Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Settles Be Antitrust Suit for $23.25M
ewhac writes "Without admitting wrongdoing, Microsoft today agreed to pay $23,250,000 to Be, Inc., to settle anti-trust claims against the software giant. The payout is anticipated to be used to complete the orderly dissolution of the company. Shortly after announcing sale of key assets to Palm, Be, Inc., filed suit against Microsoft in February 2002, alleging destruction of its business via illegal exclusionary and anti-competitive business practices."
How does one willingly pay $25,250,000, without trial, and not admit to wrong doing? An admittance of guilt is suggested under such circumstances.
While $23 million is peanuts to MS, it makes you wonder why they would even bother settling this, it's not like Be had the resources to fight them in court.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The ending paragraph of that article is disturbing to say the least. Founded in 1975, Microsoft is the worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people through great software -- any time, any place and on any device. pshhhh... right. ;)
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
"Founded in 1975, Microsoft is the worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people through great software -- any time, any place and on any device." .....no comment
23 million well spent. probably cost less than an Ad campaitgn on the major networks.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
The suit was about MS pressuring OEMs to not install other OSes on hard drives of machines they shipped. They did NOT want to see a dual-boot situation.
One of the big issues is getting end-users to install another OS. Since most people never have to install an OS, it is a daunting concept no matter how easy it is.
The whole effort in making Linux so easy to install derived from this.
Now, with the settlement, MS doesn't have to defend this practice in court. They don't admit guilt and can keep on pressuring OEMs to not install alternatives to Windows on new machines.
$23+ million is chump change if it avoids getting dragged into court and having this practice under scrutiny.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
To put this in perspective, consider the following math:
:-/
$8,072,000,000 net income for MSFT during the 9 months ended 3/31/03
divided by the (roughly) 270 days during the 9 months ended 3/31/03
...yields $29,000,000 net income per day for MSFT
so basically they destroyed Be, Inc., and it cost them roughly 18 *hours* of income.
just lovely
True, but you must understand that this is yet another chink in their armor. Once-invulnerable Microsoft has now had to settle a number of actions such as this. What they really didn't want was a full-dress jury trial where all of what Microsoft did to them would have been fleshed out for all to see.
What's more, it's very telling that a company with Microsoft's resources would settle rather than fight and "clear our name."
The essence of the "voluntary" dissolution of Be means that this money will not go to a sudden resurrection of the BeOS, as some have thought (foolishly hoped, perhaps).
Be Inc wisely (I think) dissolved "voluntarily" and did its best to ensure that investors did not get the short end of the stick. Be sold off all their intellectual property to Palm, and passed the cash amongst stock owners, minus costs. Be then had a single purpose - pursue the MS lawsuit. This money will be passed about, minus expences, to stock holders.
Then all Be will be is a trademarked logo.
Microsoft calls it 'Freedom to Innovate', everybody else calls it 'Freedom to Violate'.
Now that Microsoft has settled with Be for $23 million dollars, they'll have to cut back to 12 towels a day to wipe down dancing monkeyboy Ballmer. He'll be significantly moister with everything that that entails. I feel truly sorry for the Microsoft employees working in his immediate proximity.
....I mean, SCO is looking for BILLIONS....and their business hasn't been destroyed....Seems like the Be people need to get more than a few 23 million!
The Be people need Uncle McBride on their side....oh wait a second...SCO's attack is being funded by MS....sorry, my bad...
It's different in that MS was already established as a virtual monopoly and used these tactics in order to raise the barrier to entry even higher - to near impossible.
This would be like your warplane analogy only if the DoD had a contract with Boeing saying that, in order to receive a decent price on the B-52, they could buy Boeing, and only Boeing warplanes. A bit different in my book.
It's great that Be's shareholders get a few dollars back for their pains, but they still certainly didn't come out ahead. But the real tragedy isn't the way about the investors -- it's about the millions of people who could have benefited from Be's amazing and innovative software, had Be been allowed to compete on anything remotely resembling a level playing field.
Hopefully more and more of Be's innovations will end up in Mac OS X and Linux. Then Be's achievements won't have been for naught.
The only reason why MS could settle this case is that Be agreed to the terms of the settlement.
It's no more sad that MS could settle this case for a "paltry" $23 mil than it is that Be would actually accept that settlement.
I wonder what the morale must be like among the programmers/technicians employed by MS? Every day they must be reading about MS security holes, crashing MS apps, or the latest MS abuse of market power. Their karma must but so low when they shuffle off to pick up their pay cheque.
And when the smoke cleared in the dusty street outside the courthouse, Microsoft was left, a few bullets short, still smirking.
... formidible arsenal might not be enough to protect you someday. Dead men like these do say something about you, you know."
The old judge watched on and winced at the display of street "justice", knowing he had no role in this display. Still, he spoke: "You aught to be careful, Mr. Microsoft. Your...attitude may bring such antagonism that even your
"Bah", Microsoft said, turning. Soon, Mr. Microsoft's gun barrel wavered towards the judge's general direction, "Dead men tell no tales." Mr. Microsoft then promptly holstered his weapon, tipped his hat, and rode away, honor still officially intact.
Ryan Fenton
"Damnit! We should have filed a lawsuit against Microsoft instead of Big Blue!" -- Darl
Last I checked YellowTAB (http://www.yellowtab.com) is working on a new release of BeOS (which really is a nice OS), called zeta, and has collected most of the IP rights to the old BeOS. I wonder if/hope they see some of this.
Making an "exclusive sale" deal isn't anticompetitive, if the deal is reached as a mutually beneficial arrangement.
However, the tactics MSFT (allegedly) used to force such deals are highly suspect. Allegedly, MSFT would tell OEMs that they could ONLY install Windows, and if an OEM didn't agree to such a "deal", MSFT would stop letting them sell Windows *at all*.
Those sorts of strongarm tactics are definitely anticompetitive, and should be investigated. Basically, for $22m, MSFT has paid off Be's shareholders to drop the lawsuit and prevent such an investigation. While I don't fault Be for taking the deal, it would sure be nice to find someone MSFT couldn't buy off.
If MS used its monopoly power in those dealing, then they where being anticompetitive. Monopolies have different rules, and for good reason.
Keep in mind that it may have been good for MS it was still anti-competitve.
Lets say you are selling an OS, a very popular OS, so popular in fact, it would be almost unthinkable not to build a computer without it. Now, you tell a computer maker "I'll charge you X for the OEM, but if you make a computer with a different OS, I'l charge you X*2". You are being anti-competitive.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Be has to get the deal approved by Judge Frederick Motz.. so things are not as dire as they seem. He has no real love for Microsoft.
As for 'not being able to afford going to court', well Be hired Susman/Godfrey on a contingency basis. So it looks like they went for the easy paycheck.
Once-invulnerable Microsoft has now had to settle a number of actions such as this.
Yeah, but here's the problem: a one-time fee penalty can't really remedy never really compensate for the permanent elimination of a market competitor. By eliminating Netscape, Microsoft secured a permanent (and quite effective) internet browser monopoly.
Look at it a different way: Microsoft can continue to own that market and cannot get sued over this incident again. So instead of thinking about the fee as a legal penalty, you can think of it as Microsoft buying a (very expensive) license to monopolize the market. It works out the same way.
Eventually, the legal system will have to come to grips with the fact that its current M.O. of penalizing corporations isn't deterring anyone. They smile, pay it, and move on to bigger and better market exploits.
What they really didn't want was a full-dress jury trial where all of what Microsoft did to them would have been fleshed out for all to see.
Eh? Why would they care? They've had several incidents of antitrust very publicly resolved against them. (Netscape; Lotus 1-2-3; that DoubleSpace case... and a hundred small cases of patent theft or breaches of contracts with small companies that were decimated in the struggle.) The public knows they're monopolists - it's been a consistent business method for much of their existence. What's one more suit?
Nah, the real reason is that it's just the cheapest way of resolving this claim. They have no hope of winning or swaying public opinion; they don't even care any more. Just cut bait at bottom dollar and move on.
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
Settlement is all fine and well, but US$23.50M isn't exactly going to motivate fair competative practice from Microsoft. Where are the crippling government fines MS deserves? A US$10 billion crime would probably give MS pause, and it'd help the US Budget crunch, too! :)
What Be tried to do is to get computer manufacturers offer a dual-boot system with Windows and Be. If you think about it, that's about the only way you can get ordinary computer users to try alternative operating systems voluntarily and without hassle. They might even think that the pre-installed alternative adds value to the computer, worth the small extra price (say 10 to 20 bucks). But Microsoft would have none of that.
The reason these kinds of practices are probably illegal for Microsoft is that they are in a monopoly position, and the law tries to keep down monopoly power in order to increase competition. I hope I don't need to explain why competition is the basic feature of capitalism that makes it good for society.
Whose Passport ID gets used to transfer that amount of money?
Money not found! A)bort, R)etry, D)eclare Bankruptcy
It's too bad that companies don't stand for principals. They can't. Their raison d'etre is to enhance shareholder value, and that means cutting a favorable deal when it's practical to do so. The reason I lament this is that MS once again gets away scott free while admitting no wrongdoing . A person - an individual - might stay the course and see a case like this through to its end provided they had the resources to pay their legal bills (which of course, almost no one has). That end would ideally involve their adversary admitting to wrongdoing, and then paying. Such an admission could be useful to others who find themselves in the same boat. Unfortunately, it IS all about the money.
Think about it:
1 people work too many hours, they live and breath 10,12, 16+ hour a day inside MS. Most employees are sleep deprived.
There diet is generally poor.
They listen to the MS propaganda all the time.
when they go out they almost exclusivly go out with MS employees.
The company expects that Wives and children are second to the company.
then within the company, you have 'cells' of people. If you interact 'inapproprietly' towards another cell, your leader can make your life hell, so you always smile.
OTOH, somedays I wish I was so completly blind, I could ignore the worlds problems.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Perhaps the dollar sign was a bit too much?
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
When you are a monopoly, the rules change. You can no longer force the business partners into exclusive deals (amongst other things).
So everything hinges on whether or not MS is a monopoly, and the courts have said they are. That's why MS paid of Be. They new if it went to trial they'd lose. Be probably took the deal because they didn't have the financial clout to go the distance. That's too bad. I would have loved to see MS ordered to pay (little finger to corner of mouth) one billion dollars.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The difference is, Linux started as a totally hobby thing with no real intention of really being used by anyone other than Linus. Be, on the other hand, was trying to create a commercial operating system, and as such, had put hard time and money into developing their product before even having a chance at gaining a foothold. The Linux companies essentially had a ready-made product that simply needed packaging and support. Be didn't have that luxury. Remember, Linux has been in development since 1991-1992, and has only really gained commercial acceptance in the past 3-4 years. A startup commercial software companies simply can't afford 7 or 8 years of funding major development before they kind of, sort of start to gain acceptance.
Let me tell you a story. I once worked for a company that was able to charge a lot of money for an adequate product. There was no competition, so we could pretty much name our price. We had to keep quality at a tolerable level, but not the level the customer really wanted. We tended to use processes and equipment that was quite old.
These factors caused many economic problems. The company had money, but was not developing or consuming new technology at a rate comparable to the amount of cash on hand. This probably resulted in few overall jobs, but richer principles in the company. Also, the companies customers had to spend time working on our quality issues rather than creating better products for the end user. Also, the companies customers had to pay our 'inflated' prices rather that using that money to upgrade their facilities.
Eventually competition came in the form of Asian manufacturers with modern equipment and processes. The company spent money trying to quickly upgrade equipment and procedures. The competition produced products of equivalent quality at about half the price. Things were no longer great for the company, but times were much better for the companies vendors and customers. Quality increased and jobs were created in the US as the company was forced to modernize the facility.
Which is to say that the free market and capitalism depends on active competitions. While there may be nothing wrong with MS maintaining a monopoly on x86 systems, it does not help the American economy. Manufacturing jobs are being lost at an alarming rate, programming jobs are being lost at an alarming rate, and MS sits there with billions of dollars in the bank and an OS that desperately needs improvement in quality. They could do it.
But there is no competition. There is no other OS that threatens their market share. The vendors are in trouble because MS had no need to upgrade their facilities. The customers are in trouble because MS does not have to charge true market value. There has been no significant feature changes in Windows or Office for at least 5 years. Yet there has also been no retail price change. Admittedly Office now contains VPC, but still we are paying $200 for VPC and $250 for a five year old office suite.
I would suggest that if competition did exist the customer would pay a lower true market price. I suggest that MS would have to hire programmer and buy equipment. I suggest that the previously unemployed programmer would have money to buy durable goods. The manufactures of the durable goods would then hire workers to create the goods. And so on.
This is certainly a simplistic economic view, but the point is that we allow companies to create monopolies and these monopolies cause nothing but problems in the free market . Money collects in unproductive spaces. Technology and process stagnate. And China and India create better cheaper products while American CEO claim ignorance and disbelief at the unfairness of it all and demand that congress enact dangerous protectionist measure to help keep American jobs. They could have just spent some of thier cash reserves on implemeting the new technology, but that never occurs to the CEO.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
$23,250,000 isn't that much after I take my $3 billion cut. And don't think I haven't got my eyes on Be. From the geekport (the idea of an exposed bus is stolen from UnixWare, wherein the bus can easily be stolen by any wayward application) on through the final Be releases (which stole our concept of severely limited hardware support), Be has been stealing our valuable IP and releasing it to the world.
Gasse and his cohorts will be facing my mighty Level 17 Staff of PR Blustering faster than you can say "BeBox."
Ummm....doesn't that kind of cover all litigation? Not to limited there!
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
Imagine you have $10 and someone wins a lawsuit against you, and the award is a penny. That's how badly this is going to hurt Microsoft.
Do you have ESP?
That's disingenuous at best. Without the free availability of Linux, those distributions wouldn't be able to get a foot in the door.
People generally wouldn't buy a new computer with an OS they know nothing about.
I'm not sure about that--how many people actually know anything about Windows?
I have no arguments that MS was involved with anti-competitive practise with Be, but I don't think that Be would've won. MS has (essentially) unlimited resources to delay the legal proceedings until either the other side calls mercy, or they find a sympathetic judge. Hell, they even did it to the US government, they certainly would've done it here. Admitting wrong-doing would be detrimental to MS and would open floodgates to tons of lawsuits.
I don't know if this needs mentioning, and I'm sure that I'm missing the point, but from an outsider's viewpoint, wasn't Be's demise mostly because of Apple? For a while, it seemed that BeOS was the front runner to Mac's new OS. They ran a huge PR campaign that deflated when Apple chose another OS from which to base.
Caldera did file an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft for $1.6 billion, and settled for $150 million (estimated).
Carrying a possible liability, an "oh yah, we're being sued by someone, and they might win" clause in the quarterly report, looks bad when it recurs for years.
Get off my launchpad!
My Inudstrial Oraganization Econ. is a little rusty, by why so little money? If I recall, the Clayton and Sherman acts stipulate that if found guilty the party is responsible for 3 TIMES the damages caused. Be, Inc. is accepting that Microsoft only caused it about $7mil in damages? Others have already pointed out how little money $23mil is to Microsoft. Why wouldn't MS be extactic to settle for so little? We would Be give up so easily? In understand that proving the monopoly would be extremely complex and take years. All the same, it just seems that they could have gotten much more in court.
It is the law, and it's unfair when Microsoft doesn't play by the same rules as others. Back when IBM was making OS/2, they considered giving it away for FREE to compete with Microsoft. They decided not to, though, because they were afraid they'd be found guilty of anti-competitive practices. Meanwhile, Microsoft was off violating the law...
Are you thinking of the book "The Mouse that Roared"?
This reminds me of when pets.com sued Conan O'Brien and NBC for Triumph the comic insult dog. I wish I could run around sueing to cover up my failures.
23 million? 2 people in car accident get more than that in cival litigation; how many people has MS hurt? This whole thing is just fucked up, and I give up on the legal structure of things because the one with the most money at the end of the day wins. MONEY='Get to do what you want". Wow, what an alogarithm....we should have thought about that during the writing of the Constitution
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
The saddest part for me is the fact that a great company with so much potential is basically reduced to a pittance (23 Mil for a company that Apple almost purchased for big bucks) and all the magic of the BeOS is gone...
Hey Microsoft! No matter how much money you have or how many companies you copy, mimic, or destroy... you will never, and I repeat NEVER, develop anything remotely as cool a as BeBox with BeOS running on it!
Your mom always said, a PB&J is better than nothing, and God is nothing, is a PB&J better than God?
They could always change their name...
The saddest part for me is the fact that a great company with so much potential is basically reduced to a pittance (23 Mil for a company that Apple almost purchased for big bucks)
Hey Microsoft! No matter how much money you have or how many companies you copy, mimic, or destroy... you will never, and I repeat NEVER, develop anything remotely as cool as a BeBox with BeOS running on it!
Your mom always said, a PB&J is better than nothing, and God is nothing, is a PB&J better than God?
This is another example of Microsoft buying its way out of trouble. I've just posted a rant on this subject, heres an excerpt:
A tiny bump for Microsoft, well worth keeping their "Hoe"EMs in the harem. I can hear the conversation now, "Where's my money Compaq? I know you sold more boxes than that, bitch! I want my money!"
StickMan
www.rageagainst.net
This is a pretty cheap price for Micro$oft to rid them selves of a competitor. I think they are getting off real cheap.
It also shows they realise the poor quality of their own products. If they thought their product could compete on a level playing field with other OS`s, they would let it do so.. And then use this as a marketting tool, in an ideal world, products would have to sell themselves based on quality and overall value for money. Unfortunately, in today`s world, marketting campaigns and strongarm tactics keep people with the established players and raise the barrier of entry too high for a competitor to achieve any great success, remember.. if people dont know about your product, or dont know why its better than someone else`s, then they wont buy it.. and you`l make no money on it, and without money you cant afford the same kind of marketting campaigns as the established players. And end users generally won`t pay for a product they`ve never heard of, if there`s something more familiar available.. "better the devil you know"
The only reason linux is gaining a foothold is because it can be downloaded for free, and thus theres nothing to lose by trying it... and secondly, theres no company behind it that needs to make profit in order for linux itself to succeed.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Whenever someone brings suit against Microsoft, they always try to settle. There is no court proceedings in which facts will become public record. There is no innocent or guilty verdict. It's all very quiet, subtle, and quickly brushed aside from peoples' view and memory.
Reading the Complaint, Be appears to have had a very strong case. I cannot believe they would actually lose in court again Microsoft. (Then again, Microsoft do have an army of lawyers and unlimited monetary resources at their disposal.) By accepting this settlement, they do not demonstrate Microsoft had engaged in any wrong-doing. By all accounts, a mere 23 million is nothing to Microsoft and they come out as the winners.
Shame on you, Be. Why doesn't anyone actually take a stand these days? Microsoft says: "here's a lollipop, now shut the fuck up." People, unfortunately, take it without any consideration for the public good in the long-term.
Join Tor today!
Those benefits may still be realized, albeit a bit indirectly. The innovations in BeOS weren't sent to Earth by aliens; the ideas came from brilliant people, and those people are still around -- thinking up even better ideas, and putting them into practice all over the place. Consider also the many developers and users who have been inspired over the years by their Be experiences. I'd be willing to bet that conceptual descendants of the designs and decisions that shaped BeOS and BeIA will probably have a non-trivial impact on computing for some time to come.
it's a shame- maybe Be didn't have enough resources to fight MS successfully, but perhaps they could've gotten a bigger judgment had they followed through with the lawsuit?
If ever there were a case that could be proven of a directly competing (and superior) product that failed due to MS's anti-competitive practices in the OS market, it would be Be. A fair chance for Be would've been worth a lot more than a measly $23.25 mil.
In cases involving publically quoted companies, the terms of the settlement must be published, we cannot have things like this hidden from view. The public interest is in holding these guys accountable.
It makes sense that Ashcroft covered the statue of Justice. Justice is dead. And the DOJ just sucks the biggest dick.
If corporations are 'just like' people, where do I sign up to kill them?
The PC vendors asked Microsoft out on a date. Microsoft agrees, and the relationship begins to grow and develop. After dating for a while, a new girl shows up (Be), and some PC vendors ask her to dinner. Microsoft complains that Be is getting all of the attention now, and threatens to be less available for dinner and drinks on Friday. Most of the PC vendors decide they prefer Microsoft, so they leave Be to go patch things up with MSFT. Be dies of heartbreak and her parents (children?) sue Microsoft for wrongful death.
"I'm not sure about that--how many people actually know anything about Windows?" Most people at least have SEEN Windows. That's more than you can say about most people and any other PC based OS. Toss in the fact that if they work in an office, they probably either use some custom designed application running over a dumb terminal or Windows. That breeds familiarity, and that's what people are comfortable buying.
- b
Be inc was dead - they had nohting to lose and the antitrust trial ad done all the work. The money means nothing, but the precedent set in court would have real benefit to the community. I smell corrupt execs.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
Really, really a lot less than 1%.
$22.5 x 10 = $225m
x 10 = $2.25bn
x 10 = $22.5bn
x 2 = $45bn
i.e. 1/2000 (or 0.05%)
(ehich is *still* less than MSFT cash at hand...)
But I digress. This looks like a pretty fair settlement to me. If you look at who Be's was really compeating with, it was probably Apple, and to a lesser extent SGI. I really don't think there were many BeBox buyers that thought... hmmm.. I really want a Pentium 66 running Windows 95.
This is like Dugati extracting a settlement from Ford, as it's predatory pricing on cars was affecting Ducati's motorbike sales. There are many, many people who can claim to have been harshly affected by Miscrosoft's unfair competitive practices: Be is probably pushing it. Which is why it picked up just 0.05% of MSFT's cash balances...
Just my 2c.
--- My dad's political betting
Essentially, first click downloads the install program. Second click confirms "Do you want to run this, and install Debian as an alternate OS?" Most of the program then downloads off the internet.
Then, the program (1) Loads all system information that it can, into a file
(2) Loads the basic program onto the hard drive, plus all required debs, and checks the hashes.
(3) Installs startup program in Windows that gives the user an option "Would you like to change your default bootup setting to Linux? (Y/N/Don't ask again)"
(4) runs ScanDisk to clean the disk
(5) runs Defrag to defrag it.
(6) rewrites the floppy with a boot disk, and boots into Linux
(7) Partitions a standard user configuration onto the HDD (or onto the alternate HDD, if you so select, thus removing the need for repartitioning)
(8) Installs the Debs
(9) Installs LILO, with 20-second timeout, and default option being Windows bootup (the polite option).
(10) Sets a waiting screen "Your Debian Linux System is Installed. Please hit any key to reboot to Windows, or 'L' to continue with Linux for now, and explore your new OS!."
Such a system should also have a kind of "new hardware" wizard which reports back any new hardware that Debian developers have never seen.
It should also have an "Error Reporting" wizard, such that if the installation process fails, then when you return to Windows you have the option, "Report Error?"
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
to me
-pyrrho
It was a piece of shit, it didn't really work on 90% of all computers in the face of the planet and the shell sucked. But "fuck you" and "it's all your fault" nonetheless.
Be killed itself with alarming efficiency. They killed themselves the moment they decided they wanted to be bought out by someone, anyone.
But don't let that stop you from playing frustrated-zealot-in-heat.
I remember reading a while back that Microsoft had literally too much money for its own good.
So this is where some of it goes, presumably. Probably will be a win for MS, anyway.
Eventually, the legal system will have to come to grips with the fact that its current M.O. of penalizing corporations isn't deterring anyone. They smile, pay it, and move on to bigger and better market exploits.
If by move on to bigger and better maket exploits, you mean that they create products, and sell stuff, then I agree with you. You are free to compete, but they have more money and more lawyers and more patents. The only way that you can "win" is to give away your products or provide some different feature sets/offer something of a different value.
Does Linux do this? Sure. That's what makes MS compete with it. Microsoft for once has a competitor that is worthy of the name competitor. Will Linux win? Not in the sense that it is any better or cheaper to use than MS products. Linux will win in the case that it will change people's minds. Sure, they violate a few patents that MS wouldn't sue for because they already have enough legal battles and aren't stupid enough to pull a SCO. MS can't sue Linux to win. MS wins by selling product and establishing market dominance in the corporate world. Just because MS has a home division doesn't mean that they don't make their money from Office and Windows sold to enterprises and governments.
And in case those of you staunch Linux supporters out there think that Linux isn't in any way, shape, or form produced by the industry, but rather by cool geeks like you, then let me dispel the myth. Linux is the OS produced by IBM and RedHat, not you. Yes, you may be submitting your lines of code to the Kernel or some utility, but when you submit lines of your code to Linux, you are giving your time to IBM. IBM is not compensating you for it. IBM is selling your developments to others, and you cannot prevent it from happening. The GPL already absorbed your patent rights.
Is Microsoft evil? Hardly. They make products that appeal to the market, and people buy those products because of the way that Microsoft positions them. From time to time, Microsoft buys technologies and competition, and from time to time, Microsoft actually produces something you can call innovative (for example, amouse you might actually want to use with multiple buttons, a scroll wheel, and a stylish finish).
In the business world, there are many failed ventures for every one which succeeds. For example, can anyone tell me what you might be able to do with a product known as Microsoft Liquid Motion? Microsoft purchased the company which produced it according to this press release.
Here's a quick list of some of these corporations that are out to "make money" in the hardware/software industry, maybe MS has Billions of dollars, so do all of these companies. Why? Well, you can't live without the products and services they have provided, continue to provide, and might provide in the future: IBM (the marketers of Linux, and the founder of the Computer Industry, whose people produced such famous inventions as ASCII and the Personal Computer), AT&T (they brought you several things including the Transistor and UNIX), Oracle (if you ever use a credit card, your transactions were made using their software), Apple (Jobs and Woz were the first to make an affordable hobbyist PC), Microsoft (MS was the first Software company, and established the software licensing business model), Sun (makers of expensive hardware which run all that Oracle DB software, and Java), Xerox (They didn't patent the GUI, the Mouse, or WYSIWG, but they invented them), HP (printers, calculators, computers).
So I don't see Microsoft or the computer industry as all that bad, they produced all the technology that enables you and I to have this discussion. They made Billions of dollars and will spend Billions of dollars this year to make it even better.
What did they ask for? Bill gates pocket lint and this was the spare change that shook out while he gave it to them?
Can we start some sort of class action suite against MS for something stupid like "Windows crashes hurt my productivity" or "Poor windows security practices caused virus propogation" - i mean someone managed to sue McDonalds over hot coffee right?! Hm, im not sure if i have any Microsoft Windows licenses that i can send in to collect the money tho :(
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Yeah, the situation did suck, but not because of Be. Read the various articles above yours. Be couldn't give it away for free because Microsoft wouldn't let them. PC manufacturers were forbidden to have another OS visibly installed, on pain of major financial hurt re: Windows licensing.
You're trading apples for oranges there. There's only one real way forward, that would guarantee this situation will never happen again. I'm sure you know what I mean.
Maybe it's you that should STFU. Nobody wanted BeOS
Wrong. Be's legal complaint lists companies that wanted BeOS. Anmely Hitachi and Compaq, probably others as well.
IF BeOS were indeed a viable competent alternative to Windows... If someone really wants to compete with Windows, then they need to do everything Windows does
WRONG. Be was not trying to position BeOS as an alternative to Windows (at least not immediately). They were trying to position it as a COMPLEMENT to Windows. No OS can stand on it's own without a large application base. So Be positioned BeOS to be better than Windows for certain tasks so people could dual boot, get the benefit of Windows applications for some tasks, get the benefit of BeOS for other tasks, and more applications would be written for BeOS when there was an installed base of BeOS. Co-existing with Windows is a completely viable business plan.
Hell, it is a plan that could conceivably have lead to BeOS eventually replacing Windows, but that is irrelevant to the suit. Even without replacing Windows Be had a viable plan, and Microsoft illegally abused thier Monopoly to exterminate competition.
If you offered to give me a new engine for my car free of charge, an engine that gets 500 miles to the gallon, but I have to drive across the country to fill it up then I'm not going to yank my current engine out and install your engine. However, if I could install your engine in addition to mine, I might use it until it runs out of gas, then more likely than not I'll just switch back to my old engine and never give yours a second thought.
Exactly! And that is what Microsoft ILLEGALLY PREVENTED.
BeOS wanted people to be able to dual-boot Windows and BeOS. They wanted you to install that second engine for free. Once a number of people have that second engine installed then gas stations (applications) could start popping up locally.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
BeOS was good, but i dont see how it was "technically superior" they were pushing it a bit there.
--Mods giveth, Mods taketh away--
link with why BE sued
I reckon Be should have applied for an ongoing pay out, eg $23 million per year, since Microsoft's actions effectively forced Be out of the market even though the Yahoo/Microsoft statement says that Be went belly up had nothing to do with Microsoft. Crap. That's why Be sued in the first place.
These things shouldn't be solved by civil law cases, they should be solved by criminal law cases. How often does a criminal case get settled "out of court". I guess plea bargaining counts but it usually doesn't allow you to buy your way out of jail if you were bad/provable-guilty enough.
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
...Linux?
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
with 25 million in vouchers for M$ software
(restrictions apply, voucher should not exceed 50% of purchase price, not valid for Office, Windows family products, or development software.)
Yep, I believe that was the title of the sstire.
I miss Be, but now the important question is how much can we expect to receive in the end? I figure from the last 10Q we should get $28M/38M shares outstanding the small sum of about 74 cents per share. Oh well, it still beats the trading price.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Bill Gates was later asked to comment on the outcome of the lawsuit.
When prompted, Mr. Gates stated, "This is truly an unfortunate turn of events. We are saddened by the verdict, and it will take quite some time before we can recouperate our losses."
Mr. Gates then ripped a juicy fart, and followed up by stating, "Ahh. I just earned another $25 million."
in a word: thanks
reading that let me rant vicariously through you.
i wanted to share this: i first learned of BeOS at an MCSE course in Braintree, MA. i was taking the courses because, having no formal education, i doubted my ability to fix Windows.
stupid. thats all i can say about the MCSE track. anyone who EVER wants to impress me these days with an "I'm Microsoft certified" does irrepairable harm to their 'worth' in my eyes. it's ok to BE certified, just don't be proud of it - after taking the clases you chould know better than to ever admit that you wasted such time on such a bogus 'education' in which buttons to click on. the whole course track had me so pissed off (and broke, it cost $8000) that i stood up ranting one day, much like your post above. a fellow by the name of Andrew, sitting at the desk in front of me, turned and offered a BeOS R3 Demo CD. my life changed. i bacame a religious zealot and in 7 days i had removed everything 'Microsoft' from my computers (i ran a computer shop then - took windows off the demo machines in favor of BeOS too!) and i have NEVER run microsoft-anythin since that day.
i lost all of my extra money in the stock market by purchasing BeOS and AMD stocks. *sigh*
so - i'm with you. FUCK YOU BILL GATES! i've said it before and i'll say it again - give me one chance, just ONE and i'll kick his skinny ass. wouldn't prove anything - but dam would it be healing for me to watch him stutter and spit and cry out, "Please! PLease stop"!
fucker.
- im just sick of fixing windows all the time -
you idiot.
BeOS DID WORK with 90% of the hardware. it was the 10% remainder (like Lucent Modems) that fouled things up. if you had anything within 3 years of the release date of the OS you had a 90% chance of it working respectably and a good 75% of it working perfectly.
and you cant tell me i'm wrong - i SOLD BEOS FOR 3 YEARS! all of my machines ran BeOS without me worrying about what hardware to buy simply because i bought good and new hardware.
what, did you buy an emachine last month and try to run BeOS R3 on it?!?!?
FUD is only to be used on the living - don't sling bullshit-covered-mud at a dead OS. thats like calling out, "Amiga ahd horrible multi-tasking code"!!!
and did Be kill themselves "with remarkable efficiency"? hardly. they were in business for 10 years. 1990 - 2000. thats a slow crawl towards killing oneself. and when you're fighting an overwhelming battle you have to send all of your troops to the current task. better to win one one part than lose at them all. so the focus shift? yeah - well if they'd split their dev and support teams into groups for each BeOS and BeIA we would be blaming them for that mistake rather than blaming microsoft. two weak teams can't win. one strong team just might.
- im just sick of fixing windows all the time -
Used to work with a guy who had his MCSE. He was utterly pissed off, because he worked bloody hard for his (one of the first five in Canada), when the exam failure rate was more than 50%. However, to increase the number of MCSEs and make everyone happier, they went through the process of dumbing down the MCSE path until everyone had one, and they were worth nothing.
My friend felt betrayed by Microsoft by making his training worthless and an object of derision--just to make some market statements. That's one of the things that drove him into Unix, where he's been ever since.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
i have had to answer this question in person a thousand times now and i think you'll agree with my answer after a moment of unbiased-towards-OSS-thought.
IF Be had 'eaten microsofts lunch' that would not have killed the beast of redmond. microsoft could operate for many, many years with Zero gross income (especially if their accountants realized the zero days were coming before they happened). with that, the developers of the world are split between:
1. I only know MFC; and
2. Only diversity will save us.
the MFC (microsoft's fucking clones) would still develop for windows since thats all they know. they aren't programming for the joy of perfection but rather to complete a task and they know a method already. they won't switch.
the 'diversity' people on the other hand are much more astute and will do whatever they feel miht possibly prevent another platform monopoly - unless they ARE the monopoly.
therefore, would it be POSSIBLE for Be have been in microsoft's posistion at all? the question, "would they use their power to make the world a better place"? supposes that they have monopoly power. it is irrelevant. they would not have been given monopoly power. their morals would never have been tested.
and with that said, yes - i do believe that they would have wanted to make the world a better place. i also think that microsoft wants to make the world a better place. the question is, what is this better place. how might microsoft's description of it differ from Be's? we all know the linear progress of microsoft's 'take over everything' plan. but what of Be, Inc? a group of creative highly respected geeks who constantly re-write core OS features because they claim, "we did not do it The Right Way the first time", can only have a brighter, more beautiful image of "the world [being] a better place".
- im just sick of fixing windows all the time -
Wow a truely insightful reply! I think you make a lot of very good points.
what?
It's not that you can't do it; it's that most people won't do it that is the problem.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Apple did some damage too, by not releasing the specs needed to run on G3 PowerMacs so Be had to leave the PowerMac market and focus on the WINTEL market.
The BeBox was a glorious invention, the Geekport is a great expansion port.
The main problem is where are the apps? Microsoft donimated the market so much that few developers even considered developing for BeOS. Most games are still developed for Windows, so the GameHeads need their box to run Windows.
Another problem was driver support, much like OS/2 driver support, most hardware makers didn't want to support it. So you had to pick your hardware carefully.
Be.com is for sale, and beincorporated.com no longer sells BeOS. Palm bought it.
OpenBeOS is in the works to make an Open Sourced BeOS.
YellowTab has Zeta, based on BeOS which can still be bought.
BeOS 5 Personal Edition is still available as a download from BeBits
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Well yes. DimensionX was purchased to keep Netscape out of the picture. Actually, it ended up knocking down 3 pins because the DimensionX APIs were being used by company for it's development tool for the Netscape browser. It used Java technology and Sun Microsystems was interested in purchasing them( DimensionX ).
Microsoft came in and purchased the company to:
1) Keep a tool used for Netscape off the market
2) Keep Java technology off the market( ala Coopers & Peters )
3) Keep Sun for getting a good Java technology.
I know this because I know one of the founders of DimensionX. This deal was great for Microsoft, good for DimensionX and bad for Netscape and bad for Sun. It was also bad for the tech community because the market was not allowed to choose the best product for the job. This kind of "business" is the exact reason why I recommend everybody stay away from Microsoft products. The company is anti-innovation, NOT pro-innovation like they say they are. IMHO.
my $0.02
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
A particularly funny twist in this particular case is that "Both parties are satisfied with the agreement and believe that it is fair and reasonable".
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't think paying 23.25 million dollars is especially fair or reasonable to Microsoft if there had been no wrongdoing whatsoever...
I once worked for a company that was able to charge a lot of money for an adequate product. There was no competition, so we could pretty much name our price.
Hummm... until you mentioned competition from the Asian market, I was thinking of three letters:
G
I
S
Funny that even the slightest competition has been assimilated, heck, even the two "powerhouses" have been in such an incestuous relationship for the sake of compatibility, is interesting.
What's even stranger is that support for Sun is dwindiling down to nothing, but interest in other unicies is increasing (Linux and OS X) to an heightening pitch.
And this is from the "decision makers", as it were, who want *alternatives*, free or not.
One GIS shop's boss said if there was improvements to GRASS (Low level, free?, GIS software) on the OSX side, he'd move in a *heartbeat*)
My boss actually uttered the words "I wish we could sue Microsoft" after the blaster worm...DESPITE our lab being unaffected. It was the *other* places we do business with that were paralyzed because, well, Windows dominates the market.
What's this got to do with Be?
A lot, if you consider what a great product it is/was, but they weren't ready, IMO.
First, lack of drivers and software beyond a specific set. 4.5 was limited to a specific set of hardware on the Intel side. 5 was better in general, but audio/video/cd burning and such needed at least *base functionality* (think OSX/XP...ain't pretty, but it works 'ok')
Second, was a damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrum because you have to get the word out, but you don't wan't to show up on Microsoft's radar. hummm, how do you do that?
Linux did. By starting small, building momentum, stability, drivers, support, etc...by the time it was "seen" it can't be stopped (per se) but it can have its course altered (SCO, anyone?).
Yellowtab seems to be on the right track, as I've been watching with interest, and the project is progressing, gathering support(ers), and being open source (IIRC) doesn't hurt either.
That said, I'll miss BeOS and the way it made an old P200 sing.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
How long do you think Be could afford to be in court? They would have been quickly outspent then lost it all.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Wow, what an insightful point you've just made, that's the most useful post I've ever read on slashdot. I wish I had some mod points right now! Kudos.
to avoid the risk of being found guilty in court
Civil and criminal court are very, very, very different places and the results of a victory or defeat are very different, indeed.
My brand new Jewel notebook (a Dutch brand, though) is supplied without OS (except for an MS-DOS bootdisk, which isn't installed to the harddrive)
It's one way they minimize their prices.
Maybe you're just looking in the wrong places.
And can you reveal the secret here, what are those tasks specifically that require BeOS rather than Windows? I've tried BeOS and have not found anything that I would like more than in Windows. Have I missed anything?
It's not that I love Windows. In fact, after years of working with and trying various OSes for desktop (and server too) applications, from MacOS to OSX to Linux to BSD to SCO to BeOS, I think I am capable to compare such OSes. So, it would be surprise for me to find out that I've missed something in BeOS.
Personally, I think that the only two viable alternatives to Windows are Linux and OSX. Well, OSX has own niche of PPCs where in a long term it has its own trouble from Linux/PPC, thanks to IBM. Apple cannot feed anti-Windows geeks too long with alternative themes, especially after GNOME and KDE distros will have better default themes. Eventually Apple business will collapse back to hardware with application services available for both then-dying OSX AND then-growing Linux/PPC clients.
In a long term Linux is the only viable solution. And there are serious reasons for that:
- I trust to open source software: with all other equal features I would prefer Open Source software as I can trust the source more than to any binary code. I cannot trust the same way to BeOS.
- I can fix the source code in case of bugs, while I have to wait months until the close-sourse vendor Like Be will send me the fix.
- I can contribute the patch back to community being sure that my competitors cannot hijack my modifocation: it's protected by GPL. Well, nothing to worry with BeOS as I cannot fix it anyway.
- Who wants to pay any license fee when there are good freely downloadable distros? IMHO Windows is the last viable license-fee based OS on the market.
- With Linux community around the world I have more chances to find helpers, who will code in Linux for me with cheap price and a good quality. The only same big community is of Windows developers. BeOS doesn't have a community of such size and never had any chances to have it.
- When the installation base is big the chances to find bugs are bigger too. Well, with such a bad OS design as Windows has it's not help. That's why another OS of a big community, Linux, has it's chances in a long term. BeOS does not have chances by this reason too.
IMHO, BeOS did not have any chances. It was too late: Linux is already uprising, being free, open-source and broadly-distributed. The final OS war will be between Windows and Linux. Of course untill new OS will come, which will have to be also free and open-source from one habd, and significuntly better than Linux from the other hand. But I don't think it's possible. It's more likely that Linux will fork and the competition will be between Linux branches.Less is more !
In addition, it is illegal to leverage a monopoly to increase market share in another area. So if BeOS was targeted towards the server market, MS was breaking the law because they used their desktop monopoly to prevent the software from being installed.
You show your ignorance. I have read up on the law. I do understand it. Did you read the BeOS court papers (the PDF was linked). I did. I'm sure you didn't.-- Will program for bandwidth
I agree with your point, but think it's important to understand that there is another view point here as well. They did end up handing over 25 MILLION dollars. They WERE punished.
There tends to be a difference in perception on the value of money based on who has this. This strongly influences legal results, and taxation. Since both sides really, truly believe in their viewpoints, they both tend to consider many decisions unfair.
An argument can be made that if 25 million is a fair fine (which I don't agree with in this case), then it doesn't matter if the company being fined has $12 or 26 million or 26 billion in the bank. The punishment should be the same. Most people who have a lot of money would take this point of view.
After all, if their money is worth less because they are rich, why did they bother to make it in the first place?
Most of the rest of us tend to say.... ah, they're rich, they can afford it, what are they bitching about? I just wish I HAD 25 million in the first place!
Of course, the point of the lawsuit (from a social point of view) is to discourage behavior that is bad for society. I don't see an occasional 25 million penalty as being much of a deterant for Microsoft.
plus-good, double-plus-good
And can you reveal the secret here, what are those tasks specifically that require BeOS rather than Windows?
To be honest, I know next to nothing about BeOS. But this case is about Microsoft's illegal actions. According to Be's legal complaint it looks like Microsoft specificly moved against them. Perhaps Microsoft saw some sort of competitive threat in BeOS on the desktop. Perhaps Microsoft saw some sort of threat in BeOS in embedded systems. Perhaps Microsoft saw no threat in BeOS at all, but still moved against them out of habit of eliminating anyone who dares try to enter the market.
Illegal businesses tactics should not still be profitable even after getting nailed for it and paying damages/settlements. Microsoft routinely breaks the law because they have found that they make more money by doing so even if they get caught and lose. Imagine if there was a one million dollar fine for killing someone. It would then make "good business sense" to simply pay the fine and kill anyone who is going to cost you more than a million dollars.
Even if Be only had a 1% chance of becoming even a minor nuciance to Microsoft it's still worth paying $24 million to kill them.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
> Do not meddle in the affairs of LeoDV, for he is subtle and quick
> to anger.
Never leave a live dragon or an angry ent out of your calculations.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
You don't just drop a job like this these days.
How does one willingly accept $25,250,000 without a trial, when one could potentially receive many times more. The lack of a viable case is suggested under such circumstances.