be able to use it.

And for those who think about MS releasing the code and being able to use it like GPL code are on crack

Re:Disclosing Source

[TibbonZero]

True, we couldn't just do with it as we please. However, why should we to tell people that they HAVE to give up their rights to something that they put their time and money into? I think that if a person wants to keep their property, than they can, and if they want to share it, then so be it.

I personally don't mind Explorer, Media player, etc... I kinda minded the Microsoft Messanger thing, but that's just because it autolaunched.

Anyway, just my 2c

Re:Disclosing Source

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the states want MS to document file formats and communication protocols to promote competing products, not open the Windows source code.

Re:Disclosing Source

[Disevidence]

Not, people want the code to be released so they can develop native apps for it easier, using the libraries already there, and for things like the linux emulators. Openness of the code and the formats, not GPL'd, is what really should happen.

Re:Disclosing Source

[Tomble]

Well if you can see the actual code, then it helps you learn more about the nasty proprietary file formats and network protocols. True, sometimes some of these are documented to some extent- but it helps if you know how the main product actually interprets the spec, which may not match how it really should.

Beyond that, there are always clean room methods, but I don't know how effective these actually are at avoiding lawsuits and such things.

Re:Disclosing Source

[Jaysyn]

The problem is the MS doesn't *really* have $30 billion in cash reserves.

They have an army.

Yes folks you heard it here first, they have a huge underground complex beneath 1 Microsoft Way and millions of robort soldiers are preparing to march on Washington if the terms of surrender do not go as planned.

They will not be denied.

You have been warned.

Jaysyn

I can't be certain but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is Bill Gates himself trolling on slashdot in his spare time.

Here's ZDNet's Article

[grylnsmn]

ZDNet is running an article on this as well. It has some interesting comments posted by the readers in their Talkback section.

To Appeal or Not to Appeal

[vinn]

IANAL: I am not a lawnmower. I'm also not a lawyer.

Given that someone out there cares more than I do (I did care for the first two years, now I want a decision to stick), could someone please explain what will happen if the judge rules in favor of the states? Can Microsoft appeal? What if Microsoft wins? Can the states appeal?

What about penalties?

[VultureMN]

Most of the talk about the MS case centers around how to keep Microsoft from unfairly clobbering competition, which is good. But how come we never see anything about penalties for past behavior? How 'bout a nice 10 billion dollar fine (only 1/3 of Microsoft's cash reserve...) that we can then throw at the ISS? Yeah...

Re:What about penalties?

[Just Another Perl Ha]

Because, AFAIK, antitrust law has no concept of "penalty"... only "remedy". The whole purpose of antitrust laws (and the violations thereof) is to solve the problem of how to prevent the convicted monopolist from engaging in illegal behavior in the future.

This isn't like murder or rape; there is no "punishment"... only a "remedy".

Re:What about penalties?

[VultureMN]

I love google.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/1638.htm

2. What Are The Federal Antitrust Laws, And What Do They Prohibit?
There are three major federal antitrust laws: The Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The Sherman Antitrust Act has stood since 1890 as the principal law expressing our national commitment to a free market economy in which competition free from private and governmental restraints leads to the best results to the consumers. Congress felt so strongly about this commitment that there was only one dissenting vote to the Act.

The Sherman Act outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate trade. This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers. The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when only one firm provides a product or service, and it has become the only supplier not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct. The Act is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors; rather, that is competition working properly.

Sherman Act violations are punished as criminal felonies. The Department of Justice alone is empowered to bring criminal prosecutions under the Sherman Act. Individual violators can be fined up to $350,000 and sentenced to up to 3 years in federal prison for each offense; corporations can be fined up to $10 million for each offense. Under some circumstances, the fines can go even higher.

The Clayton Act is a civil statute (it carries no criminal penalties) that was passed in 1914 and significantly amended in 1950. The Clayton Act prohibits mergers or acquisitions that are likely to lessen competition. Under the Act, the government challenges those mergers that a careful economic analysis shows are likely to increase prices to consumers. All persons considering a merger or acquisition above a certain size must notify both the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. The Act also prohibits certain other business practices that under certain circumstances may harm competition.

The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce, but carries no criminal penalties. It also created the Federal Trade Commission to police violations of the Act.

The Department of Justice also often uses other laws to fight illegal activities, including laws that prohibit false statements to federal agencies, perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracies to defraud the United States and mail and wire fraud. Each of these crimes carries its own fines and imprisonment terms which may be added to the fines and imprisonment terms for antitrust law violations.

So the Sherman act -does- allow for penalties. Unfortunately, at 10 million per offence, that's pocket change for Microsoft.

Re:What about penalties?

[styopa]

You for got this important part.

Under some circumstances, the fines can go even higher.

This is very open ended, IMNAL but one could possibly interpret this as inflation has outdated the cap of $10 million and MS needes a $10 billion fine due to the damage it has done to the entire technology sector.

Immovable object and ? force...

[Vengie]

Quick exerpt...
---snip---
For their part, the non-settling states said additional disclosure of the source code that would allow rival software to work with the Windows operating system was their most important demand. "If you forced us to articulate the single highest priority -- that's it," states' attorney Steve Kuney told the judge.

---snip---

As far as Microsoft's priorities with respect to the proposed remedies are concerned, Sullivan said its top priority is to make sure the company is not forced to reveal more of its source code, insisting that doing so would substantially harm the company and give and unfair advantage to competitors, arguments that Gates and other Microsoft executives have made repeatedly in the past.

---snip---

Hello? Essentially, Microsoft says it's top priority is NOT doing what the states feel is the topmost remedy to the entire situation.

Again, DOJ and MS lock horns head on and it will come down to the Judge.

Dear god let us have a resolution already.

Microsofts attitude

[fava]

Quote from article:

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said that the company has always maintained that no remedy is in order, and the provisions outlined in the federal settlement go as far as the company is willing to go.

Why does Microsoft keep acting like this is a negotiation between equals. They LOST, the court has a right to impose any settlement that it deems fit irregardless of what Microsoft wants. Now if both sides could agree on a settlement if would result in a much quicker settlement without the endless appeals, but Microsofts approval of the settlement is NOT necessary or even desirable.

I am really getting tired of Microsofts attitude towards this whole trial. Take your lumps and move on.

Re:Microsofts attitude

[Eryq]

I am really getting tired of Microsofts attitude towards this whole trial.

Attitude, hell... I'm getting tired of the fact that the DOJ has been humoring it. In what other court case can you think of where, after the conviction (upheld on appeal) the judge basically says...

"Gee, guys... given that you're guilty and all, umm, you know... would it be okay, if, like, you maybe met with the injured parties and agreed on a sentence that was a little, you know, inconvenient for you? If that's ok with you, of course..."

Re:Microsofts attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for your information, irregardless is not a word

Re:Microsofts attitude

[Balinares]

Yes, that's kinda scary, isn't it?

Think of it: Microsoft acts like they're in a position to negotiate. And if there's something we've learned by now, it's that they may be crooks, but they're definitely not stupid.

Actually, I think Dave Winer wrote something about it (can't find the link though -- sorry!). Maybe there's indeed something MSFT can negotiate: government access to people's data. Remember that thing about the FBI wanting to spread viral spyware? I'm sorry, but that just didn't make sense -- why would they spread malware at random and hope to infect the right terrorists^Wpersons? Either they're clueless... or it's a cover-up story. I certainly hope they're clueless.

Gosh. I dearly hope I'm being paranoid here. Not that I use Microsoft software, of course... But still, that such a thing could happen scares the bejeesus out of me. Please tell me I'm wrong!

Re:Microsofts attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

"They LOST, the court has a right to impose any settlement that it deems fit irregardless of what Microsoft wants."

The plank! Make Billy G. and Monkey Boy walk the plank!

Re:Microsofts attitude

[WetCat]

Moreover, I am wondering why M-soft has a right to say a word in court now, when it is lost ?
IMHO remedy should be discussed without M-soft's presence and enforced under it.

Re:Microsofts attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

Here! Here! Elect this man!

Re:Microsofts attitude

[Maserati]

Actually, since MS lost, they Feds have some leverage where before Bill might have stood on principle (the mythical NSA Key notwithstanding). The remedy might be: we won't fuck you over if you wear this wire...

Re:Microsofts attitude

[DoctorFrog]

Just for your information, irregardless is not a word [dictionary.com]

You mean it's a "nonstandard" word. So what? Many words start off that way and grow up to become standard English.

Re:Microsofts attitude

[styopa]

I'm getting tired of the fact that the DOJ has been humoring it.
Change in administrations tends to do that. The Bush administration favoring big companies, surprise surprise.

Re:Microsofts attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

How can they not humor it? I'm sure the trickling down of money is extending this! We all know Mr. Gates has his money hands in everyoned pocket!

Re:Microsofts attitude

[jcoleman]

"Irregardless" is not a word. You're looking for "regardless."

Or maybe you were trying to sound like Paulie Walnuts from The Sopranos... ;)

Re:Microsofts attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's a nonsense word which taken at face value would mean the opposite of what ignorant people take it to mean.

Micro$oft logic

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as Microsoft's priorities with respect to the proposed remedies are concerned, Sullivan said its top priority is to make sure the company is not forced to reveal more of its source code, insisting that doing so would substantially harm the company and give and unfair advantage to competitors, arguments that Gates and other Microsoft executives have made repeatedly in the past.

Microsoft also previously has argued that the states' demands go far beyond addressing the antitrust violations it actually committed and would harm consumers and the entire computer industry.

So, disclosing source would benefit all of Micro$oft's competitors, but harm the entire computer industry??? How can that be, unless Micro$oft considers themselves to be "the entire computer industry"??? What economic textbook teaches them that reining in a monopoly harms consumers?

You've got to give a lot of credit to the M$ lawyers for actually making these claims in court while keeping a straight face, but I suspect the judge is not amused by these insults to our intelligence.

Re:Micro$oft logic

[ch-chuck]

and would harm consumers and the entire computer industry.

This is GM's argument from the 50's - what's good for GM is good for the country, only now it's Msft that IS the 'computing industry'. They ARE the computing industry, anything you do to harm the company will harm the computing industry and it's customers, so they say.

Priests

[TibbonZero]

Wow, that Priest compairision was really great, I would have modded you up some if I hadn't already started talking on this topic and had a few points.

Good points too

various possible penalties.

[Alien54]

keep trying to think of what would be the fairest penalty, and then they go do something that just pisses me off. So I finnally just throw my hands up and say to hell with them

Since they should not have any benefit from any illegal act they have done, and since they were convicted of something, they should probably "dis-intergrate" the connection with the internet, and take anything primarily connected to the internet such as browsers, and MSN, and web server stuff, etc, and spin it all off as a separate company.

things which are not primarily an internet thing (the OS thing, Office, etc) should be retained as another company.

And the two compamnies should not be able to do any business with each other for 5 or 6 years, basically the length of time they have had the benefit of their illegal actions.

nothing much, just my rant.

Final Arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

MS: Here is the money.
Court: Thank you!

The People versus Bill Gates

[sam_handelman]

Okay, I've got the script.

Basically, I've rewriten Bill's uninteresting personal life to be just like Larry Flynt's. Sorry, to be just like the personal life Larry was given in the movie. In Bill's case, we can gloss over the child pornography because it didn't happen.

If someone had asked you before The People vs. Larry Flynt "can Courtney Love act?" you would say "No," but she did. Therefore, Britney Spears will play Mrs. Gates. She will play a heroine addict - she will win an Oscar. If Britney Spears gets an Oscar, it must be God's will. He works in mysterious ways.

Bill Gates, who is every bit as ethical as Larry Flynt, is the hero of the picture. Only one man can make such a part work: Samuel L Jackson. Seth Green ("Scott Evil") spins well among teens - he'll cameo as Ashcroft. We've seen recently that only one man has the radiant malifluousness to play Judge Thomas Penfied Jackson: Christopher Lee. He'll really bring home the senseless brutality of the breakup order. Kevin Costner will produce and direct - he'll also play a fictionalised Gestalt of all of Bill's lawyers. Kevin is the only one who can make this star-bloated, ishtaresque monster expensive enough to actually sink a studio. Running Time: 4 hrs, 11 min.

At the end of the picture, we roll Bill on in a wheelchair and he dedicates the picture to that mousy wife of his. Oh, yeah, she needs to die.

The only question is - how can we convince Bill Gates to go before the court of appeals wearing a diaper?

Re:The People versus Bill Gates

[RocketRay]

>Bill Gates, who is every bit as ethical as Larry Flynt,

"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you." -- Larry Flynt

Larry Flynt is *way* more ethical than Bill Gates.

Re:The People versus Bill Gates

[sharkey]

Running Time: 4 hrs, 11 min.

That sounds awfully short for a Costner film.

Something that sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you've been listening to an audiobook for 3 hours and then realize the player has been set to randomize.

no no no, it's more like this...

[jdbo]

States: Gates is a Poo-Poo Head! And here are thousands of reasons why, though we have neglected to organize and present them a focused and useful manner. Also, Ballmer smells.

BillG + lawyers: Well, I'm rubber and you're glue, your thousands of reasons bounce off of me and stick to you!

States: Uh, uh, uh, wait, that doesn't mean anything! I read in some law book that you actually have to refute our reasons and stuff!

BillG + lawyers: Too late! We already said it! And look, here's our press release declaring that you smell your own farts! Nyah-nyah!

States: Rats! We'd better focus our remaining arguments on declaring that we're not fart-smellers!

Ballmer: Hey! I don't smell my own farts! (dances like a sweaty monkey)

----------

Seriously, does anyone expect anything genuinely more informative than that from their arguments? the DOJ let MS dictate many of the terms of the debate, and wasted too much effort fighting MS on their own semantic turf, focusing insanely on the conceptually murky(-able) browser issues rather than looking at the "smoking gun" issues (such as OEM licensing and dual-booting, DR-DOS "incompatibility", even Apple and MS-Office). The states haven't done much of anything to expand on the DOJs well-supported, but poorly-executed arguments.

Not that MS has come up with any non-philosphical arguments themselves - most of their objections are based on the idea that the law shouldn't apply in their "special case", which is based on "software is different/MS is too economically vital to mess with/Gates is a lovey-sweetums and everyone should just love him back".

For crying out loud, the debates about post-modernism I attended in art school never achieved the bull-headed, pseudo-articulate, self-important levels of idiocy that this trial has.

And now I've added to it..

Blech.

Re:no no no, it's more like this...

[medcalf]

For crying out loud, the debates about post-modernism I attended in art school never achieved the bull-headed, pseudo-articulate, self-important levels of idiocy that this trial has.

Art students, unlike lawyers, at least care about the positive or negative aesthetics of what they are debating. They are just (generally) overeducated to the point that they actually think that 'subliminal counterinfluence of the overriding metaphor of substance' means something. Lawyers, on the other hand, are carefully trained to know exactly how to say something which sounds like it means something, while actually having no semantic content.

Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[billstewart]

The anti-trust suit has been bogus from the beginning. There were four fundamental issues (three Federal, one state-level), and the proposed definitions of the "crime" and remedies for it don't fix them.

• Microsoft gave away their browser for free! Those bastards! Of course, this complaint was loudly made in Congress by Netscape, who gained their market dominance by giving away their browser for free, which was hypocritical at best. The obvious cure for this problem is to force Microsoft to open-source their browser, i.e. give it away for free.... Oh, wait.... Microsoft has done a lot of work to integrate their browser into their operating system as an interface tool, perhaps as a defense against the anti-trust attacks, but since the late 90s, that's been a Technically Right Choice to make. It would be nice if they'd done it a bit better, and used a bit less non-standards-based content to do it, but it's still the right choice.
  
• Microsoft wholesale contracts to PC hardware makers were aggressively obnoxious about "you must pay us for a copy of Windows on every box you ship if you want to get the best wholesale prices", which means that consumers who don't want Windows did end up paying about $30 more per PC than if they could have bought the bare metal. Perhaps this gets into anti-trust territory for the Feds, but Microsoft was backing down on this before the states got into the game.
  
• Bill Gates is Obnoxiously Rich and that made lots of people jealous, especially liberals and old-industry conservatives. That's nobody's business, and if the Attorney General wants to regulate Sin, he should be going after Envy as well has his favorite target Lust.
  
• The state-related issue: Feeding Frenzy!! The states got a bunch of cash out of the tobacco companies, and a bunch of state attorneys general got themselves re-elected for doing such a great job, and they're trying to do the same here.

I've proposed several remedies for the problems, none of which have a chance of getting adopted :-)

• Bill Gates *should* have short-circuited the problem by taking $3B of his own money, saying "OK, Atty.Gen. Janet Reno, if you don't like our practices, here are 2 Million Macintoshes for the Federal Government to use, give back all your copies of Win95 for a $100 refund, and go bother Steve Jobs for a couple of years." Given the drop in MSFT stock price that resulted from the anti-trust attack, he'd have been better off personally by doing it :-)
  
• Bill Gates still *can* tell the Feds and the States "OK, if you don't like it, we'll refund your purchase price for all your copies of Windows98 and Windows2000, except the ones that you copied illegally, here are 5 million blank CDROMs and a copy of BitTorrent, and go bother Linus for a couple of years."
  
• Gates can propose that the if the states and the Feds don't like MS giving away Windows Exploiter for free, that they could pay $29 for each of their copies and require that anybody who's running Windows 95 or newer also pay MS $29 for it.

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[slavetrade55]

Man, my hat goes off to you. I wish I could mod you up. God knows no one around here has balls enough to do it.

--RMT

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

since the late 90s, that's been a Technically Right Choice

Integrating the browser wasn't the right choice. Thats like saying "I'd rather have a virus that wipes all my files instead of just a few".

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[Arker]

Microsoft gave away their browser for free! Those bastards! Of course, this complaint was loudly made in Congress by Netscape, who gained their market dominance by giving away their browser for free, which was hypocritical at best. The obvious cure for this problem is to force Microsoft to open-source their browser, i.e. give it away for free.... Oh, wait....

The problem wasn't just giving the browser away, it was leveraging their OS monopoly to obtain a browser monopoly. Yes, legally, if you have a monopoly there are some things you can't do that everyone else can do.

Microsoft has done a lot of work to integrate their browser into their operating system as an interface tool, perhaps as a defense against the anti-trust attacks, but since the late 90s, that's been a Technically Right Choice to make. It would be nice if they'd done it a bit better, and used a bit less non-standards- based content to do it, but it's still the right choice.

It's never been 'a Technically Right Choice' in any sense of the word, that's just horseshit. It's been done for one reason and one reason only - to sabotage the consent decree.

Microsoft wholesale contracts to PC hardware makers were aggressively obnoxious about "you must pay us for a copy of Windows on every box you ship if you want to get the best wholesale prices", which means that consumers who don't want Windows did end up paying about $30 more per PC than if they could have bought the bare metal. Perhaps this gets into anti-trust territory for the Feds, but Microsoft was backing down on this before the states got into the game.

They were? Huh? They still use the same tactics today.

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

> Microsoft has done a lot of work to integrate their browser into their operating system as an interface tool, perhaps as a defense against the anti-trust attacks, but since the late 90s, that's been a Technically Right Choice to make. It would be nice if they'd done it a bit better, and used a bit less non-standards-based content to do it, but it's still the right choice.

Then, please name the other OS vendor(s) who have integrated their browser technology so thoroughly into their OS that flaws in the browser application show up in completely unrelated applications.

No, It was NOT a technically right choice, any more than moving video drivers into ring 0 to speed up video response on a professional-level OS (NT). Marketing choices, one and all.

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[vample]

The problem wasn't just giving the browser away, it was leveraging their OS monopoly to obtain a browser monopoly. Yes, legally, if you have a monopoly there are some things you can't do that everyone else can do.

Of course Microsoft was not declared a monopoly until after these decisions were made. You cant suggest that their decisions on pricing of IE should have been made with the forsight that they'd later be declared a monopoly.

It's never been 'a Technically Right Choice' in any sense of the word, that's just horseshit. It's been done for one reason and one reason only - to sabotage the consent decree.

How many consumer desktop OS's ship without a browser? Its clearly a key feature for any OS - so key that its an essential part, like email. You cant deliver a consumer OS w/o it.

So if a browser is a key feature, why not use its functions elsewhere in the OS? Particularly as a way to work toward next generation UI? Doing things like Add/Remove Programs or file Explorer sidebars in HTML has real use. And its a good way to for your dev team learn how future UI is going to be built and what features and tools you'll need to create. More and more 'apps' are web sites with HTML UI, its logical that UI on the desktop might be developed with similar technology.

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[Arker]

Of course Microsoft was not declared a monopoly until after these decisions were made. You cant suggest that their decisions on pricing of IE should have been made with the forsight that they'd later be declared a monopoly.

The first sentence is true, and it does hint towards some substantial theoretical problems with antitrust law. Just for the record, I'm not in favour of our antitrust laws. But it's ridiculous to think that MS wasn't aware that they had a monopoly which they were leveraging to gain another one - their own emails made that fact incredibly clear. They knew what they were doing was illegal - they didn't know that they would actually be *charged* or *convicted* for it, true, but that's hardly an excuse.

How many consumer desktop OS's ship without a browser? Its clearly a key feature for any OS - so key that its an essential part, like email. You cant deliver a consumer OS w/o it.

It's a commonly used application. There are plenty others. None of them have any business being "integrated" into an OS for technical reasons - and even if that was not true, it's clear that the actual reasons for the integration were to force usage of IE for business reasons, not technical ones. Do you understand the difference between an OS and an application?

By your logic, should't all common applications be "integrated" with the OS? MSOffice could be a system component too. How many "consumer" computers are used without an internet connection? Maybe MSN should just be integrated into the OS too?

An OS isn't an application program. OSs which work well are designed by those who understand that fact. They provide a critical abstraction layer between applications and the hardware, enabling the users to run the applications they choose with the minimal of unecessary effort. That's ALL they do. "Integrating" applications is bad design, from a technical point of view. But very good design, of course, if you are a monopolist trying to leverage your monopoly to capture new markets...

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[vample]

Do you understand the difference between an OS and an application?

And do you understand the difference between a usable consumer desktop and something that boots to an empty shell?

I think an OS that is useful without additional commercial software is valuable. OS X has a browser, email, text editor out of the box. And free dev tools. As a consumer, I think thats a *good* thing.

As a developer, OS X would be better if there was a standard HTML widget that I could depend on. I presume Apple will fix that soon enough. Microsoft did that long ago.

By your logic, should't all common applications be "integrated" with the OS?

Not common, but essential ones. Like a browser, text editor, email reader, media viewer, and the like. And that list evolves over time. Today it includes a browser, 8 years ago it didnt. What about other applications, like email, TCP/IP or disk defraggers? Are you suggesting we should all be buying our email app, our TCP/IP stack, or our disk defragger like we did 10 years ago, rather than having it come with the OS?

MSOffice could be a system component too.

There is already Wordpad/Notepad and Outlook Express for the essential functions. But if integrating Office gave me spellcheck in every text area rather than just Office apps, I'd love it.

How many "consumer" computers are used without an internet connection? Maybe MSN should just be integrated into the OS too?

Windows XP ships with MSN. AOL still sees plenty of use though.

An OS isn't an application program. OSs which work well are designed by those who understand that fact. They provide a critical abstraction layer between applications and the hardware, enabling the users to run the applications they choose with the minimal of unecessary effort. That's ALL they do. "Integrating" applications is bad design, from a technical point of view.

An OS has all kinds of applications, and nothing in Windows keeps you from running the browser of your choice.

A simplified example is suggesting you prefer 'pine' to 'mail' and want to remove the 'mail' application from a linux machine. But various other applications require 'mail' for certain shell scripts to work. A web browser is alot more complicated than a simple MUA (and thus more likely to break something if you swap in a different one), but both can certainly have real reasons for being 'integrated'.

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[Arker]

I think an OS that is useful without additional commercial software is valuable. OS X has a browser, email, text editor out of the box. And free dev tools. As a consumer, I think thats a *good* thing.

It is a good thing. But OS X doesn't try and prevent you from removing those tools and replacing them.

Not common, but essential ones. Like a browser, text editor, email reader, media viewer, and the like. And that list evolves over time. Today it includes a browser, 8 years ago it didnt. What about other applications, like email, TCP/IP or disk defraggers? Are you suggesting we should all be buying our email app, our TCP/IP stack, or our disk defragger like we did 10 years ago, rather than having it come with the OS?

No, silly, of course not. I'm suggesting that users should be able to cleanly replace the implementations shipped in favour of their chosen implementations if they so choose.

MSOffice could be a system component too.

There is already Wordpad/Notepad and Outlook Express for the essential functions. But if integrating Office gave me spellcheck in every text area rather than just Office apps, I'd love it.

You can remove notepad and wordpad and replace them with, for instance, NTEmacs. Make the proper registry entries and everything works fine. That's a totally different case from IE, where a great deal of time has obviously been spent pulling all kinds of bullshit to make it as difficult as possible to remove it and replace it with Mozilla. There is no technical reason it should be difficult, it's simply a matter of MS making technical decisions for political reasons. If you want to add things like global spellcheckers, btw, that's not something all that hard to write. You don't need to have a monstrosity like Office around to do it, and you certainly don't need to *integrate* Office like IE to do that.

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[vample]

It is a good thing. But OS X doesn't try and prevent you from removing those tools and replacing them.

And the value of this is what?

If you want to use another tool, you can install it and use it on Windows XP as well. But you cant remove the HTML renderer because Windows needs it to access Windows Update and a number of other core OS features. I'm sure if you removed Quartz libraries, OS X would have some problems as well. MS has used the "browser" as simply another GUI toolkit.

I'm suggesting that users should be able to cleanly replace the implementations shipped in favour of their chosen implementations if they so choose.

As a user, your free to replace whatever you'd like on your copy of Windows. Purchase Eudora if you'd like. Or Word. Having a copy of Outlook Express or Wordpad installed doesnt stop you from doing that.

If you use another browser, why do you care some components of IE are installed, doing rendering for parts of the OS UI? Or do you just want to dictate what technologies MS can use to build its OS (but other companies are able to choose freely)?

That's a totally different case from IE, where a great deal of time has obviously been spent pulling all kinds of bullshit to make it as difficult as possible to remove it and replace it with Mozilla. There is no technical reason it should be difficult

Thats bullshit. I've built non-web application UI in HTML, and its hard enough making it work in multiple versions of IE, much less Mozilla.

Go try and write a Microsoft's Add/Remove Programs, or the Organize Favorites feature of MSN Explorer so that it doesnt matter if Mozilla or IE is the underlying engine and tell me its not difficult.

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[Arker]

And the value of this is what?

If you don't understand the value of being able to choose your apps then I've got to wonder why I'm bothering to talk to you at all.

If you want to use another tool, you can install it and use it on Windows XP as well. But you cant remove the HTML renderer because Windows needs it to access Windows Update and a number of other core OS features.

On earlier versions you can remove it, with some difficulty, so MS has tied it into even more subsystems. I'm sure they'll eventually be able to figure out a way to make the whole OS break without it no matter what you do. That doesn't say anything about any need for it in a technical sense - it just means they've figured out how to make stuff break if you do something they don't want you to. As I say, I remove this junk immediately on boxes running earlier versions, all the way up to Win2k boxes, I am quite familiar with the technical details. And no, windows update doesn't 'break' - I have all critical updates installed just fine thanks. What 'breaks' is largely cosmetic features that appear to have been invented simply to provide a rationale to tell the court they couldn't remove IE. No other OS has such 'features' and there are several that are easily as capable as XP.

If you use another browser, why do you care some components of IE are installed, doing rendering for parts of the OS UI?

For several reasons. Removing IE entirely improves the OS in numerous ways. The system cycles faster, it runs faster in less memory, it takes less storage space and it has FAR fewer security holes without IE. This is not speculation, this is experience.

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[jreames]

Actually microsoft licensed spyglass mosiac.. The product was initially a separate product, with a separate price tag.. Then they finally gave it away for free....

When you pay for something then give it away for MUCH less than its worth, in order to force rivals to cut prices or go out of business, isn't this caled "DUMPING" ?

Isn't sumping something that has typically been viewed as a "bad thing" ?

Anyhow how about we go FURTHER back, to win3.1 and look at how windows 3.0 would install on top of any dos, but 3.1 would only install on top of genuine MS-DOS, generating an error if you were not using MS-DOS (ie DR-DOS) (that indicated compatibility problems.) Strangely enough if you installed DR-DOS after win 3.1 there were zero issues and the combination seemed more stable than ms-dos and windows.

Special treatment?

[klui]

Do companies get special treatment when they've been convicted of a crime or is it just Microsoft? According to http://news.com.com/2100-1001-937326.html, the judge asked both sides to seek a compromise and "asked the plaintiff states "how could the defendant's proposed remedy be modified to make its terms more acceptable to plaintiffs." She also asked what changes the states would make to their remedy to satisfy issues raised during the court proceeding while still maintaining the remedy's goals."

So if some normal schmoe is convicted of a crime, does this person get to have remedies changed so it's more "acceptable"?

Re:Special treatment?

[Chris Johnson]

If I was a psychotic compulsive bank robber convinced that all banks must be robbed (but not a complete fool), and I was in court having a restraining order thrashed out, then:

-if the judge asked me 'Will you obey the restraining order?' I would likely have sense enough to protest that of course I would, your Honor.

-if the Judge asked me 'What parts of this restraining order are fair and reasonable?', I would likely erupt in wild diatribes about how it's all totally unfair and unreasonable... which would be the truth as I saw it... and would be a far more revealing answer to the first question than you'd get from asking me the first question directly.

Microsoft, in their closing argument, have made it absolutely clear that they will not cooperate with the eventual ruling in any way, and will continue to devote all their resources to evading it and denying it. I think the Judge asked them about it on purpose, to see how they'd react. Now we know. And now she knows.

Re:Special treatment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft, in their closing argument, have made it absolutely clear that they will not cooperate with the eventual ruling in any way, and will continue to devote all their resources to evading it and denying it. I think the Judge asked them about it on purpose, to see how they'd react. Now we know. And now she knows.

Now the question is, will the judge take the crucial, all-important Next Logical Step and conclude that since microsoft is clearly determined to not follow the ruling by any means necessary, the only way to get any judgement she wants to hand down enforced is to have microsoft split?

Microsoft's complaint

[TheFrood]

Microsoft lead attorney John Warden told Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that the states' proposed remedy was punitive...

Yeah, imagine that. Being convicted of a crime and then actually being punished. What a crazy world we live in, huh?

Cheap humor aside, can anyone explain (and IANAL, so I'm asking honestly here) why a company that lost an antitrust suit gets to make arguments about what the punishment should be? If a private citizen is successfully sued, does s/he get to go through another round of hearings arguing that s/he shouldn't be penalized?

Frood

Re:Microsoft's complaint

[MobyDisk]

If a private citizen is successfully sued, does s/he get to go through another round of hearings arguing that s/he shouldn't be penalized?

0) IANAL.
1) Microsoft was not sued.
2) In a criminal case, yes.

Re:Microsoft's complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I think an anti-trust remedy is not a matter of "punishment" as much as it is a matter of placing checks to ensure a more competitive environment and that the offending company does not once again exploit it's monopoly status.

It doesn't make sense to me because if you can be charged and found guilty of abusing your monopolistic powers, then some laws must be in place to have a basis to find that company guilty. I feel like many others that it should be a punitive case, since they knew the lines and they crossed them, but I've been informed that that apparently is not the way we do things.

*shrug*

~Z

Re:Microsoft's complaint

[swillden]

I feel like many others that it should be a punitive case, since they knew the lines and they crossed them, but I've been informed that that apparently is not the way we do things.

No, that is the way we do things, but in a different context. The government's role in anti-trust cases is not to punish for past offenses, but to ensure that everyone plays fairly going into the future. And, of course, a monopoly has to play by more restrictive rules than a regular business to avoid being anti-competitive.

But harm *was* done by MS' anti-competitive behavior, and recompense/punishment is in order. Who should get it? Under our system, the companies who were damaged by it.

All of the individual companies that can demonstrate their businesses were significantly damaged by MS' anti-competitive tactics can now file suit (and several already have) and ask the court to award compensatory and, I have been told, even punitive damages. Now that the Feds have done their part and gotten the courts to rule that Microsoft is and was a monopoly, the way is clear for everyone else to attack.

Want job security? Get a law degree and join Microsoft's legal staff.

Re:Microsoft's complaint

[alwaldauer]

Isn't it a settlement, and not a punishment. Typically in a settlement both parties agree upon terms. So then Microsoft does have a say in what the punishment should be. If the two cannot agree then the case goes further and the government decides punishment. Anyway, it seems a lot of people are missing that it is a settlement and that in a settlement both sides do indeed have to agree.

Re:Microsoft's complaint

[swillden]

No, the settlement was attempted but was rejected by the nine dissenting states. So now the judge gets to pick the remedy. Note that I said "remedy", not "punishment". The government's role is to define and enforce a set of rules (the remedy) that will prevent Microsoft from continuing its anti-competitive behavior, not to punish Microsoft for past anti-competitive behavior.

The real punishment will come in the form of judgements in other trials in which the damaged parties (like Netscape) sue Microsoft for damages.

Being from Iowa...

[alan_dershowitz]

I don't quite understand Iowa's involvement in this lawsuit. Every Place (save one) that I've worked at since 1995 has been pretty entrenched in win95/NT4.0, placing it firmly in "IE not yet integrated" territory. The last two places I've worked at were just installing Win2k within this last year.

Furthermore, no one here even seems aware that "we" are suing anyone. If this is being done by the people's will, what people? Where are they? I haven't met any.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be sued, but that its pretty unconvincing that anyone besides a few money-grubbing bureaucrats are begind these lawsuits.

Re:Being from Iowa...

[Guido69]

Hello there. I'm one of the people. Now you've met one, so go away.

Re:Being from Iowa...

[Red Rocket]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be sued, but that its pretty unconvincing that anyone besides a few money-grubbing bureaucrats are begind these lawsuits.

Where, in the states' proposal, do you see the part where the "money-grubbing bureaucrats" are demanding money?
Even if they were demanding money, it wouldn't go into the bureaucrats' pockets. It would go to the people in the form of revenue to the state. I'm from one of the 9 states with a dog in the fight and I'm very happy I have an Attorney General willing to fight for my rights as a consumer to be allowed to choose which products to support rather than having an unchecked corporate monopoly choose for me.

Something really wrong here

[JoeCommodore]

Court: Ok, we know you are guilty and you should be punished... so.. any ideas on how we should punish you?

WHY IN THE GUL-DURNED HECK ARE THEY ASKING MICROSOFT HOW THEY SHOLD BE PUNISHED?

It's like asking ol' Charlie Manson if he thinks our locking him away is ok.

This isn't a trial it's more like a government funded PR circus.

:-(

Re:Something really wrong here

[Chris Johnson]

Um, to see how they answer?

Never underestimate the twistiness of a lawyer- and judges are uber-lawyers.

I'd have done the same thing. It's way more effective than asking them, "Are you going to obey the outcome of this proceeding, or laugh at it and scorn it?" You don't ask them directly, 'are you going to obey the law'. You ask, 'how much of this is reasonable and just'. If they take it as an opportunity to grandstand, you know they're gonna ignore the ruling, because they don't believe in it, or in the law.

FWIW, I burst into incredulous, delighted laughter just seeing the news.com subhead about what Microsoft had done for a reply to the question. Forget foot-shooting: they've blown off their f**king leg here. Spectacularly bad judgement. And Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a smart lady :D

Re:Something really wrong here

[pkesel]

Probably not such a bad response actually. Any other response is admitting something that may not be in their favor. It's like asking them, "When did you stop beating your [wife|dog|kids]?" Any answer but a fullly explained denial of the plausability of the question is an admission of guilt.

Re:Something really wrong here

[Royster]

It's actually quite routine. After a Criminal trial, there is a sentancing hearing at which the prosecution can recommend a sentance (say, the maximum or perhaps something less) and the defense can offer reasons why a lesser sentance should be imposed. Usually regret or extenuating circumstances are shown that might convince a judge to issue a lighter sentance. But the judge still chooses the appropriate sentance and may impose a higher sentance than the prosecution asks for (but not greater than the maximum under the sentancing guidelines.)

In this case, like most antitrust cases, the penalty is a complicated one as it is supposed to restore competition in the affected markets and it is not a matter of a fine or jail time. MS and the DOJ agreed on a penalty, but that does not remove the role of the judge to impose a greater penalty. That the remaining states pushed for a specific proposal just makes her job easier in that regard.

Look for MS to get a severe spanking.

Re:Something really wrong here

[Chris Johnson]

Um. They were already found guilty. This is about the remedy. Or are you suggesting re-trying the case over again?

Yawn

[Erwos]

Microsoft's monopoly is not really only through its evil business tactics. Where it really comes from is their brainwashing of consumers.

MS has consistently lied to consumers about the competition. Open source, Real, everyone and everything. Consumers have been taught to reflexively think "Windows", and nothing is going to change that except the complete dismantling of MS's monopoly with source release.

-Erwos

Not trying to troll just pondering

[TibbonZero]

I am not really trying to Troll here, but I am just thinking of what Microsoft does for me on a day to day basis. Yes, I can see from other posts here, that other OSes would have probably taken the place of Windows if Microsoft had dissapeared in the 90's. I do know that after Win95, alot more people were starting to buy computers, but for some reason the release of OS/2 didn't fly as well, even though it had a few months up on Win95.

What does Windows do for me?
Compatability- let's face it, even all of our beloved OSes like *nix and OS2 dont' support everything that we want. Microsoft is generally up to date a good bit of stuff. If I want a Paralell scanner that I have to work, its easy. Linux, I look online, sorry that's not supported, it needs to be SCSI or USB. OS2, I don't know, but IBM isn't really pushing its updating now are they... Other things also fall into this pit. Alot of hardware is Windows only, while this isn't Microsoft's fault, its certainly nice to have an OS that's 'standard' on most desktops, no it's not the only OS I use, I have 3 linux boxes and 5 windows boxes around the house, all different flavors on all.
Simplcity- While Mac OS offers this as well, which I am grateful for. I know Windows well. I know linux well too. However, there are too few 'standards' around for linux setups and configs. Its hard to troubleshoot. Perhaps thats just me, but it still needs maturing for standard setups, etc...


There are a few other ways that Windows helps me, but I am outta time....

Anyway, sorry if you guys thought I was trolling, but I just didn't see the 'antitrust' suits as being really a big deal, Microsoft didn't ever stop me from using a 3rd party utility or 'confuse' me about their options to install software. I can put Opera, or Mozilla, or Netscape, or AOL, or Realplayer on my system as easy as anything else. It's not stopping me from doing what I need to do. Anyway, there goes my Karma...

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point. Everyone in the world (with the exception of some people here) understands the need for a "standard" PC operating system. So it's perfecty natural, and not illegal, that someone has a monopoly on this market.

What's no good (and illegal) is when that company starts bullying people around about non-Operating system software. Telling ISPs that they won't get listed in the "Connect To the Internet" applet if they happen to ship Netscape. Telling OEMs not to ship RealPlayer (or they will pay higher prices for Windows). That sort of thing.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[bmetzler]

Anyway, sorry if you guys thought I was trolling, but I just didn't see the 'antitrust' suits as being really a big deal, Microsoft didn't ever stop me from using a 3rd party utility or 'confuse' me about their options to install software. I can put Opera, or Mozilla, or Netscape, or AOL, or Realplayer on my system as easy as anything else. It's not stopping me from doing what I need to do.

Indirectly, they did. By not allowing OEM's to preload BeOS on their computers (That's an anti-trust violation!) they have not only prevented me from getting a quality OS from a quality OEM, but now I can't get BeOS at all! The same thing with Netscape. I can't get Netscape preloaded from an OEM because Microsoft is able to punish OEM's who want to sell me what I want. (Another anti-trust violation) For goodness sakes, they are supposed to be system integrator's. If I want Netscape 7 and Realplayer 8 on 40 PC's I purchase, I shouldn't have to pay someone else to install them. I should be able to get them preloaded from Dell. I can't though, and the reason is that Microsoft went around to OEM's and told them to not preload Netscape, or else. And we all know what, "Or else" means.

Consider your feeling for Clear Channel. They have an increasing more powerful ability to control record companies. Suppose they told a record company to not sign up a certain group, or they'd not play any of the record companies music? Now all of a suddenly that band finds itself forced to sign with a small record company. Sure, you could probably buy the CD mail-order or something, but the music isn't heard on mainstream radio, sold at Best Buy and other retail outlets, and for the most part unknown. But it hasn't stopped you from listening to the copy you were able to purchase.

See, it's the same thing with Microsoft. Sure, you can still use Opera. But because Microsoft is willing to break anti-trust law, you can't get Opera on your new Dell PC.

Compatability- let's face it, even all of our beloved OSes like *nix and OS2 dont' support everything that we want. Microsoft is generally up to date a good bit of stuff. If I want a Paralell scanner that I have to work, its easy. Linux, I look online, sorry that's not supported, it needs to be SCSI or USB.

This is one of the strangest pieces of logic I've ever seen. And I really wish that people would get some common sense and I'd never hear it again. Okay, maybe companies write drivers for Windows because it's the most popular. But that doesn't mean that drivers couldn't be written for other OS's. It just means that the companies don't want to write the drivers for other OS's. If Windows didn't exist today, companies would be writing drivers for at least one other OS. And that's a fact.

-Brent

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[duren686]

Telling OEMs not to ship RealPlayer

I thin they're actually doing this purely out of concern for the user. Not even MS is evil enough to let people be subjected to RealPlayer.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[Caez]

See, the problem I have with Windows, other than the 30 minute up times, is all the crap they install. Did you know you can't "uninstall" Freecell, Minesweeper, IE? And there are so many processes that you can't end. That's my $.02, but there are billions left.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, he speaks naught but the truth.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[QuaZar666]

That is mostly true but not completly. In some cases OEM's will install the exact software you want but you have to be a large Corporation and you must be able to Sign a contract saying "if this product does not work then you will not call into tech support for support" but then again most large corporate clients don't call in normally unless they have hardware failure or there is something that all of there techs can't figure out.

Qua

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[data_the_android]

Well if hardware manufacturers actually made drivers for other oses this wouldnt mean anything. Teah I agree Windows has a lot of supposurt for different hardware, but Microsoft didn't make all of this. Every hardware manufacturer makes windows drivers. Only a few supopurt Linux. So most Linux drivers are made by other ppl. So if Microsoft died, it wouldnt be this way. And it's not something that Microsoft did, but yeah, it is an advantage of Windows.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[data_the_android]

Well, you can but not easily. Microsoft claimed you can't, and demonstrated it, but that compuiter had been set up to crash when IE was removed.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Brent

Excellent point and exactley what I was thinking. This is the chicken/egg thing all over again. The guy thinks that it's an advantage that Windows drivers are so widespread and notches one in the plus column for MS because of it and another in the minus column for "*nix and OS2". Never once does he stop to think that the reason there aren't drivers for those two can be laid directly at the feet of MS.

Whatever amount MS gets in the "plus" column for having drivers for everything under the sun is surely not enough to offset what they have cost us in lack of support for other (some better, some potentially better but we'll never know now will we?) operating systems.

It's a high price you pay today for that compatibility and the sooner people learn it the better. Not one single advantage you get from using Windows can be traced back to it's source without it having some benefit to MS that's totally unrelated to your "user experience".

When they succeed at doing something that makes your time computing easer it's coincidence, nothing more.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[ClosedSource]

"Indirectly, they did. By not allowing OEM's to preload BeOS on their computers (That's an anti-trust violation!) they have not only prevented me from getting a quality OS from a quality OEM, but now I can't get BeOS at all!"

Nice theory, but you fail to account for why BeOs wasn't used by Apple. Or was that MS's fault too? Many people have bought Linux at retail even though they bought a PC with Windows preinstalled. BeOs used to be available at retail but apparently flopped. BeOs might be better than Linux, but it wouldn't be the first time that a better product failed.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[Anonymous Coward]

By not allowing OEM's to preload BeOS on their computers

This has been discussed over and over.

I won't argue that it's an antitrust violation - it should be, and they're deservedly getting punished for it.

But it's nothing uncommon at all, and certainly not something MS alone is guilty of.
If you thought about ordering a Mercedes in Europe (or at least in this part of it) for example, you can choose between no car stereo or a Blaupunkt car stereo. That's the agreement MB has signed with Blaupunkt in order to get their stereos cheaper, and that's the agreement OEM's sign with MS to get windows cheaper.

If you order a Mercedes, all electric and electronic (and some other) parts will have a "Bosch" label. No exceptions, even though there are other brands that sell the same or equivalent parts. Bosch even manufacture parts with a big MB logo on them, and their own somewhere nearly out of sight and smaller.

If you don't want your car with a Blaupunkt preinstalled, don't buy a Mercedes or install your stereo yourself. The same if you want your PC preinstalled with netscape.

Sad, but that's the way things work in businessland.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[bmetzler]

Nice theory, but you fail to account for why BeOs wasn't used by Apple.

Pure rubbish. Why should Apple have to buy Be, or license it, or whatever? They evaluated it, felt it wasn't what they wanted, and moved along. Some OEM's felt that it wasn't what they wanted either. Nothing wrong on that end.

The problem is that there *was* OEM's that felt their customers wanted it. They were going to preload it and sell it to them, but Microsoft stepped in. Microsoft was only able to step in and coerce OEM's to drop their license with Be, only because they had a monopoly that they could leverage with.

If the OEM's were selling hot dogs, and Microsoft wouldn't let them put mustard on with the MS brand ketchup, OEM's would quickly replace their ketchup account. But they can't replace Windows. Microsoft has a monopoly and it's theirs and no one ought to complain.

Let me reiterate. Anyone who says that it's wrong for Microsoft to have a monopoly is dead wrong. A monopoly is not wrong, and if you have a product that everyone wants or needs, more power to you! However, it is wrong to use your monopoly to harm others, either directly or indirectly.

If Microsoft would have let the OEM's preload BeOS if they wanted to, maybe it would be successful, maybe it wouldn't have. But that would have been up to the market to decide. It's wrong from Microsoft to decide what OEM's should or shouldn't be selling.

It's like throwing a ballgame. If a team has a 90% chance of winning, that doesn't mean the team is breaking the law. But if the team choses to throw the ballgame to make sure they win, that is wrong. But should we say that that was OK for the team, just because they would have probably won anyways? Of course not. Then are we going to punish them because they weren't evenly matched with the other team? No, we are not doing that either.

Microsoft threw the game. Now they are trying to convince us that we should overlook it because they were favored to win anyways. Fine, if they were favored to win, let them play fair. If they couldn't play fair, let's punish them just like we would punish the little guy who throws the game.

Thank you,

Brent

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[darien]

If you don't want your car with a Blaupunkt preinstalled, don't buy a Mercedes or install your stereo yourself. The same if you want your PC preinstalled with netscape.

I don't think it is quite the same. I can easily buy a car with a Sony stereo and I can still drive on all the same roads I use right now. Where can I buy a PC that's preinstalled with Netscape and still runs all the software I use at the moment? That's the Monopoly Difference! (TM)

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[bmetzler]

If you don't want your car with a Blaupunkt preinstalled, don't buy a Mercedes or install your stereo yourself. The same if you want your PC preinstalled with netscape.

No, I think you have the analogy a little wrong. It's surprising that although people back Microsoft for not letting OEM's seel what they want, these same people will also claim that it's actually Apple in fault for only selling OS X on *their* hardware, or not porting OS X to other hardware.

In this case it's more like Mercedes is Apple. Mercedes can choose what they want to install in their cars, just like Apple can choose what OS they want to install on their hardware.

The OEM's are like the car dealers. Let's just grow them a bit and say that 90% of the dealership's were bought by 3 major company's. Let's call these DellCar, GatewayCar, and CompaqCar, just for kicks. Now let's also say that these companies offer you cars by any auto maker you want. So far, things look good, and you get a good price on cars because the dealers are able to move large amounts of cars effiecently.

While this has been happening though, Foyota has been building cars that have surpassed competitors models by all rating systems. People buy Foyota cars in droves. Soon Foyota has 70% of new car sales. Not to be content with their present success they go to the 3 dealerships and make them sign contracts that state that Foyota won't ship them cars if they sell competitors models on their lots. The dealerships are dumbfounded. They don't want to lose the 30% of sales, but they know that losing 70% of sales will basically put them out of business fast. So they sign.

With the competitors basically out of the way, Foyota now sells 90% of the new cars. They are happy. They find themselves under investigation for anti-trust violations. They cry that the other car manufacturer's are just trying to hurt them because Foyota is successful and they aren't.

Sure, you can still by other cars through local dealerships, and it probably helped make them stronger. But unless you have one near you, or pay to get it shipped to you, you're out of luck.

Now I know that dealerships often only focus on one automobile manufacturer, or even on a specific line, but I'd like to claim that OEM's are indeed in a position like those 3 major car dealerships. And as such, they should be able to decide what to put on their "lot", their hardware in this case.

I'm really not bitter about this. Really! What upsets me is that continue to believe that "we" just want to hurt Microsoft because they were successful. Not at all. If they are successful, more power to them. Maybe in our analogy, Foyota would have continued shipping cars as they were sold, and gotten 90% of sales anyways. Cool, more power to them. Maybe Microsoft would have too. More then wonderful! But Microsoft didn't. They ran scared and tried to fix the market. That's illegal, and it doesn't matter if they would have gotten there anyways. They should be punished.

-Brent

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I know that dealerships often only focus on one automobile manufacturer

That's because they signed an agreement with that automobile manufacturer. If they sell only one car of another brand, they can lose their official dealership (at least over here).

It's the same in the computer business: nothing stops Dell from shipping systems with Linux preinstalled, except for an agreement they signed that gives them windows at a price below standard OEM pricing.
If they don't offer Linux preinstalled, that's because they think the added profits will be less than what they win by not offering it, but offering linux does not lock them out of their supply of windows licenses.

In the car business it's even worse: at least here in Belgium, manufacturers only sell their cars through official dealers (and in my 40 years, I've known three of those within 10 miles of my home to lose their dealership because they didn't bend to the manufacturer's demands.
In one case that was for selling self-imported cars of a different manufacturer, the other two for not keeping their equipment up to the high and expensive standards the manufacturer wanted.

There are dealers who bypass the official dealer system by buying their cars across the border and importing them themselves, but those are very few and you'll only find them in the more expensive models.

Again, I don't like the kind of deals MS forces onto OEM's more than anyone else, but it's not unique to the OS business.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[fferreres]

No you can't put opera really. Well, you can, but you will not know how long they will last. Nobody wants to pay for what they have ALREADY PAYED for. When you buy Windows this years, it means funding .net, in 1998 you where funding IE. In 1992, you where funding Office. In 1993, Windows 95.

The fact is that Microsoft is a funding system for total world domination. It works, because we want compatibility. But what price do we pay for it? You are contantly replaying everything and you don't own any of it. A new version will force you to update sooner or later due to "compatibility braking". Of course, competition can only exist where Microsoft wants.

They only have 1 single restriction: they can release everything they want for free as long as they can at least sell 1 product _everyone_ (90% of the market) needs. If they want to kill you it will be plain easy: let's make this new free product (and your business is dead after the press release).

Jusr NAIL "EM to the X86 platform

[crovira]

When it dies, they do. Simple, clean and neat.

Verification?

ANY M$ product appear for ANY other platform and Gates and Balmer sleep in the Big House and they better NOT DROP THE SOAP. (Jobs will just have to push OpenOffice for OS X.)

Total cost of verification and enforcement $0.00

That's IT. That's ALL.

Re:Jusr NAIL "EM to the X86 platform

[Jaysyn]

/sarcasm

They'd just buy laws to make any other hardware platform illegal.

/sarcasm

Jason

Re:Jusr NAIL "EM to the X86 platform

[Tomble]

If only. I really hate PC hardware. It is hideous, I wish I didn't have to suffer it. But here is the irony:

-Back in the 80s and early-to-mid nineties, fancy ultra-expensive workstations pretty much wiped the floor with PCs. But the success of the PC was linked to the success of Microsoft and DOS (and later Windows) which were firmly tied to the PC hardware (OK, Win32 less so) and in leading by example, helped to emphasize closed source software, making people's software unportable without the direct effort of its creators.

-Now we have Linux which is solid and pretty damned portable (it runs on near everything nowadays!), and the concept of Free Software and Open-Source is relatively common, making it far easier to get the types of programs you want on some new hardware... Yet now, look at the performance of your typical PC next to most workstations. PCs still have many of the sucky features that they had when they came out, and workstations generally don't, and perhaps some workstations are more powerful than PCs in certain regards- but nowadays, I'm just not convinced that there is any particular performance advantage.

And when you factor in the costs... It really becomes very difficult to justify getting a workstation, I've certainly tried hard to convince myself otherwise. :(

Also, about a year ago I got an old second hand Sun Sparc-Classic for not-too-much. Mmm, nice reliable Suns. Cool. PSU was broken when it arrived. Replacement PSU died some time later. Ah well, maybe I was just unlucky.. But who knows how to fix a Sparcstation?

Where was I? Oh yes, well I suppose the point is, I think the x86 platform is going to survive far far longer, as long as MS are there to support it, and Intel and AMD are in a position to continue making it so cost effective to use compared to everything else.

we can only hope...

[esarjeant]

Remember when railroad companies used different sized track to eliminate competition? They also eliminated any semblance of travel convenience for the consumer.

The commercial software establishment is largely like these now non-existant railroad franchises. People have discovered that it's just software, and they are happier to enjoy a level of compatibility accross a variety of systems.

Of course, once the railroad industries agreed on standards it became possible for mass production of standards-based railway hardware. This eliminated much of the guesswork, tracks were wide enough to support trains of various sizes and shapes. Without these standards, the golden age of travel would have been unachievable.

Software needs to adopt standards, and the open source community has been vital to that process.

Given Microsoft's track record in this area, I think the best outcome now is for the judge to force MS to abide by standards for all present and future networking protocols. If a networked feature of MS software does not employ a documented RFC, W3C recommendation, etc. it must be fixed.

And there should be a federal committee responsible for reviewing and enforcing this. It is not acceptable that standards can be implemented along with a proprietary MS protocol (eg: MS Exchange).

Ultimately, all commercial software should be made to follow these rules, only the open source community will be allowed to innovate networking protocols. Most of the significant protocols came from open source / public domain anyway, let's mandate that tradition and stop companies like Microsoft from meddling with a good thing.

Re:we can only hope...

[OO7david]

While I think this is a valid idea, I also think it is a bit strict. My problem is with a federal committee overseeing standard compliance. Remember a month ago the announcement that finally a C++ compiler existed that supported the entire language? There are hundreds of compilers and only one supports the full standard? Even my beloved Opera doesn't support every HTML standard perfectly (it's close, but not 100%).

I don't know what punishment I would prescribe (probably open the APIs), but I think 100% standard compliance isn't it. If we were to act along those lines, maybe part of the action could be that MS could not extend any standards.

Re:we can only hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have missed the fact that the software industry did develop a standard. It's called WINDOWS. Try it out sometime -- it's got millions of programs available for it.

Re:we can only hope...

[leabre]

Mod me down if you must, but...

I agree that many, if not most, standards and standard protocols were developed for free, and free for all the use, open-source, or simply restriction free, and that's no dispute. However, saying that 'only' open-source insterests can 'innovate' or 'set standards' that everyone else must use is certainly anti-capitolist.

First of all, a lot of the open source efforts I see today really are only trying to emulate what closed-source commercial software vendors are profiting from, therefore, I don't see much innovation in the open-source world right now. Perhaps I'm wrong. Also, since commercial interests are at the forefront of having to come up with new ways to communicate and so on, is the open-source community really up to the same tasks? Are they that much in tune with big business' clients needs? Seems all the open-source talk I hear these days are regurgitations of what we already here in the press and so on.. where's the reall innovaters and thinkers?

My second point is that saying only open-source interests can set standards or innovate sounds just as much like an open-source fanatic oppurtunist rant as the FBI on terrorism to proclaim 'their' cause, as well.

Third, why have a federal committee set in place to govern standards on a global front? If you're in Europe do you want the US to impose upon you, as a software engineer, how you should 'innovate'?? If you're in the US, do you want the government or a European (or global body) to impose upon you, as a software engineer, how you can 'innovate'? Who decides the rules, how do you prevent from the controlling interests becoming corrupt?

Personally, I don't think that any commercial interest cares about any community other than their own primary shareholders. But to say that only open-source interests can innovate networking protocols is a bit extreme, as well. I don't have a better answer. Everything is going corporate so I don't think there's likely to be any change in the area of consumer interest anytime soon. If the government starts to oversee any of the software industry, it'll be tough to get entry as a garage-kid programmer, enterprenuer... (think auto industry, aerospace, pharmasuticals, civil engineering, maritime, etc.)...

My $.02

Re:we can only hope...

[meadowsp]

Just out of interest, how old are you that you can rememeber when railroads had different sized tracks?

Re:we can only hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the software industry"

Yeah right.
One company does not an industry make.

Go get yourself a Darwin award please!

Re:we can only hope...

[esarjeant]

It was part of my high-school history. Granted, that was 20 years ago - but somehow it went TOS.

Re:we can only hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt pal. Try taking a shower and leaving your mom's basement once in a while and taking a trip down to the computer store.

Re:we can only hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

Question:

What's to stop Microsoft from submitting their own RFCs? If it's publicly available for scrutiny (thereby making them part of the 'open source' dialog) then what's the problem? Why can't any other company do that very thing?

Re:we can only hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Remember when railroad companies used different
>sized track to eliminate competition? They also
>eliminated any semblance of travel convenience for
>the consumer.

It saved untold lives in Russia, when the "consumer" was the Wermacht, who was forced to change the rail gauge in order to move armor and artillery.

Re:we can only hope...

[Shagg]

While I think this is a valid idea, I also think it is a bit strict. My problem is with a federal committee overseeing standard compliance. Remember a month ago the announcement [slashdot.org] that finally a C++ compiler existed that supported the entire language? There are hundreds of compilers and only one supports the full standard? Even my beloved Opera doesn't support every HTML standard perfectly (it's close, but not 100%).

I don't think the previous poster was arguing that MS should implement every standard. I think they were saying that when MS software implements a feature, they need to comply with any standards. In other words, they don't have to support everything, but what they do support can't break existing standards for interaction.

Re:we can only hope...

[ncarey]

...Software needs to adopt standards, and the open source community has been vital to that process.

Given Microsoft's track record in this area, I think the best outcome now is for the judge to force MS to abide by standards for all present and future networking protocols. If a networked feature of MS software does not employ a documented RFC, W3C recommendation, etc. it must be fixed...

Actually making them abide by standard networking protocols wouldn't break the monopoly or undo the harm done by their illegal behaviour (both are required objectives of the punishment for any anti-trust conviction.)

The Right Thing To Do

The proper punishment for Micro$oft is simply to require M$ to publish the format of M$ Office documents (Word, Excel, etc.) -- in essence, make them an ISO/ANSI standard. No changes to the format w/o advance publishing of the changes.

Office is what drives the M$ monopoly. There are two things that provide the lock-in for M$:

• Windows only software. There's an awful lot of custom software built for windows in corporations and it would cost a huge amount for a company to toss it and re-write it.
• Data. More important than the software is the amount and value of the data and expertise bound up in M$ Office documents, especially in Word and Excel documents. This information, locked in M$ Office documents with proprietary and undocumented formats, is pretty much tied to M$ apps. And the value of this data is orders of magnitude higher than that of the software written for windows. This is what really provides M$ with the lock-in.

People (eg, Sun Office, etc.) have done an admirable job of cracking it, but they have to do it in a reactive manner: M$ can simply change document formats faster than others can incorporate the changes after the fact.

Publishing the format and prohibiting changes w/o advance publishing of the changes makes it possible for real alternatives to Office to emerge and be viable (both free and not-free). And with alternatives available on other OSen, it becomes possible for a company to move away from Windows.

This is more politically viable solution than others (publishing source code, etc.) since all M$ is required to do is to return to its userbase ownership of their own data.

To quote Richard Stallman, "Information wants to be free."

Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[Tomble]

Don't know much about MS's Optical Intellimouse, but IIRC, one of the selling points was that it had no ball, and went on nearly any surface (unless that was a different MS mouse).

Now, whilst they may have required their own fancy types of mouse-mat, but Sun Microsystems (and maybe several other workstation manufacturers) certainly had optical mice of much that style (IE- no ball, sensors track the surface it is on) a LONG time before MS produced their version.

Microsoft's is probably a lot better, I'd expect, being far more recent and having advantages of selling in bulk- but they certainly didn't make some VAST quantum leap with a new concept, any more than they did with DOS (bought from another company, based on CP/M), Windows (idea copied from Apple and PARC), Direct3D (bought from another company, long after OpenGL had been created), Pre-emptive multitasking (after much of the rest of the computing world), hardware abstraction (about 25 years after Unix), etc, etc.

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[bolthole]

Besides which, Logitech has the 'firstmouse' that does exactly the same thing (optical, on any surface), and is the same price. no reason to buy that M$ junk now.

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[hdparm]

I also often find myself wondering if even that annoying paperclip assistant (or MSBob for that matter) is their 'invention'.

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[A5un]

The early SUN optical mouse needs to have a special grid as the mat. Won't work on other surface.

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

so......ms still did not create the uber opticle mouse.

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? Or trolling? In any case the mouse was innovative because it actually uses a little camera and a processor to analyze the image. Very different from the Sun mice which totally sucked. And it fits perfectly in the Microsoft tradition to throw massive reesources at overbearing solutions for tangentially important problems, so yes, they can take all the credit. The rest of your examples are just comp.* eternal holy wars. Total bullshit with a few fanboy beliefisms mixed in.

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the "Intellimouse" was invented by a startup that was later bought by (or licensed technology to) MS. They were demonstrating at trade shows for at least a year before the Intellimouse shipped from MS, and the _only_ change I could see was the MS logo -- even the plastics were identical.

That being said, you're correct that it was the first optical mouse that didn't require a special pad. There is some pretty cool electronics in it to pull that off...

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[big_hairy_mama]

I'm certainly not saying that MS makes the only Optical mouse -- I know of at least two other vendors off the top of my head, and Logitech even makes a chordless version. My point is simply that Microsoft hardware has never been crap in my experience, and compared to many of their software products, the hardware is near perfect. It is well designed and well built.

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[Tomble]

The early SUN optical mouse needs to have a special grid as the mat. Won't work on other surface

I know, I did say about as much in my posting; I know about it because I have one (on an old Sparcstation).

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[ObviousGuy]

If you're looking for an alternative to Logitech mice, check out Dexxa. Same manufacturer for a fraction of the cost.

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[data_the_android]

The logitech 1 inst the same price. It's far cheaper.Same goes for all the Microsoft vs. Logitech input devices.

Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything.

[data_the_android]

Compared to their software, anything and everything is perfect.

The judge has been favoring MS...

[burnsy]

If the read the daily trial transcripts (which you can read here), You get the sense that the judge has been leaning towards MS, despite press reports.

It is pretty clear that the states are only representing Sun ('Make MS use Java'), Novell ('Make Windows work with NDS'), Red Hat ('Make MS give us the Office source code'), et al, and don't give one whit about the public interest. The judge has picked up on this and kept telling the states to stop bringing up 'new' transgression and tell her how the states' changes serve the public interest. The states continued to ignore her at their own peril.

Can't wait for the final decision.

Re:The judge has been favoring MS...

[nfras]

I'm not sure that it is just a question of the public interest. As far as most members of the public (which slashdotters do not represent) they tend to think that integrated software is great. No need to go out and find a browser, media player, messenging tool etc. They don't want a modular O/S. The judge is there to serve the interest of competition. That interest is served (in my humble opinion) by exiting MS from the software market. That way they cannot act anti-competitively. I'm not talking about breaking them up, I mean forcing them to exit all non O/S based software by selling the rights to the highest bidder.

Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief?

[Royster]

A report in the NYTimes earlier this week said that six former DOJ Antitrust officials chimed in on the proposed remedies. I've looked in several places, but haven't found a copy of the brief. Does anyone know where it can be found?

Re:Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief?

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Take a look at my web site.

I do provide a link there. And, I can thank The Register for digging it up.

Re:Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief?

[Royster]

Thanks for the link. The brief is very good.

"It is our recommendation that the court cast a wide net, looking for rules or actions that will increase competition today by lowering entry barriers."

You have a lot of good information on your site. I wish I had known about it earlier.

Re:Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief?

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

More than welcome. Sorry I only gave a link to a link.

By the way, CNet has taken to deleting posts that link to my site (even when submitted by others). It seems that CNet thinks my site is a competing service and therefore they trim out those posts.

And, this from a so-called "news" organization?

Not only do they defraud their readers but they also lie about their reasons for censorship.

I guess CNet thinks lying to the public and defrauding them benefits Microsoft Corporation. I have no idea what other reason they would have.

Summary of Final Arguments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates: "I *TOLD* you we should've backed off!"
Paul Allen: "No damn way! We would've made it if the damn product worked!!!"
Bill Gates: "That's why I said - don't try to reinvent a Linux kernel and call it 'NT', just base it on Slackware and take it from there. Hmph...NT...must've stood for No Testing."
Paul Allen: "Hey you pencil-necked numbnuts, I'm not the one who bought a bunch of sand bars in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for tens of millions of dollars..."

...

Kollar-Kotelly amused

[Darth Paul]

Here's a snippet from the article at an aussie news site

During closing arguments, Microsoft lawyer John Warden refused to give any ground.

"We have been through this. We negotiated. We went as far as we can go," Mr Warden said. "That's the deal."

The judge, who had asked both sides to find middle ground, smiled slightly through Mr Warden's statements.

Interesting, the first indicator of personal attitude from KK that I've heard of (You can draw conclusions whichever way you want). I remember an earlier /. post saying that if you wanted to slam MS with a killer verdict, you'd shut up and keep the appearance of impartiality until the end. I'd like to think that's what she's doing :) Just as long as she keeps it subtle and don't do a Jackson.

I know if I were in her position and hearing that from Warden, I'd be blowing raspberries.

[evil cackle]

[kubrick]

to hell with them

A somewhat mediaeval punishment, but can we send them there now instead of waiting for nature to take its course? :)

Re:[evil cackle]

[Alien54]

to hell with them - A somewhat mediaeval punishment, but can we send them there now instead of waiting for nature to take its course? :)

Personally, I prefer the Ivanova option,

• a vastly accelerated payment of Karma.

very clever

[Anonymous Coward]

spelling Microsoft as Micro$oft and MS as M$. That is just so original and clever, you should be moderated up just for such witty putdowns. You should really be a comedian or something. Bravo, comedic genius.

Re:very clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, it is almost as clever as your deft use
of sarcasm.

MS's final argument

[Anonymous Coward]

"In closing, Microsoft should not be punished because...blah blah blah innovation blah blah blah..." -- standard technobabble complete with buzzwords and the like.

While this is going on, a Microsoft intern is hiding under the bench, giving the judge the Lewinsky treatment.

Rebut

[phriedom]

I say that if Microsoft didn't have a monopoly, then you would be able to get better driver support for other OSes. Microsoft establishes "standards" not for your benefit, nor for the benefit of hardware makers, but for their own benefit, and they break or "change" them when it suits their business goals. And they use access to these standards as reward or punishment.

As for 3rd party apps, you can expect an unchecked monopoly to stop you from using them in subtle ways. I'm not saying that everything they have done is bad for us, I'm saying that a person who says "there is nothing wrong here" is ignoring the facts. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is smarter than you or I, and he studied this issue for a very long time and heard the best arguements money could buy, and he came to the conclusion that there is something very wrong here, and that it is bad for you and I, and that drastic measures are warranted.

Re:Rebut

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is saying that nothing happened.

But my opinion is that the punishments everyone seems to want are a bit too much like the "if he's caught stealing, cut off his hand" the koran preaches.

A fair punishment would be to make them undo the errors they made and/or pay for the damages they caused, but not to force them into a weaker position with respect to their competitors in the future - and that's what JJ originally did, and what the remaining states are still demanding.

Re:Rebut

[lgraba]

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is smarter than you or I, and he studied this issue for a very long time and heard the best arguements money could buy, and he came to the conclusion that there is something very wrong here, and that it is bad for you and I, and that drastic measures are warranted.

Not only that, but the appeals court, with a very conservative reputation, upheld most of the findings of Judge Jackson. The only important thing they overturned was the remedy, but mostly because of insufficient hearings into possible remedies. This doesn't preclude the present judge from recommending the same remedy, although this appears to be unlikely.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[Tomble]

Final resolution: Judge decrees that Gates, Ballmer, and all their lawyers drones and fanboys, are to be fired from a big cannon into outer space, whilst all their assets are distributed amongst the people of the world, and their intellectual property placed firmly into the public domain (well, some of it would certainly be of use...).

An unproductive comment? Well, yes. But I've not seen anyone else say it, and hell, I wanted to, and I feel so much better for it now. Ahhhh.

Re:Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[WetCat]

What about the following remedy: all source code for Windows should be destroyed ? :)

Re:Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[Tony-A]

and their intellectual property placed firmly into the public domain
all source code for Windows should be destroyed
And the difference is?
One advantage of open source. The coders have some incentive to not embarass themselves.

Does any1 know what is a PC Ecosystem????

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean is this "PC ecosystem" some kind of technical term or what? One of the news articles i read stated some M$ guy saying something about it....

Lewinsky Treatment, Eh?

[opti6600]

May I remind you that Kotar-Kotelly is a woman, lol. While its not impossible, I think you just need to know who the heck is on the bench in the first place.

This is hilarious.

[NotoriousQ]

As far as Microsoft's priorities with respect to the proposed remedies are concerned, Sullivan said its top priority is to make sure the company is not forced to reveal more of its source code, insisting that doing so would substantially harm the company and give and unfair advantage to competitors, arguments that Gates and other Microsoft executives have made repeatedly in the past.

I mean imagine how much unfair advantage mozilla wourd get, if it knew of their __preload_my_libs_on_startup() system function.

Re:This is hilarious.

[Salsaman]

Actually, not very much. Mozilla already does this if you have 'quick start' enabled.

I think the solution should be....

[Anonymous Coward]

..that no computers can be sold with Windows preinstalled or bundled, so that consumers must buy Windows separately at a fixed, non-discountable full retail price (of Microsoft's choosing) and install it themselves. Everyone pays the same price, with no volume discounts.

OEMs may ship computers with any other OS, or with no OS at all. If people truly want Windows, they are welcome to purchase and install it separately, and Microsoft can include anything they want in it, so there's no restriction on "innovation". They would not have to stick to standards, dislose APIs, include Java, whatever. Consumers would just be forced to make the conscious choice to buy and use it.

For existing installations of Windows, Microsoft would be prohibited from selling upgrades to anyone other than consumers who bought retail - OEM installations would require a new retail purchase.

Re:I think the solution should be....

[taernim]

There are some problems with that. Consider the large amount of businesses that have Windows boxes as a large percentage of their company's machines.

Even if they are a large corporation, consider these things:

1 - It would be quite expensive to change all the machines' Operating Systems, software packages, etc.
2 - Consider the time it would take to do a complete overhaul, if they decided they did, indeed, need to switch to a new OS.
3 - The IT department would be very bogged down. As much as I hate to admit it, it is MUCH easier to install Windows than it is to install some builds of Unix/Linux. Yeah, you get out of it what you put in... look at AOL for an example here.

As much as I disagree with letting M$ get away with their whole "No, why don't you consider this alternative... we don't find that punishment to be to our liking" attitude, I don't think making people buy Windows separately will make things easier.

If that happened a few years ago, maybe... But I think there are too many technologically deprived people out there in order to make a transition like that.

Imagine Microsoft making some claims that if you don't upgrade to Windows 2004, they won't patch your Outlook, or Exchange, etc... Sure, it may be underhanded, but when has that stopped them? It may be worth the $50-100 to upgrade instead of the hassle of upgrading on a free OS and then training all their staff to use the new software.

On the plus side, it'd give trainers a heck of a boost in business... educating the masses in all the wonderful things they've been missing for all these years.

Re:I think the solution should be....

[scottme]

I disagree in turn. This is an excellent solution and would create a vigorous new market for tools that make installing and updating software much simpler. It would also promote more standardized hardware interfaces and so on. Why should it be easier for Dell or IBM to preload Windows than for me to insert a bootable CD that goes on to create what would in effect be the same setup as I would have got from a vendor preload?

Re:I think the solution should be....

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with
fixed, non-discountable full retail price (of Microsoft's choosing)...
Everyone pays the same price, with no volume discounts
That is quite enougth. No condotions for OEMs, no blackmail.

Re:I think the solution should be....

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are not forced to switch - they would presumably do the analysis to determine if it's cheaper to continue with Windows, or switch.

You're making the incorrect assumpttion that the market would maintain the status quo. The intent of this proposal is to create a very attractive vaccum that would create a number of companies ready to fill the need.

For instance, the OEMs will want to ship *something* on those machines for the average consumer. I think Apple would be the first to oblige - it becomes interesting to them to release Mac OS X86. Somebody would undoubtedly come up with a really nice GNU/Linux distribution, because now there's money to be made doing so. Maybe somebody resurrects Be.

If the penetration of one of these OSs reached some critical mass, Microsoft would probably port their Office apps because it is more in their financial interest to do so than continue to rachet their current OS/Office monopolies.

Yes, Microsoft can try to bully people - but they'd have to fight for the consumer's attention to get on the machines in the first place, just like everyone else does now.

Clue for the Lawers

[Catiline]

From the CNN article:
[Microsoft attorney John] Warden also took exception to Sullivan's portrayal of Microsoft as some kind of scofflaw. "We haven't failed to get some message. We haven't claimed that we're immune from the law or anything of that kind," he said.

I don't know what planet this fellow just landed from, but Microsoft's behavior speaks far louder than any of their press releases. Statements like this only make me more certain that Microsoft as a company revolves around the legal and marketing divisions, not product development-- since it seems that instead of trying to develop quality software, they push crap out the door (caring nothing for quality or whether patents stand in the way), and just let "the suits"- marketdroids and crack legal teams- sort it out, hypnotizing everyone into buying Windows/Office/WhatHaveYou and then suing into oblivion (or buying out) the meager competition. Furhtermore, it seems the backup plan is dumping product (ala Internet Explorer or Media Player) via the $30b float. In fact, given the above statement and the history of Microsoft Corp., I can now see the rationale behind the vicious statments against GPL'd software they keep publishing: they're jealous. Here are crack programmers worldwide, giving away a quality product, and doing it in a way that Microsoft can't ride on their coattails.

Of course, I must only wonder if any of that jealousy is directed toward the quality aspect or just solely at the widely touted "viral" aspect of GPL software. Wait a minute, what am I saying? Microsoft couldn't define "quality" with a dictionary. Their copy of Meriam/Webster also seems to be missing "scofflaw"....

Re:Clue for the Lawers

[Salsaman]

Translation from M$ speak:

"We haven't failed to get some message. We haven't claimed that we're immune from the law or anything of that kind, but we're just going to ignore it like we always do."

all I have to say to that is...

[Kargan]

...Go States!!!

Latin Am�rica Perception

[Rams�s Morales]

I'm from Panamá, and many latin american countries have the same opinion on this issue:

Here, people is convinced that the DOJ is hurting USA's economy by fighting MS. They are convinced that MS is the "good guys" of the movie.

When I try to explain that MS is really an unethical monopoly, no-one understands.... whats worst, is that there is people that doesn't wants to understand the facts.... "No, No, Microsoft is the messiah".

It is sad to live in a third world country. Big companies like Microsoft can convince everyone of their lies.

I have seen all kind of people beleiving MS's lies, in person. High school students, college students, government people in the highest positions (like our president), PhDs (not in computer science, of course).

What could I do to make people open their eyes and see the truth???

Re:Latin Am�rica Perception

[JWhiton]

Heh, that attitude is definitely not confined to Latin America. A good deal of the US populace feels the same way. Most people just don't know much about Microsoft...all they know is that MS made the operating system that runs on their computer and all the office software that they use at work. As long as the interfaces are slick and they can churn out spreadsheets, they don't really care about who made the software.

Perhaps my perspective is a bit skewed because I live in Washington state, but I've only come across a handful of people who feel that MS should be punished as strongly as I do. The prevailing attitude is, "Awww, who cares about Microsoft, as long as Word still works?" They don't want to be bothered to learn the details of the case.

Re:Latin Am�rica Perception

[arkanes]

People are like this everywhere, about everything. Bread and Circuses.

Where lies the real fault?

[NewtonsLaw]

I'm no fan of Microsoft (as many will testify) but before we all make a huge noise about how Billy Boy and his sidekicks ought to be hung, drawn and quartered -- should we not look a little more closely at the systems that allowed them to get this far?

It's a brave (or stupid) businessman who doesn't take advantage of an opportunity when it comes along -- and in the case of a listed company, management has a responsibility to stockholders to ensure that they get the maximum return on their investment.

If this means taking full advantage of the capitalist environment and using all of ones abilities to gain a dominant position within a competitive marketplace then so be it.

Gates & co have only done what thousands of other companies would love to have done. We hate M$ but we don't hate the others. The only difference is that Bill got lucky or was better at exploiting the opportunities that came along.

And ultimately -- you've got to apportion some of the blame to stupid consumers. If people are prepared to pay the prices that MS charges for the products they sell then if they find themselves in the merciless grip of a monopolistic tyrant then who do they really have to blame?

Nobody holds a gun to your head and says "You must buy Windows or we'll kill you" do they?

No -- over the past 20 years or so, people have chosen to buy Billy-Boy's products because they thought they were getting a good deal (even if perhaps they weren't).

Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them -- but many have simply dropped the ball.

Anyone remember Digital Research? They once owned the OS marketplace with CP/M and had a good slice of the languages marketplace with CBASIC and Pascal/MT+ Both of these products were superior to Bill's pathetic Basic80 and MS Pascal equivalents.

Then Gary Kildall dropped the ball and MS took over the OS marketplace.

And what about Borland? After the demise of Digital Research, they owned the most popular structured programming language in the world -- Turbo Pascal. Now, even though Delphi retains a band of loyal followers, Microsoft has effectively eclipsed Borland as the main vendor of PC-based computer languages (Java not withstanding).

Then there was Ashton Tate and their dBase products. They owned the PC-based database marketplace -- and then they dropped the ball, allowing MS products such as Access and MS-SQL to take up the slack.

Or what about Visicalc? When the IBM PC launched, Visicalc was the number-one spreadsheet. Look who owns that market now -- who dropped the ball?

Word processing? It used to be Micropro's WordStar, then Word Perfect -- now it's... you guessed it, Microsoft Word.

Did Microsoft bully all these other products out of the marketplace or force consumers to buy its versions instead? No, they simply turned out a better product at an acceptable price that was promoted with superior marketing.

If we chose to all flock like lemmings to the abys that is Microsoft then we get what we deserve.

However, there's now some light at the end of the tunnel. OSS such as Linux and its growing number of applications gives us the chance to break free of this self-induced addiction to MS products.

But once again, nobody can force consumers to go the OSS way -- it's a choice they have to be make for themselves. Unfortunately, the consumer has already proven that they're none too bright when it comes to choosing the best long-term option eh?

So, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to blame others for our own stupidity and short-sightedness.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Microsoft bully all these other products out of the marketplace or force consumers to buy its versions instead? No, they simply turned out a better product at an acceptable price that was promoted with superior marketing.

Yes, but they used Windows to ensure the competition could not write quality software. Haven't you heard the saying 'The code's not done till lotus won't run'? MS is famous for 'breaking' other applications that run in Windows. They also don't provide critial API's, so other apps can't have the same functionality or peformance as MS products.

Also, much of the competition was hit hard in the move to windows, since no one but MS knew the APIs.

Can I switch to a MAC? Not really, not when I program for windows and all our customers use windows. In practical terms, we don't have a choice. We are stuck with MS.

...Michael Silver...

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Kwil]

Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them

Really?

So you're saying that BeOS had the same options and opportunities available? They could have gone to the hardware companies and said "Look, if you give any indication that you're putting Windows on the same system, we're going to charge you double for the BeOS license" and not get laughed out of the office?

You're suggesting that Netscape had the opportunity to use the revenue from their massive monopoly on OEM OS sales to back them giving away their browser until it crushed the competition?

Possibly you're suggesting that Word Perfect or Lotus had the opportunity to leverage their intimate knowledge of propietary Windows APIs to make their software run as fast as any competitor, or that they could modify the underlying OS to cause problems with Microsoft Word or Excel?

Now, can you argue that other companies dropped the ball? Sure, some did. But don't be so quick to assume stupidity on the part of a public that was robbed of any choice from a company leveraging it's monopoly in one area (the OS) to eliminate competition in other areas.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[raistlinne]

Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them

So Sun and Apple and SGI and Linux and BSD etc. all had the opportunity to supply the operating system for IBM's PC? Do remember that microsoft didn't get to where it is by some sort of tactical genius on the part of bill gates, it got where it is largely by luck. Microsoft was chosen to supply the operating system on what wasn't planned to be a huge product. However, when compaq reverse engineered the PC and started making them cheaply, the market for them exploded handing microsoft the dominant position as the OS distributor.

Microsoft's boat was carried by the rising waters of the PC hardware industry - rising waters that they were in no way responsible for.

Now, granted, it was possible for microsoft to lose its tremendous windfall, and to their credit (as tactitions) they didn't. They managed to kill their competition for PC operating systems (of course, the only competition that I can think of was OS/2 which came late in the game (and unmarketed) and something called NeoGeo (or something of that kind), which was also later on). But had microsoft not had this tremendous advantage, had their company not been hugely bolstered by events far beyond their control, they would have found their dominance much harder to win.

Another advantage little commented on is the boom that the internet has provided for them. They were again in a good position when the internet gave a huge number of people a reason (email + the web) to own a computer. So again with a giant boom in computer purchases stimulated by this new reason to own a computer, microsoft again had its boat brought up by rising waters.

And as the saying goes, there's nothing so conducive to success as huge gobs of money. But give microsoft time. They may yet drop the ball that they've been handed. There are some interesting rumors of what will happen when they become a mature company whose stock does not rise in value (abnormally) and thus they are unable to print money in the form of stock options. But that isn't relevant to the current discussion.

You said that everyone had the same opportunities. They did not. That doesn't make microsoft any better or worse than other companies, but it also means that they are not comparable. Microsoft has been immensely successful and they have immensely abused their success. That is what's really important. We need to undue the damage that they've done and unshakle computing from the bonds that microsoft put on it in an attempt to keep it from running away.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Karora]

So, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to blame others for our own stupidity and short-sightedness.

Damn right we should. Stupidity is no defence against illegality, and nor is short-sightedness.

They broke the law.

Sure, lot's of companies would like to ignore the law: these guys did.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[TheOldFart]

Are you real? The only thing resembling logic in your post is the paragraph about Gary Kildall. But hey, even that can be argued. After all, the guy had a passion for life and flying. Had that fateful day been overcast, we would be in a very different world today.

Everything else you say is a contradiction to your assumptions. Yes, Microsoft did bully their way in every one of those examples.

Borland? Go ask Phil what he thinks about this. After getting hammered over and over by not having access to the same information Microsoft had for its own development tools. After being chronically late and behind Microsoft new operating systems because most of the stuff had to be reversed engineered (while Microsoft's own tools came ahead of these releases).

Visicalc? Lotus 123 came up with something for the 8086 faster (Visicalc was CP/M only for quite a while). That turned Lotus into a winner overnight. Overtime, Microsoft turned its dreadful Multiplan into Excel, forced it down the throat of every OEM and robbed the market share (as opposed to "winning" it). Not to mention it did everything it could to make Lotus 123 not to work with Microsoft products.

I can go on and on about this. Heck! I lived though all this and I am very intimate with all these scenarios as I was directly involved with many of them.

I get you point and it could be a valid one had you chosen very different examples. As is, it feels more like a paid Microsoft drone trolling around to create confusion.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[styopa]

Sure some of the companies have dropped the ball. But let's look at one of your examples. One is enough for right now, for there are many other examples that follow suit.

Word processing? It used to be Micropro's WordStar, then Word Perfect -- now it's... you guessed it, Microsoft Word.

Did Microsoft bully all these other products out of the marketplace or force consumers to buy its versions instead? No, they simply turned out a better product at an acceptable price that was promoted with superior marketing.

Okay, so WordPerfect Suite had over 70% of the market at one point or another. What happened next, MS Office 95 became competative and Novell fscked up by not releasing an NT version at all. But there are other issues that one should look at, MS Office 95 was not necessarily a better office suite nor was it "superior marketing" or Novell's screw up that drove the nail into the coffin. There were several other things that did it:

1. Control of the OEM's. The ability to tell the OEM's that if you do not ship product X with your PC's you don't get Windows is called abuse of Monopoly. This happened.
   
2. Beaking of opponents products. I used NT 4.0 and Corel WP Suite 7, and I refused to get a Service Pack until I saw a fix on the Corel site because I knew that the Servce Pack would break WP Suite. This also occured with products like CC Mail and Lotis Notes.
   
3. I also remember in the dorms that roughly a month after Corel would release a new fix to the MS Word decoding problem MS would release a patch for Office breaking it again.
   

Using a monopoly to force OEM's to ship not ship certain products is abuse of monopoly. Purposefully breaking compatability with other products to enforce the use of your own is illegal when it is your monopoly that allows you to do that. It is one thing to offer a choice while at the same time have a superior product, it is another to forcefully stifle choice with superior resources to favor your product. It is a fine line between agressive and preditory and MS is WAY on the side on preditory.

As I said before this is but one example. People have already given examples using BeOS, but there is also the issue of Eudora, CC Mail, Notes, etc... Also, Borland sued MS because of preditory hiring practices. MS was targeting key Borland programmers with obsene amounts of money to leave Borland even when the programmers were not needed (not all were unused but some were removed for the sole purpose of making sure Borland didn't have them). This was settled out of court. And although no one puts a gun to your head telling you to buy a computer not everyone wants to build their computer from parts and until recently it was hard/impossible to buy a PC without Windows pre-installed because OEM's feared retaliation.

Sure we shouldn't be quick to set the blame to when others are short sighted but one looks at this case it is as obvious as a neon beer sign in the window of a bar that MS blatently abused its power. MS shouldn't be punished for others mistakes it should be punished for its illegal actions, to which there are numerous.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Niggle]

Nobody holds a gun to your head and says "You must buy Windows or we'll kill you" do they?

No. But if you're an OEM, Microsoft do hold a pretty outrageous contract at your head and say basically "You must sell Windows (and only windows) or we'll kill your business".

This is known as abuse of monopoly power and is illegal in the USA (IAASENAL - I am a software engineer, not a lawyer).

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Andy_R]

You have completely missed the point!

There is at least one comment that explains why in every /. story on this case, but I guess it's not redundant until people actually understand it...

Microsoft is NOT ON TRIAL for being a monopoly.

There is NOTHING WRONG with being a monopoly under US law.

Microsoft were ABUSING their monopoly, which there ARE laws against.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[nordicfrost]

Nobody holds a gun to your head and says "You must buy Windows or we'll kill you" do they?

Yes. Microsoft did this (Albeit in a financial way) to a local company wanting to change from MS to Novell / Linux. The company (Now bankrupt) felt that MS didn't live up to their demands and wanted out of a contract binding the to upgrades and MS-only networking. MS says; Of course you can get out of the contract, just pay up the agreed upon fee. This fee was of course a mandatory part of the contract, non-negoitable and large enough to keep the struggeling company from affording anything else after getting out of the MS deal.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[swillden]

I'm no fan of Microsoft (as many will testify) but before we all make a huge noise about how Billy Boy and his sidekicks ought to be hung, drawn and quartered

I think you don't understand the anti-trust process.

First, the current trial, Ashcroft v. Microsoft, isn't about punishing Microsoft for what they've done at all. The purpose is to:

1. Determine if Microsoft is a monopoly (verdict: yes, upheld on appeal).
2. Determine if Microsoft has abused its monopoly status to suppress competition (verdict: yes, upheld on appeal). Keep in mind that it is *not* illegal to obtain or be a monopoly. It is only illegal to use your monopoly status to suppress competition in order to maintain or extend your monopoly.
3. Find and impose a remedy which prevents Microsoft from suppressing competition in the future (verdict will be complex. Judge Jackson imposed a breakup as the remedy, but his remedy was overturned on appeal. The settlement was another attempt to find an acceptable remedy, but the states refused to accept it and the courts have ruled that states have a right to push for harsher remedies. Since that failed, the judge will now select her remedy, which will again be reviewed by the court of appeals, unlike a settlement, which is why everyone wanted to settle if possible.)

There is no punishment of MS to be found here, just steps to ensure that anti-competitive behavior is quashed now.

Of course every company behaves in the same ways that MS has. Or should, if they want to be aggressive competitors in the marketplace. The difference is that once you become a monopoly the rules change and you have to be more careful about how you compete, because you have disproportionate power to affect the competition.

Separately, the companies that can prove they were unfairly damaged by Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior will sue (some are suing already) for damages. They'll rely on decisions 1 and 2 from the current trial but will still have to prove that it was Microsoft's anti-competitive actions that damaged them and determine how much damage was done. In those trials, Microsoft's lawyers will pick apart every bad business decision made by those companies and try to show that it was their own failings, not Microsoft's actions that caused them to lose in the marketplace.

Had Microsoft abided carefully by the terms of the 94 consent decree, and had they generally taken note of the fact that they were now a monopoly and had to be more careful, none of this would have been necessary. Essentially, the investigation and the consent decree were Microsoft's warnings that "for you, the rules have now changed", but Microsoft chose not to heed those warnings. Since MS won't voluntarily reign in its excesses, the courts are trying to figure out how to reign them in going forward.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kildall's wife was a bitch, and she was rude to the guys who had brought the contract opportunity of a lifetime. If he had simply "been out" they might have called again, but no. The wife was stubborn and rude to them. Everybody wants to point to Gary for flying his plane, but I want to point to his wife for being a bitch.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you seem to blame Microsoft for this.
The "local company" is responsible for signing the contract in the first place.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Vancouverite]

Although in many ways correct, your analysis of word processors fails in one important aspect - how did MS Word supplant WordPerfect?

I used both Word and WordPerfect for DOS, and, to be blunt, Word for DOS su*ked! I don't believe I ever saw a harder to use word processor. However, with Windows 3.1 and Word for Windows, MS Word was much better than WordPerfect for Windows (which came out late), and IMO retained that lead in ease of use and quality for years. Not until WP4Win 7 or 8 did WordPerfect get anywhere near Word for quality, stability, and ease of use.

I have WP4Win 7.0, and use it happily. I will probably upgrade to a later WP version sometime soon. However, Word for Windows gained market share in Windows because (a) it was first (and WP Corp chose not to place a priority on developing a Windows version, leaving Word as the only viable option), and (b) it was better. If Word for Windows was as hard to use as Word for DOS, many offices would probably have continued using WP5.1 until WordPerfect developed a Windows version.

It wasn't. They didn't. Word won on ease of use and stability (odd as that may sound).

Show them the letter from Peru...

[Svartalf]

Congressman Villanueva's response to MS' letter opposing the law up for a vote in Peru's Congress is telling.

http://www.pimientolinux.com/peru2ms/villanueva_ to _ms.html

Re:Show them the letter from Peru...

[alfaiomega]

Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez's answer to Juan Alberto González's letter is the most brilliant text about free and proprietary software written by politician I've ever seen. (Juan Alberto González is a General Manager of Microsoft Perú. Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez is a Congressman of the Republic of Perú.)

I really wish we had such people among Polish politicians. I wish you, Ramsés, together with other people in Panamá to convince your politicians what's best for your citizens, even if it's not best for fraudulent megacorporations like Microsoft, and even if it means making the richest man on Earth slightly less rich.

See also the interviews with Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez on LinuxToday and Linux Journal, as well as other links from the Peruvian Activism website.

"Reconstructs Microsoft's Business" - normal

[Animats]

"Reconstructing" an antitrust violator's business is normal operating procedure in antitrust cases. When IBM lost an antitrust case, they had to disclose the specs for mainframe peripherals, which created a whole plug-compatible industry, and eventually plug-compatible non-IBM mainframes.

When AT&T lost an antitrust case, the whole phone system had to be rearchitected. That was a massive technical effort of enormous complexity. Supporting multiple long distance carriers was a huge job. But, by court order, it was done.

The sanctions proposed for Microsoft are mild by comparison. A comparable remedy for Microsoft would be to force Microsoft to separate into an applications business unit and an OS business unit, with a requirement for published APIs.

Since all the antitrust lawyers and the judge know the history of antitrust law, they know all this, and Microsoft is just grandstanding.

usual bs

[Edmund Blackadder]

blah blah blah

You should read the findings of fact of jackson's opinion, and tell us why what judge jackson discovered microsoft to have done is ok.

AoE

[Anonymous Coward]

Hummis!

Split the Freaking Company

[TheOldFart]

This is all pathetic. All remedies presented will require a ton of oversight, which in turn will cost us (taxpayers) lots of money. Microsoft will keep belly rolling this to the ends of the Earth and nothing will ever happen. Whatever the judge decides, all Microsoft has to do is to come up with a new Service Pack, or some new Windows 2005 and rename everything to something else. That will be more than enough to confuse these clueless lawyers. It will be another 4 years of court battle by which time they will just do it all over again. In the mean time no one will have the incentive to create anything, the competition (whatever is left) will have all but died, and we will for ever be stuck with it.

There can only be one solution. Split the freaking company. Redmond will do the OS and nothing else. Applications will have to move the barn to Florida, and development tools to Maine (or any places of your choice provided they are really far away from each other). Let the market decide what is pre-included in computers and not the OS provider. Only then you and I will have the incentive to come up with the next "killer app" without the fear that Microsoft will copy it and put it for free in the next release of their crap.

This can only be good, even to Microsoft themselves. They would not have to worry about all this legal bullshit and they could actually concentrate in "innovation". Now that's a concept. Heck, they could even come up with a Linux version of Office. The market would be healthier, everyone would benefit. Anything else is just wasted time, energy, and lots of taxpayers' money.

sentence.

[Anonymous Coward]

couldn't we just toss Billy into a group of Linux fans armed with spiked club and let them decide whether he lives or not? Oh, and Billy will be wearing a "LINUX SUCKS! M.S. RULE!" T-shirt.

I cain't wait...

[gnovos]

...to get me MY daiy in court, 'cause I is goona use that Microsoft Deeefense:

"I ama truuly sorry yo'onor, but I cain't take me no time in no jail cell for robbin them there store. Iffin I did, then just how do you reckon that I rob me some more stores in the future?"

"I see your point, sir. Based on th eMicrosoft Precident, I find that, while guilty, you simply cannot be given any penalty as that would hamper your ability to commit further crimes. Case dismissed!"

Future Remedy

[Anonymous Coward]

September 1, 2002

In a surprise ruling today, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who has presided over the "remedy phase" of the four-year-old case, ruled that the penalty shall be implemented in two primary phases.

In phase one, "Steve Ballmer will be forced to legally change his name to "Monkey-boy Ballmer", and hereafter be precluded from any public appearance whatsoever, unless he is wearing a gorilla suit".

In phase two, "Bill Gates will be forced to legally change his name to Sissy-boy Gates, and hereafter be precluded from any public appearance whatsoever, unless he is wearing a pink tutu".

Both are also hereby ordered that "they will remain in their current positions at Microsoft for life, and shall be forced to come to work daily dressed in said attire".

Furthermore, all "Microsoft business negotiations henceforth shall be personally handled and attended by Monkey-Boy Ballmer and Sissy-boy Gates, so long as they both shall live".

Microsoft lawyers said they would be appealing the decision.

TWO things!

[vogon jeltz]

Repeat after me:

* *complete* specs for .xls, .doc, .ppt et al.
* a commitee controlling MS's deals with the big OEMs in order to assure that competing OSs can be shipped with their PCs.

Those two remedies are all we need!

Re:TWO things!

[Anonymous Coward]

_Microsoft_ doesn't have complete specs for .xls .doc .ppt et al - up until Office 97 they were just dumps of whatever structures happened to be in memory at the time...

Re:TWO things!

[bluGill]

thats their problem. If they don't want to reveal internal design (ie what the data structure look like) then they should have designed a save file protocol and stuck to that instead.

Re:TWO things!

[Tony-A]

*complete* specs for .xls, .doc, .ppt et al.
_Microsoft_ doesn't have complete specs for .xls .doc .ppt et al
I don't doubt you, but imagine the fun if Microsoft is liable for consequential damages like lost profits due to incomplete specs.

Denial..

[Anonymous Coward]

...is always the first sign of a problem.

States Demand == New Ad Campaign!

[4of12]

Hilarious.

I just noticed, that one part of the non-settling states' demand, boiled down into a small phrase...

allow rival software to work with the Windows operating system was their most important demand

if I were to change it just slightly, to ...

allow your software to work with the Windows operating system is their most important customer demand

it could very easily be found in one of those 1 degree of separation advertising campaign Microsoft has been running for .NET.

There's a subtle distinction going on that says a lot.

MS did 3 things right...

[bubbha]

1. Got their OS tied to IBM PC's. When business joined the PC revolution, many bought IBM because they had mainframes. MS was carried along.

2. They bundled word processing, spreadsheet, drawining/presentation, and lightweight database into one "integrated" package. Perhaps none of the individual applications were best of breed but they sold businesses on the integration between the apps and integration with the OS. They bought it.

3. They created ODBC. Since they did not have a lock on the database market, they had to play nice. Creating a generic db interface enabled VB and VBA to compete in the client-server revolution (remember that?)

These three things together made business choose MS rather than other products. Remember too that for many people, they bought their first "home computer" at this time. Since they were learning MS at work, they bought one for home. The upgrade spiral has caused home computer owners to reconsider. What is the last appliance you bought for your home that cost $2000 and only lasted for 3 years?

Breaking delay tactics?

[Jeppe Salvesen]

Is there some way of breaking Microsofts delay tactics? If you've read Kafka, you'll recognize the indefinite postponement technique.

Years pass, and Microsoft is left to self-regulate while the trial passes by. We all know how controlled and ethical the Redmond juggernaut is..

On the bright side, their products have admittedly improved quite a bit during the trial, if you look away from the security.

AAAAAHHH!!

[cybercuzco]

Spoiler: States say, "Here are our priorities for reforming MS." - MS says, "We don't need no stinkin' remedy.""

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Now youve ruined the whole trial for me, I thought MS was going to pull one of its trademark change of hearts and say please, please break us up. Thanks a lot.

Interesting Note

[MarvinMouse]

True..

Of a related interesting note.

OS/2 is still widely used in India, and in ATM machines and banks worldwide because it quite stable and works well for those applications (OS/2 was always a business OS.)

Just some trivia for ya.

Re:Interesting Note

[j_w_d]

OS/2 is still my favorite OS in many ways. Until I could switch pretty much constantly to Linux, OS/2 was the word in stability from my view point. The HPFS was also outstanding. The installation and back-stepping were excellent, better than WinME by leagues. The GUI was incredibly flexible; I used to use Stardock's OfficeDesktop which wasn't comparable to any thing available for Windows after CentralPoint went away. The scripting language, Rexx, is great - though I have to admit liking dBase programming as well.

The good old days :-)

The ball was kicked out of their hands

[crovira]

If GM made tires, the only choice for tires on GM vehicles would very quickly be GM tires.

M$ OfficeSuite being bundled in with the OS murdered the competition in their beds.

If Tony Soprano wanted you to sell his brand of cigars and ONLY his brand of cigars at your store, you would quickly have HIS brand and ONLY his brand of cigars at your store. Furthermore HE doesn't pay and he tell you how much you're going to sell his cigars for.

M$ did not sell to consumers, they twisted the arms of OEMs, blatantly and illegally (there's NO dispute about that. Its already been proved in a prior case,) to get their OS forced onto the machines.

Don't make excuses for M$.

They need to get LOCKED onto the X86 architecture under pain of imprisonment for Gates & Balmer.

And then we let history resume its proper course.

The anti Microsoft attitude here at /. is sad

[skrowl]

Microsoft is QUOTED in this article as saying "We don't need no stinkin' remedy." I really hope /. gets sued for libel / slander / being pricks.

The robort [sic] "Army"

[zrk]

They will not be denied, but they do run an OS dereived by Microsoft, so I sincerely doubt we have anything to fear (insert 'If Microsoft designed cars' joke here).

If, by some miracle they'd get out, we could easily discover a "security vulnerability" in their OS, and they'd end up /.ing the windows update servers.

Re:The robort [sic] "Army"

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you ever wake up in the morning and think to yourself, "I am the least funny bastard in the whole world?"

Because you are.

Re:The robort [sic] "Army"

[Jaysyn]

Too bad they outsourced the OS to Apple. Now you know why M$ really proped Apple up a few years ago...

Jaysyn

Judge Jackson already screwed us before it began

[emil]

As is documented at the end of today's article here.

My solution (and the states?)

[ImaLamer]

Dateline 06/20/02...

George W. Bush today announced to abandon his idea for cabinet level status for Homeland Security and instead simply declare a new "Department of Microsoft".

Under the new cabinet it will be dictated that all U.S. citizens will be given a copy of all Microsoft software while on overseas computers will be restricted to "pay-as-you-go" plans which will expire unless you pay the MsTariff '02.

Have confidence in OSS

[rlglende]

30 years ago, IBM appeared to be invincible.

Our wonderful gov protected us all and forced IBM to sell off its services division. (Similar personal economic dynamics: leader of the anti-trust gov team became IBM's chief counsel.)

Not long after, technology changed out from under IBM, and it lost dominance, as the mainframe market became a small and slow-growing part of the overall computer market.

Microsoft will become largely irrelevant to software in the same way. OSS has proved better able to provide quality and security. Indeed, MS's anti-competitive actions are an implicit acknowledgment of this fact: they can't make their numbers without leaning on customers.

In all cases of this sort, the only enduring result is to transfer power to the gov and $ to lawyers and bureaucrats.

Lew Glendenning

I can hear them now..

[HSheldon]

"This is chubacka"

stripped down windows question

[bigdavex]

Can anyone comment on how the pricing would be determined for a stripped-down windows?

Predicting the outcome

[michael_cain]

Remember that you read it here first...

This judge is going to end up with the same basic remedy that Judge Jackson had. She's going to toss both the DOJ/MS proposal and that of the dissenting states. She has to deal with all of the things that the Appeals Court upheld as being violations of the antitrust law-- code mingling, non-removable applications, application placement, middleware, etc. She can take into account MS's behavior, including behavior after the guilty verdict. Her conclusion will be, that in order to address those issues and restore competition, she needs to split MS (either literally, or through fairly extreme conduct restrictions) into an OS company and an application company. The OS APIs will have to be thoroughly documented, to the extent that someone else can duplicate it and run Windows apps. She will require source code disclosure only if it turns out that that's the only sufficient way to "document" the APIs.

The Appeals Court didn't overturn Jackson's remedy because it wasn't proper, they overturned it because he didn't follow an appropriate process for imposing such a severe remedy.

Learning the details...

[sheldon]

What if there are people who have bothered to learn the details of the case and still disagree with you?

Are you going to call them names and stamp your feet?

Re:Learning the details...

[alfaiomega]

What if there are people who have bothered to learn the details of the case and still disagree with you?

Like who? Bill Gates? Steve Ballmer? Of course they disagree, like every condemned criminal. What's your point?

Breakup - ghod I hope you're right...

[alispguru]

It has been obvious ever since the first consent decree that Microsoft cannot be trusted to follow any agreement that isn't self-enforcing. The only remedy that has a chance of working is a structural one.

Our only hope is that the judge has the courage to propose a breakup, and the legal skills to write an opinion that convinces the Supreme Court (because that's the next stop from here if a breakup is decreed).

Sure reads like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not really trying to Troll here,

You sure fooled me.

Compatability- let's face it, even all of our beloved OSes like *nix and OS2 dont' support everything that we want.

Indeed, and micro$oft had a hand on that with its pressure on vendors and developers.

but I just didn't see the 'antitrust' suits as being really a big deal,

Then try buying a PC without being charged for an extraneous copy of 'doze. Try buying a PC preloaded with BeOS. Or ask a MacIntosh user about the coercion micro$oft applied to Apple.

ASKING HOW THEY SHOLD BE PUNISHED

[oliverthered]

I saw a story a while ago(can't fine the link now)
where a drug peddler was found guilty, and the judge asked him to chouse his own sentance (2 years i think), The judge thought it was about right, and there you have it.

Huh?

[phriedom]

"make them undo the errors they made and/or pay for the damages they caused"

Your suggestions are completely impractical and do nothing to discourage or prevent future abuses of monopoly. And lets be clear on one point, these were not "errors." Microsoft has been caught before and failed to comply with the past consent decree, and they have given no indication that they will even consider playing by the rules in the future. Forcing them into a weaker position with respect to their competitors (read: one where they don't have an unfair advantage) is the ONLY way we can expect to get proper competition that makes the marketplace function the way it is supposed to.

Pull there Corporate...

[geekoid]

...Charter.
Or at least give them the choice Open your code, or get your Corporate Charter pulled under the RICO(sp?) act.

IF the appeal, force them to follow there choice while they appeal.

Re:Bill Gates Latest News

[Anonymous Coward]

im serious ill seriously start it errr err err
and ill pump it for all its worth :P and ill get that car to start.. maybe ;P