Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Anti-Trust Rulings Due Tomorrow
ewhac writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will deliver her opinions on the Microsoft anti-trust suit tomorrow, after close of markets. Much speculation revolves around whether she will approve or reject the settlement negotiated by the Justice Department. Should she reject it, she can only offer suggestions for improvement; she cannot impose amendments. Watch this site for further developments :-)." Reader acacia points out that the opinions should be posted at this site, if you want a quick bookmark.
how they intend to enforce the judgement. Try keeping tabs on the biggest information company in the world and you'll see where the problem lies.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
You know, the more I hear those words, the more they lose their meaning.
I'm at the point where I picture an anti-trust suit as being the last thing you'd want to wear on a blind date. Basically, the opposite of a technicolor dreamcoat.
Kevin Fox
I can't wait to see how this turns out. I think this is the first time I've anxiously anticipated a Microsoft anything.
This
Beyond the obvious symbolic context, I wouldn't might being part of an unruly mob with pitchforks and torches storming towards the Bill Gate's version of Frankenstein's castle.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Judge Jackson was also a Reagan appointee. And yet he took the time to "get it" (by which I mean that he managed to educate himself enough about the technology to see through the smoke screens Microsoft's lawyers put up), and his ruling ripped the company a new one.
So Judge Kollar-Kotelly may yet rule in favor of Microsoft, but her being a Reagan appointee doesn't guarantee that at all.
Try keeping tabs on the biggest information company in the world...
:)
What does IBM have to do with the Microsoft antitrust trial?
I was writing the judgement on the PC, and it was like "beep beep boop beep beep", and then, it was like, half of my judgement was gone, and I was like "Huh?".
It devoured my judgement.
It was really a good judgement.
And then I had to do it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good. It's kind of a...bummer.
I'm Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and I'm a judge.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Wait a sec... isin't Microsoft that small time company that makes Office.X ;-)
:-)
Basically this is going to be pointless, she has no juris-my-diction to do anything except change there closing price!! What is the point?
Ahh well, if all else fails, maybe everyone else can just convert to Macintoshes and run Darwin
"The only difference between me and a madman, is that I am not mad." --Salvador Dali
Wait, so it's possible (hopefully unlikely, but nontheless possible) that DoJ completely ignores her suggestions and let Microsoft get off EASIER?
wow gotta love this government... Judges cannot impost judgements =)
My life in the land of the rising sun.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
They are really whistling in the dark now. The announced departure of Charles James from the DOJ portends a complete undoing of the "settlement" he was dictated by Redmond. Bush had to find him a cushy job from his oil-field cronies to get him out of the way.
"The problem is that they are forcing machine makers to ship Windows as-is and punishes them for shipping otherwise."
I can't help but think that the bigger PC retailers weren't exactly kicking and screaming over an exlusive arrangement like that until MS's anti-trust allegations came around. If you think about it, 1 OS was good for places like Gateway or Dell or even IBM. Only one OS to support. Computers only needed one OS installed. That one OS ran everything people wanted on their computers, including games.
If you think about it, MS didn't always have the power to dictate who can use what. I think the odds are pretty good that the retailers themselves were happy to get into those agreements, early on at least.
"Derp de derp."
No matter what happens Microsoft will appeal to the Supreme Court. That will drag everything on even longer, and be exactly how Microsoft has handled all their dealings. Drag it out until it doesn't matter that much whatever happens.
Actually Microsoft is punishing themselves more than the court probably will with their new licensing.
How does her ruling affect the 9 dissenting states? They didn't agree to the RPFJ, so how can it be binding on them?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
If you think about it, 1 OS was good for places like Gateway or Dell or even IBM.
Yeah, IBM was soooo confused... "OS/2 Warp or Windows?"
If you think about it, MS didn't always have the power to dictate who can use what. I think the odds are pretty good that the retailers themselves were happy to get into those agreements, early on at least.
The problem isn't even really with the OS. Remember at one time it cost money for Netscape (because it was [imho:is] the premier product). If someone wanted to strike a deal with Netscape and put it right on the installed OS's desktop... they can't! AOL? Out of the question! Now you must pay more because you haven't given Microsoft the mindshare they wanted.
I guess this is why Dell complained about these things at trial?
Companies always want to be told how to do their business.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Opinion...
Judge: Settlement approved. Microsoft, you're naughty.
Microsoft: I want a second opinion.
Judge: Ok, you're ugly, too.
Ba doom boom...
Karma: Excer..ex...excellahhh...realll good (mostly affected by drinking not done in moderation)
> Considering that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was appointed by the very conservative Ronald Reagan
Judges sometimes show remarkable independence after being "packed" onto the bench.
> and the Justice Department is under control of the reactionary John Ashcroft
Judges don't generally suck up to whoever is running the JD.
Looking at her record would probably give a better prediction of her behavior.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
She may be a little more impartial than you believe..
One of the flaws with antitrust law is that once a monopoly is allowed to reach a certain critical mass, it becomes immune to antitrust laws. MS is well beyond that level. Antitrust laws simply do not apply to it. The only thing that can be done is to break up monopolies before they reach this critical mass. Whatever this judge may say tomorrow is irrelevant and will not affect MS in the slightest way. The government will win the "war on drugs" before it will ever be able to break up Microsoft.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
The announcement was made after the close of trading today. MSFT is trading down 67 cents in after hours reflecting the general uncertainty about the outcome.
Mmmm.. Donuts
A /. poll so we can guess the outcome.
What do you think the judgement will be?
Heck, that's worth wagering on. Anyone for SlashBet?
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
No, its not because Microsoft can buy high priced lawyers.
;))
A report I have not seen on slashdot lately, and unfortunately I cannot confirm, is that Microsoft was eyeing major Real Estate in Canada around the time the White house and Attorney General's office was making the transistion to Bush/Ashcroft.
This action would have scared the shit out of the Clinton admininstration, even if they didn't act on it. The current administration probably felt it wasn't worth it to try to completely kill Microsoft and lose billions in tax dollars. They also probably saw that $40 billion war chest and said "Crap, that's enough money to move them out of the country, and we won't see any taxes on it."
If anyone has anything that could confirm this I would appreciate replies added (and a mod up to show them to everyone
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Every time she tried to type her ruling against Microsoft, Clippy kept popping up with "It looks like you are trying to type an unfavorable ruling. Do you want some help?" When she clicked no, wouldn't you know it, one of those darn crashes would happen!
I'm going to start learning German, French, or Dutch, and I'm going to move to a sensible socialist democracy. Or maybe Costa Rica...
OK, I guess there's Australia and Canada...
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Then they will say that MS is a monopoly.
You have got to be kidding, The term monopoly in this context has a specific legal meaning. During the first trial Microsoft was proven IN A COURT OF LAW to be a Monopoly, AND to have violated the law by illegally using that monopoly position to stifle competition.
This appeal is related to determining the penalties for the abuse of monopoly power by Microsoft. The issue of whether Microsoft is a monopoly has been determined.
Anyone interested in MS's Political Contributions? Or how they've fluctuated over the years? Check out This Page to get started.
Up ontil the antitrust investigation began, MS didn't give diddly squat to political campaigns. Even before then, they gave their cash to whoever had control. It's not that hard to figure out from the graph that whichever party had the top position (ie The President) got the most moolah from Bill and Company. After Dubya was "elected", the donations got wildly lopsided in favor of the Republicans, since it was the Democratic Government, under Speedy Willie Clinton, that started the antitrust hearings, It's not hard to guess why they started getting the short end of the MS tit to suck on.
Just thought that might interest you all, seeing as how this particular "ruling" is about to be handed down. And just in case you want to see what kinds of contributions are being made by tech companies these days, check out Open Secrets.org. Handy little refference page for the coming Nov. 5 (my birthday, of all days) Elections...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Assume that dividing microsoft into separate divisions is successful in giving competition a chance. More products will be introduced to the market, and software prices could go down.
Now you might argue that increaced price competition in the software industry will only cause further harm to an already sick area of our economy, but I disagree.
For example.
Our company provides custom programming services to shopping malls. If our shopping mall clients could save $3000 dollars from their annuall operations budgets by spending less on Microsoft products then they now have $3000 more that they can give to me.
Of that $3000 bucks I give Uncle Sam $800, and now have $2200 to save of spend. I know that money sitting in the bank does our economy no good so being a good citizen I go out and buy a new iBook.
The money keeps circulating in the economy.
Money that is not spent on Microsoft products will be spent elsewhere. Trust me if Microsoft crumbles (and it won't any time soon)the economy will survive. Increased competition might even help it.
Umm.. Not really. Judge KK recently gained a bit of attention for her activities as head of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court. That's the secret court that supervises the DoJ and Atty Gen. Asscroft's shredding of civil rights. She nailed Asscroft to the wall for his lies and abuses. This is a woman that has already shown her willingness to stand up to the Atty General. Here's a typical story:p agename= article&node=&contentId=A51220-2002Aug22¬Found= true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
Which makes me wonder. If Microsoft had really been trying to win the case on the merits, then their legal team was so incompetent they should all have been fired. I haven't heard they had, though, which makes me wonder if this all went more or less according to plan. Maybe they wanted to infuriate Judge Jackson so much that he would make just the kind of mistake he wound up making. Doesn't it seem to anyone else that from that point on, the MS lawyers suddenly started performing like the legal Dream Team they were supposed to be instead of the fuckups they'd been up to that point? If that's true, they must have been deeply disappointed that only Jackson's penalty was vacated and his finding of fact was left to stand.
This may surprise those of you who believe that conservative judges always rule politically, like liberal activist judges, but many conservative judges prefer to rule based on fairly strict constructions of the actual law rather than legislate from the bench. No less a towering conservative figure than Robert Bork, Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, believes that MS should be broken up, and he literally wrote the book on the conservative approach to antitrust law. Based on the stories I've read about the trial so far, I expect Judge Kollar-Kotelly to come down rather harsher on MS than some of you seem to fear.
And the brethren went away edified.
A lot of widows and orphans have their retirement accounts with investment houses that hold large amounts of Microsoft stock.
:) Shareholders should take responsibility for the actions of their company. If they don't represent the crimes microsoft is guilty of, then they should sell their stock. And if you're talking about mutual funds, same difference. If the death of microsoft toples a mutual fund, then they were very very very very bad investors. This is extremely unlikely. AT&T is still around, and breaking up microsoft would be much easier than it was to break them up. In the long run, (to use your emotionally loaded argument) it's neccesary so that we don't have even more starving orphans and widows. Microsoft hurts the overall economy by cornering the market.
If Microsoft gets torn apart, their stock is going to drop like a rock. The people whose 401Ks and 403Bs hold MSFT will take the brunt of it.
Since when were people assured that their money was safe in stocks?!?!?! No one is forcing you to be involved with microsoft's stocks, only their software
There are a lot of people rooting for Microsoft. The people who root against them are the same as people who rooted for the beating of Reginald Denny.
Oh lord, I can't get over this quote. Reginald Denny was a fucking INNOCENT!!! Microsoft is the AGGRESSOR!!! This would be a lot more like the grand dragon of the kkk getting pulled out of his truck and beaten, and yes, I would be loudly applauding that. I didn't applaud the beating of Reginald Denny, and unlike you who seems to hold some reservations on the subject, I thought it was an utter disgrace. To me, racism is racism. You don't attack innocent people because of their race, period. Anyway, now I'm as off-topic. It seems like everyone thinks the economy will tank even further if microsoft is broken up. What we're all failing to notice is that microsoft is stifiling competition in the market. They're also sweeping into new markets. If anything, breaking them up will HELP the economy. There'll be more market to pass arround, and trust me, there are a lot of companies out there that can do a lot better than microsoft has in the OS market.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
The problem isn't even really with the OS. Remember at one time it cost money for Netscape (because it was [imho:is] the premier product). If someone wanted to strike a deal with Netscape and put it right on the installed OS's desktop... they can't! AOL? Out of the question! Now you must pay more because you haven't given Microsoft the mindshare they wanted.
This is a common misconception, and I have no idea where it comes from.
For example, the Packard Bell computer I had at work in 1998 came with Netscape Navigator pre-installed.
The issues wasn't putting Netscape on there - it was that you couldn't put Netscape on there and remove the shortcut to Internet Explorer.
Similarly, most copies of Windows come with an AOL installer built in. The issue isn't putting it in there - it's that Microsoft want MSN to get the same exposure.
So it's not quite as cut and dried as you seem to want to make it out to be. The OEMs *can* do all of these things -- they just have to leave Microsoft's stuff in there as well, as prominently advertized as the alternatives.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
OK Anonymous Retard, listen up. I live in LA and was watching in abject horror in 1992 as Reginald Denny was beaten by a group of thugs. I didn't like the verdict but the riots were inexcusable.
As far as the starving retirees, widows and orphans who might be inconvenienced by an adverse verdict against a very deserving Microsoft: there was ample warning that MS had done something wrong, they could suggest to their broker to put them into something that did not contain the offensive stock. There were literally YEARS to prepare for this moment. Besides, anyone who didn't get out of tech stocks in 2000 was a fool.
Besides, all indications are that MS will only get a slap on the wrist and a half-hearted "don't DO that!" They 0wn the Department of Justice. Who's to say they haven't already bought and paid for a favorable verdict here too?
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
//mslegal.cpp
bool winCase();
void goAppeal() {
if !winCase() goAppeal();
}
bool winCase() {
if (current.getStranglehold()>prev.getStranglehold () && current.getIncome()>prev.getIncome() && current.getPower()>gov.getPower()) return true;
else return false;
}
I can't decide what's better. Accepting it or rejecting. I live in KS, one of the states that told the DOJ and MS to stick it. I *think* it would be better to see it rejected which might make our case stronger. Thoughts?
This product was intended to be installed on a system that has an existing Windows installation. What it did was add a few files to an existing Win31 setup, so that it could run under OS/2. This means that you did not have to migrate your Win16 apps to the os/2 install as well as the windows install.
Netscape
Anyone who was familiar with pre-netscape internet would probably know that browsers supported http:, and for other sessions like ftp: or gopher:, you needed other applications. Netscape integrated this into a user-friendly browser, and charged money for their bit.
Microsoft fielded IE, and charged money for it, too. But when MS did not get the market share they wanted, they first dropped the price, and then bounded it to the OS.
It's not difficult to make a Windows 95b install that has no internet browser on install. It took me an afternoon to patch the install to do it. It works quite well. It just shows that the ties are artefacial, not technical.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Not to disagree with you, because i'm not sure myself about this. But my logic goes like this, for example:
If someone said my company enjoyed "Monopoly Power" and it was true, based on findings of fact, wouldn't I have to be a *MONOPOLY* to be able to enjoy "Monopoly Power"?
Based on your reasoning, it's like saying that I have presidental power, for example. Wouldn't I have to be a president to enjoy those powers?
Unless someone clarifies this for me, it's only fair to assume that in the findings of fact of Microsoft, the court did pretty much say Microsoft is a monopoly.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
Actually, as it has been mentioned above, U.S. courts do not usually reveal verdicts concerning publicly traded companies until after the markets close. This is done to prevent the market from severely fluctuating at the news (whether good or bad). It is also interesting to point out that the ruling will be available on a Friday after the markets close. Methinks that this ruling is going to have some serious impact....
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-2001-email.h tml
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
You're not drawing a distinction between sole-source and monopoly. Most definitions of the word monopoly refer to exclusive ownership or control, but one definition says "a commodity controlled by one party" (from m-w.com). From the US government's point of view, having a 95% share in a market constitutes an effective monopoly (okay, I pulled that number out of my ass, but it's probably about right in this case). Sure, there are alternatives, but they aren't practical in most cases (see my example below).
You say "A company shouldn't be penalized for being successful...." This is entirely true, and this is why anti-trust laws were written very carefully. Companies are not punished for being monopolies. If your company makes product A so well that no one else can compete, great! However, companies are punished for using their monopoly in one market to wedge their way into other market rather than competing based on the merits of their product. This is exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer (which, if you remember, was distinctly worse than Netscape Navigator until Microsoft used their monopoly powers to force IE on everyone).
I'm sick of hearing from people who think monopolies are bad, or who think this case is about Microsoft being a monopoly. It's not. This case is about Microsoft abusing their monopoly to gain control of other markets. The true importance of this case only comes to light when you consider that just about every company in the US (and maybe in the world) depends on Microsoft software to run their computers, and thereby to run their business.
To put it in concrete terms: let's say you want to start a business selling widgets. You've come up with and patented a method for making widgets that are twice as good and cost half as much as those of your competitors. Now you just need to set up a computer network to control your manufacturing, sales, and distribution network. Since you're a big fan of open-source software, you've built your distribution system using FreeBSD, Linux, or your OSOS (open-source operating system; not to be confused with ZOSO, a popular name for a certain Zeppelin album) of choice. However, you find that the available talent for your secretarial pool (or, in this day and age, the temps you hire) only know Windows, so you buy them a bunch of computers running Windows FU. Suddenly you get a cease-and-desist letter from Microsoft that says that under the terms of the license agreement (which the temps you hired that day clicked through when you set up the machines), you're only allowed to sell widgets if all of your computers have up-to-date licenses for Windows FU, and then you can only sell them at the prices Microsoft dictates. Suddenly you're in a position where Microsoft is controlling your business practices, but you can't tell them to sod off because your secretaries only know Windows. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but without control, Microsoft could have somewhat more subtle but no less disturbing effects on the global economy. Before being broken up, AT&T could've done the same thing. If we need laws to make sure that the companies supplying phone service obey common decency, then why should we be surprised to need similar laws in the computer industry?
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
The problem with breaking MS up is that once you break them up, you can no-longer impose punishments on the individual broken up parts. But that is no matter if you break them up in the proper way.
The proper way to break MS up isn't breaking it into hardware, software, and OS parts. That's idiotic, and would just create 3 more monopolies in the hardware, software, and OS areas. What you need to do is split MS up vertically and horizontally. That is, split it up by departmental lines; then also split up each department into multiple companies.
If they're to be split up, they should be split up into software, hardware, and OS components; then the software, hardware, and OS components should be split up further. This way, several MSlets would be competing in regards to an OS. This destroy's the OS monopoly.
Of course, the problem with this is that Windows is so universal that their products might still continue to dominate by inertia, even though they're inferior. Thus, careful consideration needs to be taken in deciding whether to split them up or punish them harshely.
If we're to punish them, we need to demand they release the source for their standards, and release the source for the various parts of the OS which programs directly interact with; this will allow competitors to make products which can compete against MS natives on MS Windows. We also need them to open up these specifications so other OS's like Linux can offer better emulation layers for Windows. You need to prevent MS from blackballing OEMs and the like. You need to give OEMs the right to modify Windows any way they choose before selling it. You need to ensure that MS can't enter into any contract with OEMs which would prevent or dissuade them from also offering Linux or BSD on their computer. Also, large fines should be imposed on MS, the money from which would be used to bring drivers and software to competing OS'. The only way that GNU/Linux, BeOS, Amiga SDK, and *BSD can compete with MS is if they have alot of software support and alot of hardware support. The problem is that software and hardware companies won't offer their software/drivers for alternate OS' unless those OS' are popular; and those OS' won't become popular unless they have large software and hardware support. Hence, a hellish cycle which favors the current monopoly, MS. The main consideration of the government should be to break that cycle and allow all OS' to compete on their merits.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
But what about tax avoision?
They that would sacrifice their
Think about it if they stop selling windows - it is all over!!!
Think of what the world would be like if there wasnt a newer version of windows, in an year or two.
I would have to use my old version of windows. I wont have a new version of windows to painfully slow down my comp while i am writing email. So then i wont need to buy a new comp. I will not be able to take advantage of innovative licencing schemes where i periodicaly pay microsoft money.
So I will be forced to live with thousands of dollars of extra money burdening me.
This is too painful to just contemplate. Please anything but that.
PS i havent even mentioned all the new viruses that I might miss out. And dont get me started on palladium.
A careful study of Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly demonstrates that she is well versed in the law, and spends the necessary effort to research her opinions. I like this is in a Judge, even though I may not agreewith their opinions. IMHO, Microsoft's behavior, to date, has been a clear demonstration of why anti-trust law was created to begin with. I deeply hope that Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is able to see from a similar perspective. If we're lucky, she'll decide that Judge Jackson was far too restrained, and hand Microsoft ground butt in a handbasket. But, then again, I've always been a hopeless optimistic.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Judge Jackson's decision was important because back then it looked like the government and the judicial system were ready able and willing to enforce the law.
But this DOJ has shown no interest to enforce the antitrust law. This makes the case a farce - a conflict between two parties that basicly agree on the issues, but only want to pretend to disagree.
The judge can refuse to approve the agreement but what if she does - if the government doesnt seek sanctions she wont impose them. The best she may do is elicit another agreement, which is guaranteed to be just as inefective.
On top of everything the judicial system has responded in a very unprofessional manner. The appelate court chose not to try and overturn judge jackson on the facts ( they will need to write a good logical justification, based on the evidence, to do that) but to pummel him with ethics accusations.
The current judge knows very well that Jackson got punished for rendering a certain decision and she is unlikely to do anything similar if she cares about her career at all.
"IANAMF (read I am not a MS fan) but as I remember the other companies with competing OSs did not step up to the plate and court the PC clone companies like MS did in the early game."
The fact is that there wouldn't have been any PC clone companies were it not for MS. The only reason they exist is that MS insisted on the right to license DOS to 3rd parties and IBM foolishly agreed.
I suspect that had IBM decided otherwise, personal computers would be more expensive and Apple would have a significantly larger market share.
Er, there were certainly others, at least in the DOS days. Hell, there was even a DOS clone back then, called DR-DOS (DR = Digital Research; if memory serves, it was later bought by Novell, then by Caldera). There were other multitasking environments back then, such as Desqview and GEM Windows. There was even an IBM-Microsoft partnership -- recall OS/2? Of course, that was before MSFT basically stabbed IBM in the back...
/new/ system -- interoperability would be critical.
But as for developing a
(1) Nobody wants to migrate their entire application base, especially if it's impossible because the devs won't port it because the market is too small (Catch-22 here).
(2) Nobody wants to lose access to their documents or ability to exchange files with others, when the porting fails and nobody successfully, completely re-implements the different formats.
If you can't interoperate with the dominant software (e.g. Microsoft Office and its document formats, WordPerfect w/n the legal domain) you'll have serious problems spreading.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Simply not true. Money in the bank can be unused. If your economy is growing to fast, you'd see few "idle" bucks at the banks. If your economy is "cold", you'd see a _lot_ of idle money in the bank. Reinforcing these, when investors see that companies earnings at expected to go down, they sell but NOT to buy another hopefully underpriced stock, but to put it in the bank. (Just look at the interest rates falling. And that's also why the fed lowers rates, but they try to lower them beforehand, before people decide to cancel proyect as a countermesure of getting colder than needed. If they cannot prevent the ice formation, at least there is less incentive to sit the money on bacnks, and olso the projects VAN is measured against this rate).
Buy money owners couldn't care less earning less from having the money sitting in the bank, they are now "safe". Also, many projects are canceled in real life, because demand falls and thus you have extra capacity (you only need capital reposition, if anything). So new projects get postponed because of lack of oportunities.
So what would be desirable? To let companies AND people that will NOT sit their own revenues or even wealth. Of course, we all know that these are companies that either do reinvest all their extra earnings and people that consume all their income.
When this start getting cold, you need the "rich" individuals to start spending money (thepoor have already DONE that! They have no choice) and the rich (=very profitable) companies as well (the others are already speding all their income!)
So your argument COULD be not wrong. But it is in fact wrong. People cannot really find very good project to start right now. And the only ones that can decide to use that money ANYWAY are the ones that own that money. That is Microsoft et al (money bank sitters).
If they don't do it, then the goverment must do it. So you can expect a lot of deficit. And many taxes raised (so they can take away profiting power from the profiters that are not spending it, and then Spend It Right Away. Of course, this hurts companies that where not very profitable). Well, all this means inefficiency and can be a very dangerous game.
I don't really know how can people speak SO HIGH when there a lots of capable human beigns unemployed all over the countries, and a lot of factories underutilized. Is this an efficient use of resources?
And no, money is a limited resource only when it is beign used! Not when sitting in banks. (and if you want to force loans at near 0 interest rates and such, you'll see banks collapsing after a while, because loaned money will be used in stupid projects that can't pay the loans back, and the low margin of intermediation will not compensate the loses.).
So no... the right thing to do is not to profit from monopoly and make it sit on the bank for the "goodwill of the US citizen". The thing is to actually have them to use the money. And they don't want that (after all, shareholders can simple just SELL the stock if they want cash).
unfinished: (adj.)
Expect the following:
...)
.Net code I have been tinkering with. :-)
1) No real motion to do anything about Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop. They (MS) already bought most of the legal system to insure the ruling stands, regardless if it is legal or not.
So don't expect any of that to change, now or in the future. Yes, the legal system in the US is that bad, even after Enron.
2) Expect however, for Microsoft to set a number of legal precendents (such as the keeping of its monopoly power by this judge and others sure to come) that insure other very large companies to consider the same tactics to consolidate thier power in other markets in the US outside the tech industry. (i.e. clothing, energy, automotive
I expect as this unfolds, the US economy to become even MORE monolithic, and even MORE depressed as more innovation moves offshore to escape the corporate monoliths of invincibility in this country.
3) Expect other companies to use the same illegal tactics Microsoft has, and then use court rulings to either make "the law" (i.e. specifically anti trust law, cohesion, cartle laws..etc) irrelevant or insure the the legal costs are so high, defending companies will not intrude on companies with 51% market share anywhere.
Don't expect good news people. It is sad because I want my country to return to the good times. But that won't happen, when companies like Microsoft can sit on 30 Billion in capital and lock it away for the specific use to buy court rulings, and congreessional leaders. SInce this money isn't returned into the economy startups can't use it, ideas don't get funded, and little Johnny will continue to see the cost of the OS increase to the point it is 70% the cost os a home computer! (Which is comming by the way, as hardware prices continue to decline, Microsoft licenses continue to increase at never before seen rates...)
Monolithic economies, like the US, do not spur innovation, because large corporate entities who already own most of the market don't have to innovate anymore. They just sit on huge amounts of capital, and do nothing with it except harrass competition, startups, and illegally appropriate technology from other companies and figure out how to price fix thier products in the market place.
The harm that does to the technology investment sector in the US is incalculable, and the job losses are staggering.
Think about this while all you slashdot IT people sit at home unemployed.
Don't buy Microsoft products. Force Microsoft to return that ridiculously large pile of cash back into the tech sector.
Who knows, if the are forced to use all of it, maybe they will make a decent product with it, or improve the alpha quality of the
Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The thing is Microsoft can just kill ANY software product that needs a profit to survive. Netscape this or that, could put could not put blah blah. Microsoft doesn't need to argue. They can decide they want Netscape to die and just invest X money on a bundled broswer. That's it, Netscape HAS to close.
So as long as you don't control the entire software bussiness, you are in risk of getting your revenue stream killed by Microsoft. If they REALLY want to, they could kill you. If you depend on a revenue stream, better not get in the way of Microsoft. It doesn't matter how innovative or well done your product is (ICQ, webmail, whatever), they will just put it free.
No wonder why AOL can't make revenues and Microsoft can. Because Micrsoft just needs 2 or 3 products to be sold to compensate ALL the loses in ALL the other fields (read: Office + Windows + some other products pay for everything).
And then they keep on "embracing and extending". That's why they must be stopped. They MUST be split, so they cannot leverage their positions. I lve Windows, I love Office, I love Explorer, I love . But I don't love them leveraging that so wipe competition. I can only lose in the long/mid term.
unfinished: (adj.)
Who was it said the only time 'Microsoft' and 'trust' can be used in the same sentence is when the word 'anti' is also there?
Here's what you do:
Force all the head honchos from Microsoft (Bill Gates, etc..) to leave the company and to have no financial stake in Microsoft.
Of course, being as greedy as they are, they will create a rival company to Microsoft and have billions to put behind it. Now that would be interesting. I wonder if any of Bill's hired henchmen could possibly be more evil than he is?
Then how does Opera Software stay afloat?
I used to be a huge fan of Netscape. In many ways, NS3/X11 was (and still is) one of the best browsers ever made. Back when the phrase "browser wars" had any relevance, I consistently rooted for Netscape, and I have always and likely will always despise MSIE.
But the sad fact is that Netscape lost because they got overconfident and started sucking. Badly. NS4 was an unadulterated pile of tripe on every platform I've ever had the misfortune to see it running on. (I'm of the firm opinion that Netscape's sending JWZ to play on other projects was a large reason for this.)
From extremely unstable Java, JavaScript, and plugin handling, to a broken DOM, to broken font handling, to simple unmitigated flouting of Web standards, NS4 was a nightmare for developers, system administrators, and end users. And let's not forget that NS4's claim of implementing CSS, while deploying the most insane and broken implementation known to humanity, singlehandedly held back the Web by 2 or 3 years.
My experience with Netscape, the company, seems to bear this out. When I worked for a large company supposedly in a "strategic alliance" with them, they refused to even answer the phone when their phones showed it was us calling. I personally knew several people tasked with deploying Netscape products at the enterprise level, and the painful and unsupported hacks we had to put in place leave me cringing even now. We were supposed to be using the iPlanet server everywhere, but my manager had us use Apache and a third-party servlet engine after Netscape refused to implement basic Java servlet APIs and their configuration manager trashed our configs. When I later worked at a startup, we had one of the Netscape execs at our company, and he was still convinced that his old company's server products would win the day. Netcraft statistics meant nothing to him -- it was as if they didn't even exist -- and he seemed puzzled why everyone refused to mouth platitudes about it.
I use (unbranded) Mozilla now, and I'm very happy with it, but keep in mind that this is basically a complete redesign and rewrite of Netscape, years too late. Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, and other browsers may win back market share, but it is far too late for Netscape, the company, and for good reason.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Bzzt. You lose. Microsoft is a legal monopoly. Acquiring this status does not require you hold 100% of the market; rather only something like 85%. Even this is probably a little lenient. Being a monopoly is also not illegal, as long as you don't abuse it.
Nice logic. Coke and Pepsi do bad things and aren't monopolies. Microsoft does bad things. Therefore, MS isn't a monopoly.
Humans eat food and water, and aren't cows. Cows eat food and water. Therefore, cows aren't cows.
Yeah. This should happen. You don't go quite far enough, but we're at least on the same page here.
Unfortunately, you're rather naive if you think monopolies should be left to run unchecked. In a perfect system, either monopolies couldn't happen, or they would run their natural course and die.
The problem is, this isn't a perfect system. Look at the RIAA, MPAA, even Microsoft lobbies; when corporations can fund lawmaking, legislate their business model, and outlaw their competition, the system doesn't work.
The checks and balances are there for a reason. You take those away, and everything topples. Right now, it's leaning precariously.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
IBM were a convicted monopolist long before OS/2 appeared on the scene. IBM is a hardware company who make software. Their software is none the less good.
For being such a loser product, it does a pretty good attempt of staying alive. Its community is every bit as vibrant as that of Linux, despite being a closed source operating system. Why. It was the firstest with the mostest. OS/2 v 3 now has USB support. Hmm. Not Windows NT 4.
IBM also complied with the antitrust people.
It must never be forgotten that the roots of Linux lies in yet another anti-trust case: that of AT&T. They developed unix, and the source code for unix was released under assorted agreements and restrictions of antitrust. This became the foundation of the open-source stuff.
On the other hand, MS tightened the screws in every way they are legally allowed to, such as using massive reserves to literally capture markets with loss-leaders. I do not trust MSFT.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
The appellate court said "we find no evidence of actual bias ".
Part of Jackson's rulings were overturned because he violated judicial standards about talking to the press which could lead to the appearance of impropriety.
As for a proper solution, that's a tough one. Microsoft anti-competitive tactics are rampant throughout their bussiness dealings. Simply fixing the OEM licensing contracts isn't going to accomplish anything.
I don't know if a break-up is a good idea or not, but it is about the only ruling I can think of that would be sweeping enough to keep them from continuing with anti-competitive tactics that aren't on some short list of prohibitited activities.
A truely massive financial penaly might be enough to put some fear of breaking the law into them, but I think that may not be an available option.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Appeal if they like but historically the Supreme Court tends to reject hearings on cases like this where no Constituional questions are asked. Unless Microsoft's defense is that Anti-Trust laws are unfair and unconstituional the Supreme Court probably won't hear the case. It is of course their right to appeal as many times as they want but more than not the Supreme Court finds that the lower courts were in order and refuses to hear the case.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microso
This is a great writeup from a guy who had a lot of access to the players with the understanding that he wouldn't publish until after the trial. I wish it would get turned into a book.
My favorite part about this is how it shows you the isolation that Gates and others live(d) in--he really seems to think he was innocent.
Another interesting revelation in this is that Gates micromanaged the law team.
Liberty uber alles.