Microsoft Dislikes Nations Trying to Escape Lock-in

Johnny Mnemonic writes "Reuters, link to C|Net, is reporting that Microsoft considers a possible collaboration among three Asian nations to produce their own OS "unfair". You just can't make this stuff up. Shouldn't Asian nations also have the Freedom to Innovate? Or is this merely a dodge by Microsoft to demonstrate that they really do face competition? Will they hire Boies to prosecute their case?"

Comments

Microsoft tantrums

[iCat]

Microsoft are either off their heads, or someone at the State Dpt has given them a wink and they know they can get away with acting like two-year olds.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[MuParadigm]

No, I think this is more of an attempt to get State's attention and let them know that MS expects them to come to their aid, via the US Trade Representative.

The problem for State in this situation would be that they can't tell other governments to "let the markets" decide which software to use without also making it look like the US Gov't may be colluding with MS to provide software that can be infiltrated through back doors. Remember the "NSA_Key" fiasco? Lots of governments do too. And many of them did not buy MS's explanation.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[tdemark]

I'm still trying to figure out out how the decision by the three countries is any different than this or this... well, at least why it's just not the other side of the same coin.

- Tony

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[Daniel Phillips]

I'm still trying to figure out out how the decision by the three countries is any different than this or this.

Yes, that's priceless: essentially the same software that the U.S. army is buying for $950/computer, Microsoft will sell in Thailand for $36.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[Weh]

Although I dislike Microsoft I can see their point.

How would you like it if you were a car manufacturer and suddenly a government would start producing cars and competing with you using taxpayer money?

Naturally I believe a government is free to do so if they want to. Furthermore I am sympathetic to the idea of providing citizens with a free os to ensure freedom of information etc.

However I can understand Microsoft's reaction from a business point of view.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[fafaforza]

Additionally, the government would have more power to instill their OS in school, government offices, and perhaps even have power to persuade the public to use it by releasing documents only readable on that OS, giving financial breaks, etc.

Microsoft would in effect be trying to compete with a legal monopoly.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[Daniel Phillips]

How would you like it if you were a car manufacturer and suddenly a government would start producing cars and competing with you using taxpayer money?

So, you think the asian governments are going to pay to produce millions of software CDs and flood the U.S. market with them? Seems far-fetched to me.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[Daniel Phillips]

...perhaps even have power to persuade the public to use it by releasing documents only readable on that OS

That's ridiculous, if it's open source.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[timeOday]

This IS the market deciding. It's deciding there's no reason to pay hundreds for each and every copy of commonly available software (like word processors) anymore. As for govt. funding, well guess who MS's #1 customer is... the US military now add to that all the money they get from federal and local govt at all levels and your tax dollars are by MS's biggest source of income.

The $40e9 MS has in the bank, and all the cash they lose in their unprofitable divisions (which is almost all of them except Office and Windows) is all waste from the market's perspective. A truly free and fair open market does not tolerate 85% profit margins for long.

Sure, what MS does makes sense from the perspective of MS. So what? "Your honor, my defense for robbing the bank is that I thought it was the easiest way to get rich." Murdering BeOS and Netscape (and a host of others) certainly was in the best interest of MS, but it wasn't legal, nor was it consistent with a company that pays lip service to competing on innovation. Sure, it would be naiive of us not to expect them to say whatever benefits them, but it would be outright stupid to take their words at face value.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[Daengbo]

First of all, you know I live in Thailand and follow this story pretty closely if you read my journal. I would like to clarify a little bit.

1. This offer is only for buyers of the low cost computer program, which comes preloaded with LinuxTLE. It is not available to the general public, where the prices still stand as usual. Some say it is a fight against Linux, but many Linux columnists say it is a fight against Panthip Plaza (the famous computer mall where illegal software is available for virtually nothing), and
2. It is for XP Home and Office Standard edition, which is nothing like the military purchase.

I still think it's sucks to be able to legally offer this price only on certain computers, but Thailand's laws are not like the west's. As an aside, the story from your link referenced LinuxTLE with another story, citing it as a "Thai language version," but that other story did not mention the operating system and only generally talked about Linux in Asia. Rather odd.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[SanityInAnarchy]

Probably. My dad had a saying. He said that "In a communist society, people use power to get money. In a capitalist society, people use money to get power."

So what's to stop them from buying other governments as well? They might have problems in China, but I doubt most of Europe would be a problem. I hope France continues to think independently...

I love Linux, but sometimes I kind of wish they'd step it up somehow. If Microsoft had less money, they couldn't buy as much power. Problem solved.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[why-is-it]

Microsoft would in effect be trying to compete with a legal monopoly.

IIRC, microsoft is also a monopoly, and they had (and continue to have) no problems in using that monopoly in order to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[squiggleslash]

No, I think this is more of an attempt to get State's attention and let them know that MS expects them to come to their aid, via the US Trade Representative.

Or even to provide local benefits.

This looks to me to be similar to what Qualcomm did in their war against GSM. Qualcomm, who are behind the competing IS-95 standard (usually known as "CDMA" though as that's also the name of a technology component used in IS-95.) Qualcomm realised they had an entrenched competitor, and used some rather, er, creative, arguments to portray it GSM as something imposed by governments. GSM was originally created by a group of phone companies of which most were nationalised, so despite being an industry lead standard, Qualcomm could get away with claiming it was "created" by the government. Likewise, the EU, desperate to have at least one mobile phone standard that worked across the continent (virtually none of the different member nation's analogue systems were compatable), told the industry to agree on a standard, and offered in return to open up the 900MHz range in every country to support it. (Individual member nations could open up other frequencies for other standards if they wanted to, but 900MHz would be for whatever standard the industry agree upon.) Again, Qualcomm portrayed this as showing GSM was government imposed.

The campaign had limited success. Qualcomm was able to persuade the US government to lobby countries with nationalised mobile phone systems to choose IS-95. In China they were partially successful, though the IS-95 based system they adopted was substantially modified to be more GSM-like. Qualcomm was even able to persuade a senator to demand the State Department impose IS-95 on US controlled Iraq, though the government didn't buy the argument.

The basic strategy is to make use of modern politician's free market instincts to get them to advocate government and legislative support when they normally wouldn't and when their gut would normally be against it. You do this by twisting what's happening a little, portray the situation as evil foreign "socialists" providing unfair support to an unAmerican technology, and then suggest the American government has to intervene, just to level the playing field.

Microsoft is following in some fairly successful footsteps here, but it also needs to note that the footsteps were used by a company facing an entrenched rival pretty-much from the beginning. The US Government was more inclined to support Qualcomm because it was clearly the underdog, regardless of the technical merits of IS-95 (a mixed bag, CDMA is delightful, the ESN-locked closed AMPS work-a-like nature of conventional IS-95 phones though is less so); Microsoft will have to lobby hard to be seen as the "underdog" in this situation. OTOH, the rival to Microsoft most certainly is Government backed, something GSM really wasn't, at least, not in the way Qualcomm portrayed it.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[AstroDrabb]

MS had most of that money before Linux became an option. Once you get that much money, you just invest it and watch it grow at an incredible rate. Even if Linux takes a good chunk of business from MS, MS will still have tons of CASH to buy power with.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[gaijin99]

So what's to stop them from buying other governments as well? They might have problems in China, but I doubt most of Europe would be a problem. I hope France continues to think independently...

What stops them from buying other governemnts is that most first world, non-US, are multi-party (versus two party) systems. The redundancy tends to reduce the sort of abuse we see in the US.

Also, while bribery is far from eleminated in the rest of the first world, it is hardly as rampant as it is in the US. The "campaign contribution" scam is killing democracy in the US. MS can buy a senator or congressman pretty easily here simply by making "campaign contributions". In most of the first world that is, properly, treated as bribery and quite illegal.

To the "Money is speech" crowd: Money is not speech. If it were than *all* laws against bribery would be prohibited by the First Ammendment. The pathetic exucses of those bribing our officials are rediculous. "He didn't vote to give me special privilages because I gave him money. He was going to do that anyway, and I was simply expressing my support for his pro-me position financially."
Sure. And if that line of BS is acceptable why not: "I didn't bribe the policeman to let me escape. He simply has a policy of letting murderers go, and I was supporting that policy financially." Bribery is bribery.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[AstroDrabb]

How is that any different then the monopoly MS has been allowed to have in the world and backed by corrupted politicians? MS dumps millions into the pockets of politicians every year. In 2002, MS gave more then $4,213,198! MS pulls the strings of the US government all time to ensure their monopoly. Now there is finally some light at the end of the tunnel. Who cares if it is tax payer money? I don't. MS has taken tons of our taxpayers money here in the USA. MS gets these contracts by bribing the desicion makers. MS got 100 million from US taxpayer for the Homeland Security Contract and 471 million from the US Army

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[Malcontent]

I find it facinating that MS presumes everybody will act just as evil as they do.

This is actually a pretty common thing. Have you noticed how evil people believe that everybody else is just like them?

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[sjames]

Although I dislike Microsoft I can see their point.

I don't think anyone expects MS to like it, it's just that there is a certain amount of humor in any entity that was convicted of unfair trade practices to be shouting about fairness. It's like a convicted murderer yelling 'HEY! that's illegal you know' when someone snitches his cookie.

Then there's the bully factor. While few on the playground are up to beating the bully up, everyone is sure happy to see it happen.

Then there's the annoyance factor. When MS first had the hairbrained idea to make email executable many, many people said they were stupid, but they released it anyway. I wouldn't touch their steaming pile with a 10 foot pole, but I still get to see my mailbox filled with 'wicked screensaver', 'your info', and 'thank you' crap. I run Apache, but I still get to put up with all the code red crap in my logs and the net slowdown at it's peak. So, it's kinda like the warm fuzzy feeling when the neighbor who keeps you up blasting crappy music at 3 A.M. gets his stereo destroyed by a drunk party guest.

Then, there's the final point. MS has known for quite a long time that other nation's governments (a few of their large customers) don't like being locked into dependance on a U.S. company but did nothing to meet the market's demands because they were counting on a lack of competition. Now their customers are revolting against them and making some competition and MS doesn't like it. There's nothing new there when dealing with large customers. Tighten the noose too much and they'll decide to create an in-house solution.

Re:Microsoft tantrums

[AstroDrabb]

Well, with $46 billion, you could stop making money entirely, spend $10 million a month and you would not run out of money for about 383 years. Heck, you could spend 100 million a month and not run out of money for 38 years. That also is assuming that you have your money in a non-interest bearing account.

of course not

[Gorny]

"Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said.

Of course not; Microsoft likes to be in that position :)

Re:of course not

[digidave]

Obviously, if Microsoft provided exactly what these governments wanted in an OS they wouldn't going off and making their own. They're not deciding who wins, they're trying to get the OS they want.

Re:of course not

[Felinoid]

Here's a question how dose a government picking an operating system deside who the winners are aren't they just annother consummer?

Well no they aren't and when a government picks an operating system the public needs to remain compatable.
With Windows that means using Microsoft products or compatable products in free software.

With Linux that means... supporting open standards. Any operating system on the market will do that.
It also means Microsoft now has to activly support open standards like everyone else to maintain compatability with Linux systems in government.

Re:of course not

[QEDog]

Microsoft prefers competition between software applications to be determined in the free markets rather than by government agencies. "Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said.

Consindering that MS has more money than most goverments in the world it sounds more like 'let us decide for everyone'.

SCO executives must be jubilant

[The-Bus]

Let's see... $699 x 1 billion...
Mmmmmmm...

Microsoft's only comeback I can think of is that, at least, they patented ones and zeroes.

Re:SCO executives must be jubilant

[smittyoneeach]

I can hear MS shouting "Stop, or I'll say 'Stop' again" already.

Granted, MS might expand its government holdings beyond the Justice Department to include the State Department, but what is the Fed seriously going to do? Some kind of trade embargo?

all in time

[mOoZik]

Looks like MS is facing more competition than they'd like. They can change their ways, improve their products, or falter and die. My bet is they'll try to get their systems in these places at a price cheaper than dirt, as they've tried before with Munich and the rest. Interesting to see how this will revolutionize the software industry in the long run.

Re:all in time

[FridayBob]

MS is facing competition all right, but judging from the way they've been reacting to it, they're having real trouble accepting reality. At the moment they're frustrated with the success of the Open Source movement and are desperately trying to stem the tide with their usual lobbying efforts and bag of dirty tricks. When will they catch on? It's pathetic, but perhaps this behaviour is to be expected from any big company that's been in a monopoly position for over a decade.

If MS ever get smart, they'll face the music, cut their losses, drop Windows and start making graphical desktop environments and applications for Unix systems. Once they decide to go down this path, they can choose to remain closed source or go entirely Open Source, keep making money on a per-license basis or give some or all of it away for free (making money with support). If they put their minds to it, they could probably build some pretty decent products this way.

Does this sound like wishful thinking? Perhaps. But if they can't beat us, they might as well join us. It could take a while to come to this realization after they start loosing money, but with $50b in the bank I figure they should be able to buy themselves enough of time.

Either that or their (monopoly) days are numbered...

Oh...

[Digital Mage]

so that is what the sound of over a billion people laughing sounds like.

Boies

[PatSmarty]

Will they hire Boies to prosecute their case?

Or will they hire Rumsfeld?

Re:Boies

[tandr]

They cannot. China and Japan are biggest holders of US Gov Treasures bonds and bills. Although it is a matter of time, but imagine them starting to sell it all of sudden on such news.

It is a bit unfair...

[mindriot]

Well, you have to admit that it is a little bit unfair since it is not a company on the free market developing a competing product, but it is the governments of those nations doing it. So, Microsoft has something of a point, since the nations do hinder free competition.

Re:It is a bit unfair...

[Gorny]

Microsoft has hindered a lot of other companies when it comes to free competition so I find this complaint somewhat childish.

And whats fair? There's no free trade. The US give large amounts of money to their own steel manufactures so they can compete with the EU. The EU on the other hand is doing the samen with their large importtaxes on foreign, cheaper farmer products.

My point is; there's no real free market although a lot of people strive to it. There isn't and this article is just another example of how things go along :)

Re:It is a bit unfair...

[Magic Thread]

Indeed. And Microsoft would never hinder free competition, nor would they be unfair to their competitors. Right.

Re:It is a bit unfair...

[1010011010]

Of course not! When Microsoft isn't transporting orphans to their dialysis machines, they're helping old ladies cross the street. Sweetness and light. That's all they are. Anything else you've heard is vicious rumor.

Re:It is a bit unfair...

[MuParadigm]

It's actually perfectly fair for a government to assist in creating a market for a product they need (or want), especially if existing products don't meet its needs.

Re:It is a bit unfair...

[SoTuA]

Well, Gates deserves it. Nobody ever said anything about Microsoft buying small goverments and locking whole countries into their scam. Now, faced with people who know better AND can't be bought, he whines like a 2 year old.

Yes, my country (Chile) was bought by microsoft, with a "generous" donation of software and money. And to think the government is socialist and tries to be not on big money's side... pha!

Then again, I'd say one out of three copies of windows here are legal. :)

Re:It is a bit unfair...

[ananiasanom]

And whats fair? There's no free trade. The US give large amounts of money to their own steel manufactures so they can compete with the EU

And this is controversial. It leads to arguments in GATT, possible trade wars, whatever. In principle, that sort of thing is generally agreed by governments to be a bad thing.

MS would be delighted to get this Asian software initiative considered to be the same kind of thing, but in fact it's not the same kind of thing at all, because this is the governments choosing domestic producers over foreign producers for government systems.

Re:It is a bit unfair...

[Daengbo]

Japan is leading Asia into open source. They recently hosted a convention on OS in Asia, and many of the participants have come out of it with projects like this. Let me tell you the reason. The major one is not that they'll save money or keep their money in country, believe it or not. It is to build their local IT industry. Many of these countries are trying to move out of dependence on foreign labor for their IT requirements while building the abilities of their local labor. That makes good economic sense for them, even more than any hard currency saved.
Thailand is close to a national OS and office suite, but that doesn't mean that they're showing MS the door, or even working against competing Thai Linux distributions, which they also encourage.

Re:It is a bit unfair...

[Thavius]

The free market was unable to come up with a product the governments liked, so the governments are commissioning one to their specifications. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

This is a part of competition, though, even if it isn't free-market. Microsoft has had how many years to come up with a secure, and viable system for governments to use. They have been touting it for a long time, and are nearly forcing governments to use it. And suddenly they get all pissy when a government says, "Hrmm, your system isn't good enough. Neither is there any other system out there. I guess we'll have to make our own."

Governments are also Customers. If your customer isn't happy, they'll do something else to fill their need. In this case, the Customer is commissioning their own software.

It may be "unfair" because it's not free market, but then again, the customer is unhappy with the product.

Re:It is a bit unfair...

[danila]

It's not even that. It's governments deciding to spend money on a development project. Arguing against it is the same as attacking UK + France for building the Tunnel instead of relying on British Airways and Air France for passenger and cargo transportation. :) And as a bonus, WTO bureaucrats probably are less sold out and not so clueless. I really can't imagine WTO asking Japan+China+Korea to stop this development.

MS Wants its "peers" to agree?

[zwoelfk]

From the article: "You would have to look at what a government does--whether it's a protectionist issue," Robertson said, "As with any trade-related issue, Microsoft would look to its peers and colleagues in the information technology community for guidance."

Who exactly are Microsoft's "peers"? IBM, Sun, Sony, the Open Source "community"? On one hand MS wants to create a "government security program" that it defines and implements, on the other they want their "peers" to say that doing anything else is unfair?! Good luck!

Re:MS Wants its "peers" to agree?

[imtheguru]

Who exactly are Microsoft's "peers"?

SCO !?!

Re:MS Wants its "peers" to agree?

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"Microsoft would look to its peers and colleagues in the information technology community for guidance"

Microsoft has no "peers" ... it systematically kills them off before they can become a threat, and now wants protection.

Sorry to say this, but...

[00_NOP]

MS are simply copying the line of the US government (and a lot of US companies and even /. users).

Look at steel, farm goods, coding out-sourcing, skilled immigrants etc, etc.

In all these fields the US or a lot of its citizens are actively seeking to halt global competition and seeking to privilege US companies, producers and citizens.

MS are simply trying to get their piece of the action, though of course than means that they are already on a downward slope (ask any Pensylvannia steel worker about how effective trade sanctions have been at protecting the long term health of their industry).

Re:Sorry to say this, but...

[nfk]

Protectionism certainly stems from an anti-globalization mentality that is still embedded in most countries' policies, even those who strongly advocate globalization, and there are ongoing trade wars all the time, so it's not just one country that is bending the rules.

Here is a link about it if anyone is interested:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2003/0718e xploits.htm"

(it seems biased, but explains the issue...)

I don't know if they are right, but in this case, for instance, Microsoft's issue is similar to steel, farm goods, etc, but they're on the other side of the fence, trying to ensure China doesn't give their companies unfair trade advantage.

Re:Sorry to say this, but...

[Daniel Phillips]

MS are simply copying the line of the US government (and a lot of US companies and even /. users). Look at steel, farm goods, coding out-sourcing, skilled immigrants etc, etc. In all these fields the US or a lot of its citizens are actively seeking to halt global competition and seeking to privilege US companies, producers and citizens.

What's laughable about this is, there is no issue of protectionism anywhere to be seen. Protectionism is when a country erects trade barriers such as import duties to protect a local industry. Sponsoring R&D is not a trade barrier, it is just (hopefully) good management.

The other silly idea is that this has something to do with fair trade. Since the asian countries aren't exporting their OS, where is the trade, fair or not? Even if they were, since when did it become unfair for government and industry to collaborate on R&D?

Anyone notice the absolute contradiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tom Robertson on one hand says "Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," and yet when asked if its an international trade issue says "You would have to look at what a government does--whether it's a protectionist issue," which if it was seen as protectionist would require action by the US Government. Wouldn't it then be a case of a government deciding the issue?

Microsoft: victims of unfairness

[1010011010]

According to Rob Enderle, Microsoft is hated because it's misunderstood.

So please, try to understand their side -- those poor, misunderstood folks in Redmond need your support. Really.

It hurts their feelings when we make fun of them, and talk about the methods they use to achieve their goals in unkind ways.

C'mon, lighten up. They're good guys.

</not>

Gee... there must be an election somewhere near...

[rjch]

Asked if the establishment of an open-source initiative by Japan, China and South Korea would raise international trade concerns, Robertson, a former U.S. Trade Representative official, said it was too early to determine.

Loosely translated, this means that Micro$oft hasn't contributed enough money to someone's political campaign just yet.

MS did that in 80's...

[News for nerds]

against Japanese TRON system to stop its penetration into PC market.

Microsoft is crying foul?

[Xpilot]

Was Microsoft ever fair? Doesn't it unfairly leverage its monopoly to crush competitors daily? Doesn't it lock people into their products, and charge an arm and a leg for upgrades? And now Microsoft is saying that other people wanting to develop an OS is "unfair"? Cry me a river.

Re:Microsoft is crying foul?

[h00pla]

Crying foul and they actually believe it. The 'we dominate the software world' mentality is so thick at Microsoft you can cut it with the knife. The genuinely scary thing about this is when they say this is unfair they actually believe it. Microsoft believes it should be able to mandate the use of their product in any country, under any circumstances and under any conditions. Take Spain for example. Some Spanish provincial governments and municipalities are producing their own Linux distributions. Well, Microsoft doesn't like this and went right in and made a deal with Spain's Minister of Industry to put Microsoft's in the national school system - 20+ million Euro worth of software for free. Now you have to ask yourself: If Exxon-Mobil had gone in to Spain and said: Here - we'll put free gas in your government owned vehicles for a year. What would Shell Oil and other competitors have said? But Microsoft can do this stuff without even anybody batting an eyelash - and why? Because they are a monster monopoly. Now when Japan, China, etc- say they've had it - now Microsoft cries foul.

In was really the saddest day on Earth when Judge Penfield Jackson of the MS monopoly trial opened his mouth. We've been paying for it ever since.

Re:Microsoft is crying foul?

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

RTFA Read The Fucking Article. MS never said anything about it being "unfair". Good troll, though.

Who is the troll?

I did Read The Friendly Article. There is no need to use any fucking profanity in an attempt to be unfair to slashdot.

Let's see the title of the article is...

Microsoft: Asia not playing fair over OS

And...

A plan by Japan, China and South Korea to develop an operating system alternative to Microsoft's Windows software could raise concerns over fair competition, Microsoft said Friday.

this makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

As a foreigner working in Japan for a tech company, I have realized that the expectations of quality and service here are MUCH higher than in the rest of the world.
People in my company really cant understand how thing like MSBLAST happen and there is nobody from MS on TV the next day apologizing (or committing seppuku =).
Now that things in the computer industry are settling down, they will slowly push Microsoft out of the picture.
Wait and see.

Re:this makes sense

[winston_pr]

As I am also foreigner working in Japan for a tech company (a japanese tech company that is) I can report that none of my collegues reacted in that way. They rather blamed themselves for not being vigilant enough to download the latest updates regularily. However I agree with you that an official apology would be in place. I heard though that Microsoft will distribute a few hundred thousand CD-ROMs here in Japan at retail outlets (Yodobashi camera and the like) that will contain the necessary patches... This move is only planned in Japan as far as I know, which seems that MS Japan does have some sense in local consumer expectations...altough it puzzles me why CDroms will be a necessity with the huge broadband penetration in Japan.

Re:this makes sense

[winston_pr]

FYI - There have been cases of "modern" Seppuku, with suicides in connection with for example the Kobe Earthquake, where then man in charge of water supplies in the area committed suicide as he was ashamed over not being able to restore water-supply in the area. But mostly "Seppuku" has been replaced with public apology and crying on press-conferences. Disgracing yourselves in that way on TV is equal to dying for some of these men I guess...

Where do you want to go today?

[OffTheLip]

Apparently the Asian triad wants to go as far away from Microsoft as they can. The bigger question, will open source innovation be shared.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[Psx29]

All I have to say to microsoft is: What goes around comes around!

Microsoft needs to learn...

[fuckfuck101]

That it doesn't own the copyright to an "operating system" (yet..) and that not only is it somebody's right to create and use their own operating system, it's also a right for countries, goverments to create and use their own operating system.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill's got you guys working Saturdays, now?

Shit, I feel kind of guilty. Maybe if I acted like I believed your astroturfing bullshit during the week, he'd give you a day off every now and then.

Protectionism baseline

[amcguinn]

If the Asian countries were deliberately trying to shut MS out of the private-sector market, then MS would have the beginning of a case (only the beginning, mind. There is still a reasonable case for anti-trust action like the EU is taking). Under world trade rules, etc. you're not supposed to deliberately shut out foreign competition.

BUT... It is accepted, and very common, for governments to deliberately favour their own producers for government contracts. This can be for any reason, including economic, security, and strategic considerations. Microsoft really don't have a leg to stand on on this count.

This is fair competition between countries

[bizcoach]

The US has a legal system which gives several critical advantages to companies like Microsoft (DMCA, software patents, etc)... it is only fair when other countries say "we don't like that" and choose a system that gives strong advantages to Free Software. Free Software is typically developed by its users and not as a product to be sold; since governments are among the largest software users it is only natural for them to consider making significant contributions to developing the Free Software that they would like to use.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[rking]

But ultimately governments making software isn't a whole lot better than governments making airplanes or computer chips.

How about governments paying people to make airplanes because the government needs airplanes? Governments pays lots of people money to produce things. That includes producing software to meet their needs (as well as airplanes and computer chips). I think you need to be a little clearer as to what the problem is in this case. Governments want a better operating system, governments pay for it to be produced.

Even for defence?

[ananiasanom]

So would it be "unfair" for, say, the Pentagon to announce it wanted to use software developed in the USA in preference to overseas products?

Follow up news:

[Dark Lord Seth]

The Microsoft Corporation recently bought themselves the USS Enterprise (The aircraft carrier) and rechristened it to the MSCACDOTNET (Microsoft Certified Aircraft Carrier Dot NET ) "William Gates the Third". Latest US satelite intel indicated the ship, along with several other recent MS aquired warships due to a sneaky clause in the license for Windows 2003 .NET server for the US navy, were last seen heading toward the Pacific. Among the ships are the MSACDOTNET William Gates the Third, the 'boomer' submarines MSC Alabama and MSC Red October along with a small flotilla of surface warships and a large convoy of freighters with Win 2k3 .NET licenses, all heading for an unknown destination.

In other news, Denzel Washington and Sean Connery have been flogged with a wet towel.

Re:Follow up news:

[Alsee]

several other recent MS aquired warships due to a sneaky clause in the license for Windows 2003 .NET server for the US navy

Correction - Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton admitted that the clause was not acutally sneaky. "We never actually read the EULA. We needed to install it so we just clicked 'OK'."

-

Re:Follow up news:

[Querty]

Oh and we all know what happens when a Microsoft OS gets to run a navy battleship. I bet the Chinese are shaking in their boots now....

It's so funny!

[protomala]

I bet next time they will say using this OS is unamerican.
Hey, wait! But people in asia aren't americans..
woops, microsoft propaganda got a error and will try to restart.

You know, that "unamerican" think sounded very very bad for people who are not from US as me (Brazil), and looked a lot like emotional blackmail.

Bill Gates Calls This Unfair?

[dolo666]

I have to first take offense to Microsoft's philosophy that if it's not broken, fix it and charge more for it... and if it's broken, ignore it until something terrible happens.

That said, this latest call that it's unfair for countries to divert the giant cash waterfall from MS, I find the notion preposterous. Similar arguments have been used by MS lawyers for years now to defend against accusations of shenanigans. The point being, that free market is the underlying theme and MS can't cry about the free market deciding they are too greedy, and the demand can be met on less expensive systems that don't cause massive havoc every time some child gets a hold of their latest gaping hole.

Re:Bill Gates Calls This Unfair?

[MrHanky]

No, Bill Gates didn't call it unfair. One of his evil henchmen did. Remember, Bill Gates is a pretty intelligent person; stating that developing an alternative to their insecure monopoly is unfair, is extremely stupid. However, with the current US administration, it's a good FUD tactic. I don't think anyone trusts the US to play fair these days, so maybe the thought of US sanctions could scare someone? Nah! This is probably propaganda for people working at MS, to strengthen the belief that anyone who tries to compete against them is playing unfair and deserves to get crushed.

Thats Business for ya...

[Mr. L33t ll4m4]

As much of a microsoft critique I am I will however stand up for them on this case. While it does seem like MS is trying to dominate the world markets what they are doing is also business sense to try to keep as many markets as they can. Microsoft is simply getting the backlash from doing this is because they have a large company who has tried to dominate the markets of america. But how many linux people thought when they saw this "Thats where linux will go next." The linux community is looking at this case to become the dominate OS and Microsoft is looking at this case where they want be the reigning champ. But perhaps this is the opporunity that MS will take and become partly open source. To sum this up, Microsoft is doing what a normal business would do at the sign of being dethroned by their enemy (Linux and open source). They are likely still licking their wounds from the Munich case and now they might lose their foot hold in asia is tramatic to anyone. Whether or not MS creates a open source alternitave or Linux steals away Asia, this will be an interesting topic.

Unbelievable Bull$h!t

[holy_smoke]

"Pointing to a particular software vendor and to a particular software (standard) gets you nowhere," Robertson said."
So the fact that 90% of the nasty virii/worms/disfuntionality are associated with a "particular sofware" is meaningless or should be ignored? Dear God that's just too pathetic a statement to address...
Robertson said Microsoft has been working to have Japan participate in its Government Security Program, which gives national governments and international organizations access to Microsoft's source code, the underlying blueprint of its programs.
And how do they get the code changed if they see something they don't like? Anyway the underlying issue is control of critical infrastructure. OS software is becoming just that - a critical infrastructure item. Governments SHOULD be concerned about it.
Crocodille Tears.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[meringuoid]

And is it also wrong for the Russians to build their own planes? Why don't Boeing or Lockheed get a look-in when the Russian airforce wants some new fighters? Obviously because it is in Russia's interest to maintain an independent ability to develop and build such aircraft. Maybe the US could supply better planes more cheaply, but some day when all Russia's factories are derelict a US government might cut off the supply, and leave them in a difficult position.

Similarly, I think critical software is as much a national security issue as defence hardware; and in a world where the US is trusted less and less, and Microsoft hardly at all, it makes sense for other countries to ensure that they have a homegrown alternative that they can rely on.

Remember these days well...

[weave]

10, 20 years ago, analysts will look back and people will argue about exactly when in the first years of the 21st century that Microsoft peaked and then began their downward spiral.

Everywhere we are seeing seeds of discontent. The first anger Microsoft planted in its customers was when it got greedy and ended licensing that permitted you to own only as many copies of software that you actually had running. Then all of these recent "software assurance" changes have angered folks more. Companies and countries are starting to understand that they are locked in and have little choice and they are looking for ways to bail. And Microsoft's actions are starting to look more and more desperate starting to scramble to hold on to what they have. This story, the viral GPL fud, their financial backing of SCO, their desperate and failed attempts to move into other markets, etc, etc.

Oh, people will disagree with me, but where does Microsoft have left to go? Nowhere but down, and the stock market doesn't like any downward movement, even if the company *is* making billions.

And Microsoft better not disagree with this danger either, for their own good. Complacency is the first step toward irrelevance. But I honestly believe they know this is coming and are scared shitless. Gates isn't stupid.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[Chemicalscum]

Listen the US subsidizes its agriculture with public money. It also subsidizes it arms industry with public money granted for research. This effectively subsidizes the civilian aviation industry and many other releated areas. So why shouldn't the east asian countries subsidize OS development and also put their own national priorities ahead in state OS procurement the same way the US does in military procurement.

Why the are you complaining about non payment for MS software in asia? When this new proposal is part of the way to stop it. If you don't use MS junk you don't have to pay for it.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[SmallFurryCreature]

Lol and your email adress is hotmail?

Anyway.

Awh, how sad. Poor little MS gets some competition. Except that it is not some tiny startup who can be easily kept out but a trillion dollar part of the world. It sounds like you are feeling sorry for the school bully who suddenly finds himself getting beaten senseless by a 400 pound gorilla. Personally I am going hope this is going to be like any decent western. MS doing the .45 dance.

MS screwed BeOS now they are going to get screwed. Bees should not complain about being stung, thiefs should not complain about things being stolen and MS should not complain about facing competition with a bottemless warchest.

MS has had for the last decade more then enough money and resources to make themselves popular. Instead they have opted to get more and more money and make themselves hated and despised. Now they are reaping the rewards. More and more people and even whole countries are refusing to deal on their terms anymore.

It is sad that it takes goverments to put up some serious competition but that is the way it works. With small companies it is possible but with say the car industrie competition came only about with goverment sponsored companies. Japan and korea spring to mind but also europe were the marshall plans, US money after WWII, was used to setup factories that would have been very hard to do with private money. For the current steel wars, the dutch "hoogovens" got its start from US money :)

Sometimes it takes goverment intervention to dictate changes in the market. Don't forget that in the rest of the world politics are not entirly decided by corporate sponsors. Goverment sponsored promotion of certain products over established products are hardly new. Eco-tax on petrol while subsidising natural gas. Tax breaks for enviromental production, coupons for low power consumption electronics.

But back to your post. MS facing competition from huge goverments is unfair. Small business facing competition from huge MS is fair. "Call for Mr Kibo. Bill Gates wants you to report for his 4 o'clock asslicking."

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[Jeff DeMaagd]

You are right if your assumptions turn out to be true. The problem is that there aren't any good details on this three country deal, if it is even a deal.

One thing to keep in mind is that Microsoft's actions also subvert free market quite a bit IMO, I would question if there _is_ a free market for OS software, especially when all the competitors, even the free ones, can't muster ten percent combined. If the _real_ OS choices for most people are W2k, XP and coming sometime this decade, Longhorn then it _is_ time for governments to step in and start funding new alternatives or improvements for existing alternatives.

As it is, the governments really don't seem effective in curtailing the monopolist actions

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[Tyndareos]

But ultimately governments making software isn't a whole lot better than governments making airplanes or computer chips. Microsoft does have a case.

That really depends on your viewpoint. If you (want to) see software as a commodity then a government making software is no different from an government building roads, maintaining a justice and police system or having a military. The fact that software is infinitely reproducable at virtually no cost makes software different from the other more traditional products you listed as examples. The government can provide something for the entire country that is beneficial to everyone without spending disproportionate amounts of money. It is even likely that it will create more wealth and possibilies in the long run for almost all the people.

Of course it sucks for Microsoft that governments are now starting to realize that software can be seen and treated as a commodity. That doesn't mean however that this change is actually unfair to Microsoft. They will have to cope with the changing rules and accept that their unlimited skies of the early software years might fade away once in the future.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[dolo666]

The governments in question have the freedom to their own tyranny, under the philosophy of the forefathers of the USA. The USA fights against tyranny, but the true meaning of freedom isn't "freedom to" or "freedom from"; it's anarchy in it's finest form... to have anarchy in a state where it appears as if none exists.

Governments under socialist principles can and do own companies that operate at a loss to serve a better purpose. Hydro is one, even in many friendly states. The idea is that if software is a commodity, it is this commodity that ought be accessible to the public at large. It's about time that government started to incorporate computer technology in it's fold, like it would power and water technology. The freedom to create your own software under these umbrellas would be a better notion, as well.

We all know that operating systems can go on without major viral attacks and huge bugs causing havoc in the world. Linux. Mac.

So you tell me then, why is it that MS has one worldwide catastrophe every two months? It's because it's profitable for companies like Symantec and McAfee and the like to sell "protection" from the miscreants who would turn systems off if they could. That actual profit-cycle is set in a kind of catch 22.

That is the catch 22 that is going to bite Bill Gates in the arse.

Depends on the base license

[Compact Dick]

If it's BSD, I wouldn't expect much sharing to happen. If it's the GPL, then they should [if they intend to redistribute modified products.]

Re:Depends on the base license

[Salsaman]

Maybe Linus's wife ? I hear she's pretty good at karate.

Redundancy is their biggest worry

[gilesjuk]

If their sales fall then they won't be able to sustain their monolithic enterprise. As soon as they start laying off staff then it's the beginning of the end for Microsoft. News like that doesn't install investor confidence.

Their profit margins on Windows and Office are quite high, if they have to constantly undercut Linux solutions then their income from these two lines will be reduced. Problem with that scenerio is those two product lines keep the company going and allows them to take risks in other markets.

MS knows what they're doing

[bizcoach]

The one thing that MS is really good at is strategic marketing. It is safe to assume that they have thought the matter through.

My conjecture is that they're realising that they cannot win against Free Software unless they manage to create the impression of Free Software such as GNU/Linux being "un-American" and "a threat from Asia against our economy".

Of course they'll consider it an added bonus that maybe they can get US dimplomats involved in putting pressure on foreign governments in areas like

• creating DMCA-like laws
• making software ideas patentable
• preventing government institutions from contributing to Free Software that they'd like to use

Re:MS knows what they're doing

[letxa2000]

Obvious troll, but what the heck.

Linux is making inroads everywhere. Obviously it's strongest on the server, but the desktop is making progress. I've been using Linux since 1995 (I believe) to run our Internet server. I never really considered using it on my desktop until I got a laptop preloaded with XP. It was just annoying and bloated. I had heard that Linux on the desktop had improved so I bought a new hard drive and went to install Linux on it. Graphical installation. Detected the embedded network card. Detected my USB mouse and keyboard. Detected my sound card. Basically, installation was just as easy as Windows. I'm now running Linux on my laptop and will never go back.

Linux IS a threat to Microsoft, period. Their own financial reports to the SEC acknowledge as much. From corporations to governments, everyone is either unhappy with Microsoft, sick of their nonexistant security, or outright switching to Linux.

To think that Microsoft is going to win this in the end is naive. The momentum is quite the opposite.

Re:MS knows what they're doing

[WNight]

In many businesses I see, Linux is taking server market from Microsoft, or denying Microsoft entrance into that market. Most small businesses don't have huge unix servers. They got onto the net after the invention of the web, on Linux or BSD on x86 hardware. Microsoft is the competition in this area. Netcraft says there are what, ~30 million apache servers out there. Do you think there were that many big-iron UNIX servers for Apache/Linux to replace?

As for the desktop, consider that an 2Ghz machine with 256MB of ram and 40GB HD is around $500, do you really think that $700 for an OS and office suite is reasonable? Sure, graphic artists and tech writers, expensive workers, will be able to demand their specific platform, but the rank-and-file workers who may need a spreadsheet or word-processor once a month aren't going to convince the boss that they need Office XP Pro.

Like the servers though, Linux won't take desktops away from Windows as much as it'll enable people who couldn't justify Windows to have a desktop computer.

Re:MS knows what they're doing

[qtp]

To think that Microsoft is going to win this in the end is naive.

Disregarding the possibility of Microsoft using political manipulation to legislate Free Software out of existance, I agree with you, but I do wonder how far off "the end" might be considering that $50 Billion can go quite a long way.

The momentum is quite the opposite.

I'm not convinced that the Free Software meme has quite reached the tipping point as yet, but simple and honest advocacy can get it there especially if Microsoft keeps irritating and alienating its customers with tactics like those demonstrated in the article. It's not as though the US government is not subsidizing Microsoft when it asks for and recieves changes to thier products in exchange for obscenely overpriced military contracts.

This pussyfooting business is making me sick

[Anonymous Coward]

Either the US or China should declare war on the other, already. I'm sick of this crap.

It used to be that countries would declare war on each other because of petty rivalries between dukes and princes. Now, it sometimes takes an act of god to get them to go at it. How stupid is that?!?!

We're spending billions of dollars (a big chunk of our GDP) on national defense. And we never even use it! We shuffle our troops from base to base, sure, and we log our mileage and tally our days in service and hang our medals. But do we ever do anything productive? Do we ever kill anyone? Of course not.

Is it because we can't anymore? Bullshit. It's because we're afraid to. It's because we've let ourselves get castrated by the liberal media and their doomsday predictions about what might happen if one nation accidentally steps on the toes of the other.

Are we the world's largest superpower or what?!?! Is Bush to big a chump or is he just a pansy?!?!

If we don't start declaring open war on countries that disrespect our sovereignty, then foreign countries will think they can get away with pissing us off. Can you imagine FDR or Eisenhower letting the Chinese hold our American soldiers hostage like this? We haven't seen crap like this since Jimmy Carter, and let me tell you, those were some pretty sad days.

We must settle for no less than outright war. They think they have the upper hand now, but wait until we give it to them old-fashioned American style. They probably don't even have all those nukes they keep whispering about. Have we ever seen them detonate one? Well have we? NO! They don't exist.

Once open war is declared, our economy will boom. It'll be the answer to our recent economic downturn. Look at how WW2 pulled us out of the Depression. And look at how much more expensive modern equipment is. More expenses mean more contribution to our economy and our GDP. That means more funding for the military. It's a positive feedback loop.

And when we're done with China, we should go back to the USSR and show those guys what we're made of. We never bombed them for the U2 incident all those years ago, so it's time we showed them what for. That's what distinguishes the men from the Canadians.

Re:Gee... there must be an election somewhere near

[mic256]

What political campaign in China are you talking about ?

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[Radical Rad]

If these governments were subsidizing the development of a commercial competitor to windows then I might agree that MS had some sort of WTO complaint, but they are planning to use Free software which benefits everyone when it is improved including Americans. So what is their actual grievance? It would be like Phizer compaining that a foreigner cured AIDS and then announced to the world how to do it. Or ADM complaining that foreigners grow some of their own food. Oh, right.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[mickwd]

"A cartel of governments..."

You appear to disagree with all the "free trade" agreements the USA appears to have been arranging recently.

"...with an annual GDP in the 5 trillion range"

I assume you meant the combined GDPs of the combined populations of those countries. Which is very different to the amount of money their governments have to spend. And of course those governments have nothing else to spend that money on, apart from developing software (despite the USA's best efforts to accelerate a new arms race with their current level of military spending).

""compeating[sic]" with a company in the neighborhood of a thousand times smaller is not the free market."

Many of the companies Microsoft competes with in many areas are in the neighbourhood of a thousand times smaller.

Microsoft's position, and its business practises, have nothing to do with the free market.

"They should innovate"

Yeah, why don't those countries create their own damn operating system? Oh, wait.......

"But ultimately governments making software isn't a whole lot better than governments making airplanes or computer chips."

After all, the internet had absolutely nothing to do with a government agency called DARPA. And governments have never sponsored any sort of research in universities or wherever that have had anything to do with software, oh no.

"Microsoft does have a case..."

...to answer.

"And they probably should get the US to go to step up to the plate..."

After all, no other countries in the world should be able to do what they want, subject to their own rules (and any international treaties they happen to have signed up to), within their own countries.

"...especially considering how little of the MS software in use throughout asia was paid for."

Well if all that software had never been paid for in the first place, what on earth has Microsoft to be concerned about ? And supposing a large amount of piracy does take place there, what better means to stamp it out than by having the people of those countries come together, in the form of their governments, to design and build something to use legitimately in its place ?

My Version, a Day Earlier...

[cmacb]

Here is some not so surprising news...

Japan, the world's second largest economy, made a proposal at an Asian economic summit this week to build an inexpensive and trustworthy open-source operating system that would be based on a system such as Linux, which can be copied and modified freely.

"We'd like to see the market decide who the winners are in the software industry," Tom Robertson, Microsoft's Tokyo-based director for government affairs in Asia, told Reuters in a telephone interview.

I think the market IS deciding, which is going to be Microsoft's biggest problem for the next few years.

"Governments should not be in the position to decide who the winners are," Robertson said.

You know, I don't remember there being any protest from Microsoft when the US government stopped accepting RFP documents in WordPerfect format. I guess they've had a change of heart for some reason.

Full story at Netscape.com

It's not the governments of Japan or China that need to be put on alert, it is our own. As Departments of State, Treasury, and the White House among others, busily archive critical documents in .DOC format that will not easily be converted to anything else in a few years, low level management of these departments need to be aware that going the "safe route" of managing everything using Microsoft tools will in hindsight only allow you to say "But everyone else around me was doing that too".

I suspect there will be more and more defectors from this way of thinking, even within the US government as time goes on. However as that happens there will also be signs of desparation from Microsoft as they try and appeal to some sort of warped patriotism that says we should all keep using overpriced, buggy and undocumented junk.

We need to stop thinking of Windows as America's software equivalent to the Boeing 7x7, and start thinking of it as America's software equivalent of the Yugo...

Q: How do you make a Yugo go faster?
A: A towtruck.

Q: What do you call the shock absorbers inside a Yugo?
A: Passengers.

Wait

[mindstrm]

So if a bunch of people get together to finance a new operating sytsem, it's okay, unless it's the people of an entire country, then it's bad?

lightbulb

[mlush]

Q:How many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A:None, they get Bill to declare darkness to be the international standard

MS has nothing to worry about...

[RevMike]

The governements of Japan, Korea, and China are collaborating on this? Then MS has nothing to worry about. This project will get so bogged down in politics and administrative infighting that progress will be glacial.

Look, as an example, at the *BSD world. They have lots of talented people, many of the finest minds in the *nix world, and started with a good product. Yet a "college kid" in Finland started a product that kicked their collective arses in market penetration. Why? Linux mostly avoided the bueracracy and political infighting that has plagued *BSD. (neither an opinion of the technical merits of *BSD, nor a "BSD is dying troll)

What the nations should be doing is sponsering programmers, giving them a mandate to 1) contribute to open source, 2) spend a significant fraction of that contribution making open source more available to asians. Then let those programmers participlate wherever they want. I could imagine an army of programmers working with OpenOffice.org, for instance, improving the word processing software overall, and its ability to deal with asian character sets. Others would contribute to Debian and Gentoo, creating asian language documentation and binary versions of those distributions.

Re:MS has nothing to worry about...

[Sphere1952]

The reason Linux took off while BSD languishes can be summed up by this .sig I saw a few days ago:

MS EULA: Sharing is theft, BSD: Sharing is not theft, GPL: Not sharing is theft.

Is baking your own bread a free market impediment?

[Fefe]

Is having a kitchen an impediment to the free market of restaurants?

Is driving a car an impediment to the free market of taxi and train companies?

Get real, man.

Free market means that people have the freedom to choose which product to use, and these countries choose to make and use their own. There is nothing wrong with that, not even considering the "free market" globalization iron fist of driving poor countries into complete bankruptcy (read the book and articles from Greg Palast for scary documentation about this).

In fact, it is in their best interest to reduce their dependency on software imports from other countries, and everyone acting in their own best interest is exactly the idea of free markets.

MS never said "fair"

[NineNine]

Good troll article. MS never said anything abotu "fair". The only place "fair" or "unfair" was used in this article was the headline. It was not used in any quotes attributed to Microsoft.

Re:Free Enterprise vs. Government

[pe1chl]

Right. In fact the US government is, by allowing software patents and tolerating that companies like SCO destroy other people's business without having to prove that they have a point, influencing the market much more than a government that stimulates the development of free software.

Funniest line in the article:

[smittyoneeach]

The current row over claims by The SCO Group that Linux uses code lifted from SCO-owned Unix does not seem to have dampened official enthusiasm for the platform, though the governments are expected to continue to closely monitor the situation.

The only reason they might monitor the SCO situation is for humor value.
Asian countries are going to do unto MS as MS did to IBM. Let's not blame Linux, though; if not for Torvalds, the BSDs would BSOD MS soon enough.
Prediction: MS eventually splits into OS and application companies. The application arm ports the profitable bits of MS software to Linux, and continues to do decent business. The OS arm gradually tapers off, as the inexorable migration away from proprietary operating systems continues.

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[Anonymous Coward]

wow. Thats the most Wishful thinking I've seen all year!

Get this man a cookie!

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[Greyfox]

Problem is, having complete control over the OS gave the MS applications side a huge leg up. Many companies have accused MS of using its control over the OS to benefit Microsoft apps and harm third party apps. The phrase "It ain't done 'til Lotus won't run" (Of one of the early DOS versions IIRC) comes to mind.

Not to mention the fact that unless you have full control of the OS (And the hardware) all that DRM stuff Microsoft has been so starry-eyed over would be impossible to implement.

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[Azethoth666]

"The application arm ports the profitable bits of MS software to Linux"

Right, software companies are falling all over themselves making Linux ports that they can't sell because Linux users don't pay for software.
But sarcasm aside, I worked for a major software corporation that made a perfectly fine port to Linux of one of their products (already had a Unix port) but could not sell any copies. Right now there are no more Linux plans.

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[gearheadsmp]

If I were a large monoplistic software company, I would compete with Linux by making a next-generation OS based off BSD code to preserve market share. Why? Because anyone can take BSD code and use it for whatever they want, as long as they give credit in the source code. So the company could dupe FreeBSD code for desktop, server, and enterprise applications. And then cover their bleeding rear - security - by using OpenBSD's security and netcode. But that would put that company on the edge of a cliff, positioning them closer to opening the source code for their OS.
So once that company realizes there's an Open Source "candy store" full of BSD code, it just may be irresistable for them.

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[smittyoneeach]

Apple?

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[Azethoth666]

Ok, company: Adobe, product: FrameMaker.

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[michael_cain]

If Judge Jackson's ruling in the MS antitrust case to break the company in two had held up, my best guess at the time was that MS (the applications company) would have quickly introduced middleware that would run on multiple OSs to which their own apps were written and to which others could write apps. IMO, there was a good chance that

1. Over a very few years, said middleware API would have been able to displace the Windows API as the API of choice for commercial developers, particularly if MS allowed everyone to distribute it at no cost with their apps. Remember that the applications company was going to retain control of the development tools, and could introduce tools to aid in porting from Windows to the new middleware.
2. The middleware would run better on Linux and other UNIX-like OSs than it did on Windows due to better underlying kernel behavior -- scheduling, memory management, etc.

As a result, Windows (the operating system company) would have been marginalized quickly. Most of the benefits that the applications side of the house derived from control of the OS -- undocumented APIs, for example, that are not available to the rest of the world, or embedded functions like an HTML rendering engine -- could be realized in the middleware.

At the time, I believe my official prediction was that Bill Gates would stay with the applications company, with an unstated goal of putting the OS company out of business within five years.

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[BrynM]

It would be seen as caving in. Linux is too high profile for them to absorb without a lot of PR fallout. They won't do it.

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[pod]

It's not just wishful thinking. Something will have to change. When your fastest (or rather, the ONLY) growing market (Asia) is suddenly unable to run your software, because they're using Linux or some other OS, something's gotta happen. I don't see how MS can reconcile having a division writing an OS, and another division writing software for other OSes. The two sides would not be cooperating much, and would be effectively separated. Just make it official and split em up into two companies.

Re:Funniest line in the article:

[Darren Winsper]

WordPerfect for Linux used Wine. It was slow, buggy and behaved like a Windows application. It felt out of place whether you were running KDE or GNOME. It was awful. That's why it didn't sell.

Dude...

[Dark Lord Seth]

I so care about the opinion of a random nobody on the internet. Really.

That's only the half of it!

[Fefe]

The US "free market" speech is cynicism of the highest order, which is abundantly clear with the US farm goods, which are highly subsidized by the government. Then the USA is using "free market" treaties to force the poor Mexicans (whose government can not afford these subsidies) to buy the "cheaper" US farm goods instead of their own, which are actually produced at substantially lower prices.

All the potentially noble thoughts behind this free market newspeak is completely eviscerated by the subsidies of the various governments. As long as governments subsidize their local producers, there is nothing free about the market.

How is the government any different...

[Artius]

... from any other customer. If they want to develop their own solution in-house, why shouldn't they be able to. As the size of an organization grows, the benefits of internalizing things like that increases. A 20 person company couldn't afford to develop it's own operating system, but a 250,000 person company could. Also, you shouldn't measure the government by the number of people it governs, but rather by the number of people it employs.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[An Onerous Coward]

1) A government doesn't have a GDP. A country has a GDP.

2) The government has many, many things to do besides develop software. The money actually being earmarked for this project is the sort of amount that Microsoft could spend without noticeably affecting the balance sheets.

3) The fact is, the software Microsoft produces can never be adequate for the needs of foreign governments. Even if MS software functions perfectly, and is apparently immune to hackers, there is no way for the governments to assure themselves that the U.S. hasn't built backdoors and other spyware into it. Nor can they be sure that they will be able to support themselves in the event that Microsoft drops support. With a Linux-based OS, they can maintain it themselves, and run security audits to their hearts' content.

4) If no private entity makes a product that suits a government's needs, there is nothing wrong with them building it themselves.

5) If nobody is paying for Microsoft software over there anyways, why should Microsoft complain when the government decides to create an alternative? Perhaps because people pirating their software is better for them than people using non-Microsoft products.

Re:They do have a point...

[Anonymous Coward]

Should governments (ANY government) directly fund the development of an OS? (Or for that matter, any application that will compete with commercial providers).

you can't be serious with this statement. Everytime the government purchases a license, they are directly supporting Microsoft. Which entity has the largest IT budget? The US government. The government also gives out a ton of money for research, which Microsoft did benefit from, so don't go crying about government funding an OS. Governments have always funded research in the name of fairness, but in reality it's never fair. Only a select few actually benefit from it and the rest end up paying for a monopoly.

it is not unfair unless

[john_uy]

they ban the use of microsoft products in the government or ban the entry of microsoft products in their respective countries.

however, since the government themselves invest a hefty sum on it, then it would be good if that money will be used to develop their own software. then they can distribute the software to their citizens for free (i hope so.) the consumers are still given the choice to choose between their homegrown software compared to microsoft software. it is fair since consumers are still given choice.

same with when building infrastructure or material projects. they can build it on their own without requiring or relying commercial companies to built it.

The Great Nation of Microsoft?

[Infernon]

I'm not trolling, but since when does M$ have a say in plans of another nation?
It's as if England started building houses for Britons and Toll Brothers got in a huffy about it. I don't really know if Toll Brothers builds in England, but you get the idea...

heh

[asv108]

Robertson said Microsoft has been working to have Japan participate in its Government Security Program, which gives national governments and international organizations access to Microsoft's source code, the underlying blueprint of its programs.

That must be some ugly source code, it seems like they got a look that and ran like hell.

Re:There is no comparison, Keanu

[fitten]

Actually, it is illegal in the USA for the government to compete with commercial industry. That's why fighter planes are defined by a big list of specifications (has to fly mach 1+ at 90% power, carry a payload of X, etc.) which are given to a number of airplane designers/manufactuerers and those companies bid on the cost of making the plane. Some review board then looks at the prototypes and such and decides which meet the specifications and which do not, and decides which company gets the contract. The difference in the previous scenario is that the new fighter plane has requirements that are not met by an existing plane in inventory. That's why they need a new one.

If the requirements of a government software project are met by an existing set of software from a commercial business, they aren't supposed to give money or commission something else. If their requirements are met by some software on MSWindows or Linux, then they are supposed to use what is there. If the software doesn't exist, then they provide specs and get bids for the work. etc.

Having a USA OS (doesn't matter what the thing is) is a VERY, VERY bad thing. Same as having the USA-2680 CPU (some made up processor). Other countries can do what they want, but in the USA there are laws (and good reasons for them) why this should not be.

What happens if (when) Microsoft falls?

[bshroyer]

I'll first disclaim that I'm unfairly biased against Microsoft. But then, that puts me in good company here.

Microsoft is no longer at the top of their game. They're still the dominant world superpower, but the world can now see that MSFT has vulnerabilities, and that we have alternatives.

As much as I'd like to see them go the way of the Roman Empire, Soviet Russia, and Enron, I'm afraid of what happens when MSFT falls. What does that do to the US economy? Does Microsoft fall with a "Splat!" like Enron and take a million jobs and half of every American's 401(k) with them, or do they quietly fade into obsoloscence like Atari?

These are the things that keep me up at night.

Re:What happens if (when) Microsoft falls?

[vidarh]

Microsoft failing should have relatively little impact. First of all, Microsoft employs very few people compared to most companies that approach them in market cap. Microsoft employ 30-40 thousand people, compared to closing in on 300.000 for IBM and it's subsidiaries.

Secondly, Microsoft is hoarding cash. If Microsoft started losing money so fast that it would even manage to eat up the return on their capital investments, it would still take a long time before they'd collapse, so barring a sudden devastating move, it will take a VERY long time for Microsoft to end up anywhere near a bankrupcy court, meaning the economy would likely have adapted long ago.

The only way for Microsoft failing to have a major impact would be if they managed to conceal problems until they were near collapsing (lying to the SEC?), or if they were hit with a ridiculously devastating judgement in a class action lawsuit (as in 100-200 billion in damages, if lower they could likely finance their way out of it), which is highly unlikely.

More likely than Microsoft failing is Microsoft morphing. Due to it's financial strength, they keep on buying and investing outside their core areas. If Windows and Office, their two main cash cows, start collapsing on them, they'd likely have plenty of time to shift focus, and given their enormeous amount of cash and cash equivalents they'd likely have no problem surviving until they could live on other products, though probably not with anywhere near the same market cap.

Re:What happens if (when) Microsoft falls?

[panurge]

What happened when telecoms were liberalised? Remember, Enron wasn't really a utilities company: it was a derivative trading company. You cannot compare a company that makes products that people want to buy, with a gambling outfit.

Surely no nation has a God-given right to export its goods to another nation if they aren't wanted there, despite past efforts by some governments.If the US loses tech jobs, it won't be because Microsoft got replaced by something better. It will be because company officers and shareholders (who allow it to happen) outsourced jobs abroad, contrary to the interest of the majority. In fact, it will be because of politics.

And don't forget, Microsoft is not the dominant world superpower. It is dominant on the desktop, in operating systems and office applications. Collectively, Sun, HP, IBM and EDS are far bigger. They do not have the cash mountain that allows Microsoft to do largely what it wants, but overall they are more important to the US economy.

Perhaps I am too close to Redmond...

[ejbst25]

But all I hear is the sounds of Billy saying "Its not fair! Its not fair! I can't use my monopoly to get them like I did Be."

The government *does* decide

[ragingmime]

...who the winners are in many cases. I'm not trying to be some kind of loony conspiracy theorist here, but the fact of the matter is that the free market sometimes plays less of a role than personal interests do in government purchasing. Unfair? I think so, but it's nothing new. At least with the cases described here, it seems like it's being done with the country's best interests in mind, not with the intent of generating business for a "friend." (Okay, I'm done ranting now).

Sooo...

[Lord Bitman]

An initiative for all government computers to be open-sourced. Microsoft says that it thinks the consumers themselves should be deciding these things, not the governments- but the government IS the consumer in this case. So microsoft is saying it doesn't want governments to be deciding for itself?

Unfair competition from Internet

[El Cabri]

Thank god, the Internet, which has been mainly created by government-funded research, has competed "unfairly" with proprietary online services such as MSN, AOL and Compuserve.

MS "innovates" in commercial imperialism

[sniggly]

MS has already lost the battle (not yet the revenue) but they dont understand. They have continually alienated foreign government bureaucracies by hiding behind uncle sam and using their popularity with consumers and business. Governments are and should be concerned over a MS lock-in.

All the large consumer electronics companies have decided to standardize on linux (embedded).

All the large phone makers (Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola) have very consciously decided against using MS software in their phones because they don't want MS to enter their market and screw them over. I bet Sony & IBM are working to make the PS3 such a killer console in order to stop microsoft from taking a larger market with the xbox.

If the State dept lends itself to promote microsoft they will just show themselves off as ignorant pawnsand be perceived as such by foreign govts. The US is not imperialist but MS certainly is.

Re:MS "innovates" in commercial imperialism

[iCat]

The US is not imperialist

Well, some would argue otherwise... this article by a recent UK cabinet minister is quite interesting.

Re:MS "innovates" in commercial imperialism

[bstadil]

The US is not imperialist

Maybe US does not look upon itself as such but she sure fits the definition. My highlight below

Def:

The belief in the desirability of) the acquisition of colonies and dependencies, or the extension of a country's influence through trade, diplomacy

Excerpted from Oxford Dictionary Copyright (C) 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

too strong

[jbolden]

Subsidy creates distortion not a unfree market. An unfree market is one in which certain products are banned by law or effectively banned. Contrast the market for cheese (where there is heavy distortion based on state of origin) to the market for drugs (where there are outright bans).

Re:They do have a point...

[vidarh]

Governments are THE largest procurers of proprietary developed one-off software solutions. Most large government systems are running on software developed particularly for that government application. Governments do that because the market doesn't build shrink wrap apps that cover their needs.

Why should they be barred from doing the same if an OS doesn't meet their needs?

And why should it be any different if their "need" is to stimulate the local economy?

I'd say a government that spends it's money on paying for local development that become freely available to anyone (including people outside their own country) is doing a hell of a lot better job than a government that spend the same amounts on proprietary development projects that will only benefit one department, and on licensing proprietary applications from a company outside their own country.

Paying for open source development is likely to do a lot more for their people.

No...

[Tharald]

Microsoft does NOT have any point at all here.

-Microsoft does not provide a satisfactory product (not enough security, too much cost, no customization etc) for many customers, most importantly for governments.

-Governments do fund development of massive software systems (defense, research, administration), in addition to roads and other infrastructure. This happens in the US too.

-Because of the nature of software (the cost of reproduction and the benefit of building on the work of others) it is in no way cost-effective to buy proprietary software in most cases.

-Microsoft is a predatory monopoly, sentenced as such by american courts. They have 85% profit margins on their main products, something which is a sign that they are not in a healthy, competitive market. This also shows that consumers are not in any way getting good value for their money.

Most of these facts alone should make a government choose an alternative. Taken together, it is puzzling why it hasnt happened before.

Will they make it English-based?

[CowboyRobot]

Most computer languages are English-based, using words such as 'do', 'while', etc. So that international developers have to know at least some English in order to code C, PHP, and certainly HTML. But how deep will the Chinese/Korean/Japanese OS developers go?
They have some commonality in their alphabets, which have thousands of characters, rather than the 26 English letters - so will they use Unicode for the actual source code? Will basic terms such as 'if' and 'then' be written in an Asian language that will be incomprehensable for most American developers?

It *IS* the free market

[Tim Macinta]

Well, you have to admit that it is a little bit unfair since it is not a company on the free market developing a competing product, but it is the governments of those nations doing it.

The thing is, these governments are customers of Microsoft. If it is cheaper for them to build an operating system for their own use than to pay for Windows, then it is the free market deciding because this is a purchasing decision for them. That's not to say that they don't have other motives as well, but so long as they are going for the most cost effective option it does not matter how biased their choice is because the "free market" choice would be the same. The US Army recently signed a deal to pay half a billion dollars for Windows. That's the US Army all by itself. Multiply that half billion by the number of other large governmental organizations that use Windows, then multiply that by three for the three Asian countries that will be collaborating, then multiply that by the number of times that they will need to pay for a Windows "upgrade", and you have massively more than the $1 billion that they intend to spend on their own OS. Linux is obviously the more cost effective choice. I wish the US Army would have clued into this.

Re:The easiest way to handle MS's tantrum ...

[Rock Ridge]

TRON has been open source for a long time. BSD license -- go get the real, genuine source if you want. Do you mean by "has been open-sourced" that there is a GPL version?

So if......

[mormop]

Microsoft prefers competition between software applications to be determined in the free markets rather than by government agencies

perhaps they'd like to consider the following:

1: Withdraw all political lobbyists from pestering politicians.

2: Stop making bri.. oops, donations to political parties.

3: ensure that all "charitable" donations are made via banks rather than press agencies

4: Stop flying the UK E-Envoy and other countries IT decision makers to Redmond for freebies, oops there I go again - conferences at which to discuss which MS products they'll be buying next.

5: Talk to the DoJ and, after offering thanks for favours done in the past agree to undergo investigation for the parts of the anti-trust trial that were dropped when the current US administration came to power.

6: Open up their file formats so that makers of third party and competing software can compete on a level playing field rather than having to reverse engineer complicated code for the sake of interop' with monopoly creating products i.e. MS Office.

7: Release the API details reqd. to make software run as quick as theirs

Until these and the manifold other issues created by MS's monopoly are dealt with maybe they's be graceful enough to SHUT THE FUCK UP about free markets, a concept that they either don't understand or have no intention of utilising.

My Supporting Interviews

[BlackBolt]

Catching up with Bill Gates of Microsoft outside his $600 million dollar home this morning, he declared "I strongly believe it is unfair to use any software but ours, and to come up with your own so you're not totally reliant on us is just wrong on so many levels. And if they're worried about all the NSA backdoors in Windows, tell them to suck it up and live with it like everybody else. Privacy is dead. Now screw off, peasant. I've got a tee-off at ten."

Similarly, a press release from Orville Reddenbacker this morning claimed that "when you buy no-name popcorn, you're buying terrorism" and immediately demanded the abolition or bombing of all popcorn makers but them in order to defend America against this terrible low-priced threat. "The time for competition is over", the deceased Reddenbacker stated, the national anthem playing gloriously in the background, "We are an American institution now and must be protected from any loss of sales resulting from people buying other brands. Choice is the true enemy here. Remember this when you're voting, kids, there should be limits on freedom - especially the freedom to buy popcorn other than our new Maple Salmon flavored EZ-Popp(TM) Microwaveable popping corn, on sale now at better grocery stores near you."

The RIAA, MPAA, and SatelliteTV vendors all agreed. "Look, we all know that you'd all have bought all those 400,000 CDs, movies, and tv channels anyway if it weren't for piracy, so just cough up the money and we'll call off the dogs. Making 'mad money' is a guaranteed right that is protected by law since Dubya's been in power. It's the American Way. You love America, don't you? If you don't buy more stuff from us, we WILL press charges." Jack Valenti took it one step further. "These goddamn Chimese terrorisms ain't de worst part of dis trend either. What I tink we should do is outlaw 'playing outside'. Yup, jes tink about it. All dem little rats playing outside when dey could be enjoying a good movie or copy-protected Celine CD. De children is de REAL Boston Stranglers here, dose unAmerican little gooks. Wasting their lives playing outside in de goddam sun when dey could be supporting our economy? I don't understand kids dese days. De world is goin' straight to hell, I tell ya. Goddam nature. We'll sue God next, yeah, go for de REAL deep pockets." At this point, SCO's Darl McBride quickly took out a notepad and started scribbling furiously and then ran off, his villainous humpback swaying in the wind.

Despite the overwhelmingly good evidence the corporate shills of America had barfed forth, I thought I'd see if another view existed. So I sought out some elusive hippie culture leaders. When asked for his views, the uber-influential Richard Stallman said, "My name is GNU/RMS! Why can't you people get that right!" and starting making clucking noises and playing a flute like that little centaur guy off the Hercules cartoon. His arch-enemy Linus Torvalds quipped, "I don't get involved. Sorry.", dismissed us with a wave of his hand, and went back to his penguin burrito. Eric Raymond could not be reached for comment, as he has been at the gun club since July and is apparently not ever coming out until people start using Python to write device drivers.

Even funnier... the market *has* decided!

[leonbrooks]

"We'd like to see the market decide who the winners are in the software industry," said Tom Robertson, Microsoft's Tokyo-based director for government affairs in Asia.

Hello? I think it just did. Hint: you're not among them. (-:

Hire Boies...

[geeklawyer]

"Will they hire Boies to prosecute their case?"
They could do that: the DOJ, Napster and Al Gore did.

My guess, however, is that they'd prefer to win. SCO take note.

MS doesn't see...

[ender-]

MS is missing the real point. They may whine about it being "unfair", but it is all entirely their fault. Microsoft has had 10+ years to deliver a stable, secure operating system to the people of the world. They have been unable to do so, and now the world has had enough. The confidence in Microsoft products has finally gotten low enough that goverments, and people around the world are looking for something better. That's all there really is to it.

At this point I think that if the OpenSource community wants to become the next big provider of OS's and software, then the product delivered needs to be three things:
1. Easy to Use
2. Stable
3. Secure

It's pretty much got 2 and 3 set, although maybe a little more work needs to be done there. As for ease of use, great strides have been made in that direction, but a lot of work is still needed. As a recent article said, there is a lot of amazing OpenSource software out there, but most of it lacks the polish required to be great. I really hope the open source developers can rise to the occasion. It would really be the nail in Microsoft's coffin.

Ender

Of course, that just my opinion. I could be wrong :)

No, even funnier is...

[john_shadows]

..."Microsoft prefers competition between software applications to be determined in the free markets rather than by government agencies." This from the company that last week said they would have document lock-in - they were going to design the new Office so you couldn't import word docs into other applications. You reap what you sow, baby.

Cars as a bad analogy

[TWX]

"How would you like it if you were a car manufacturer and suddenly a government would start producing cars and competing with you using taxpayer money?"

There are fundamental flaws in your argument. If one were to build that argument from the ground up:

1) Cars would be made by a company in one country and sold to people of another country who cannot or do not make cars themselves
2) A Free Car design exists and is nearly free to implement (cost of basic parts)

If I'm in the non-car-producing company, and I want a car, I can either pay for that car to be imported, which sends money back to the country that it came from, or I can work with the Free Car design, and build my own. Obviously if I care about the economy of my country, using the Free Car design makes more sense. It doesn't contribute a lot of money to my own country, but it deprives the other country of moneys from my country that probably won't cycle back through my country's economy.

If my government is smart, they'll see that their country's outpouring of money for government cars to another country's company isn't in the best interests of my country, and they'll look for an alternative. Since my country doesn't commercially produce cars, they'll look into the Free Car design, and if they like it and can produce it for the same or less than their importing works with, then they have incentive to do so, because they will both reduce economic dependence on the foreign country, and deny that country it's money.

Microsoft is a large software company with offices all over the world, but they're an American company. Their development costs are readily paid off by the millions of people, and possibly billions of computers that run their software. Worldwide, a lot of money leaves nations and travels through Redmond, Washington back into the economy of the United States. Money that these other countries could probably use internally to bolster their own economies. If they can take a product or implementation, like Linux, BSD, even FreeDOS, and make it do what they need to do, so they break their dependence on a foreign product, it is in their best interest to do so. If any development work is to be paid for, it makes sense to use local developers, whose salaries will allow them to spend locally, thus bolstering their economies.

Linux shows promise of being an anti-globalization step on a very limited scale, but one that is very pronounced. The most amusing part about it is that it can be anti-globalization while it globalizes, since the ownership and rights to use are designed to keep it free. It also promotes compatibility between systems, should such be needed, if it's adopted globally.

The City of Munich's decision to adopt SuSE Linux is an example of this local economic feeding. Granted, IBM is involved, but SuSE is the product that Munich is using, so if they choose to, they could drop the IBM portion of their support at any time, and go with straight SuSE, which would be the local boys. I won't be surprised if they ultimately build their own in-house IT department to handle all of this, and IBM slowly pulls out of the picture there, or has a smaller influence.

If a country can reduce their dependence, it's almost always a good thing.

Labeling "un-Amarican" is not a good tactics.

[zzztkf]

The reason? "Un-American" is the word everyone wants to hear in Asia. Everyone dislikes how Bush adminstration is acting and recognizes as childish, selfish and bully.

Microsoft labeling them as "Un-American" will give them a lot of credit which can't be achievable by any other way.

If I were a shareholder...

[tkrotchko]

If I were a large MS shareholder, I would have already demanded MS split itself into OS and App companies.

I suspect if they did that, the result would be worth far more than the company today, we'd probably have a revival in PC innovation, and there would be a general economic revival in the tech sector.

Instead, MS is sitting on billions in cash, the stock price is in the dumper, and every foreign government is trying to dump MS. I can't believe the shareholders don't quietly ask Ballmer and Gates to step down.

And no, I am not trolling.

Re:If I were a shareholder...

[rsheridan6]

They're not such a great stock. They have a lot of revenue, true, but everyone knows this, everyone has known this for a long time, so the stock price is accordingly already high, and has been high for years. They already monopolize their main market so there's no room for growth there. There's nowhere to go but down, and with big players like the Asian governments working against them, it's likely that they will go down.

There were probably buggy whip companies that had record revenues around the time the Model T Ford came out, or American steel mills that had record revenues just before they got their asses handed to them by foreign competition. That doesn't mean they were great stocks.

The US will be left behind...

[Anita Coney]

It seems that every country other than the US is trying to build on open source software, while the US is trying to protect Microsoft under the guise of "free" markets. (Now that's doublespeak!)

It's only a matter time when the US will be the only country stuck with proprietary software, while the rest of the world will be light years a head because their tools will not be hidden and obscured.

If you think the tech economy is bad in the US now, wait about ten years! All of our technology will come from abroad.

Hey Microsoft!

[dmaxwell]

--I greasily rub my finger and thumb together.--

This is the world's smallest violin playing "My Heart Pumps Purple Piss for You.".

bribery

[Trepidity]

You must really have no idea of the rest of the world if you think bribery is more rampant in the US than elsewhere. If anything it's far less rampant in the US than elsewhere, and some US corporations have even complained that they're hampered doing business abroad because they're legally prevented from bribery, and so lose out to foreign corporations which aren't so prevented.

There's dozens of countries I could cite, but if you want an EU country with rampant bribery, you need look no further than Silvio Berlusconi's Italy, to name just one.

Run for cover

[BionicTowed]

Opps!! You broke ranks and spoke the truth. You are not helping the "leaders" to become even more powerful. You must be denounced as a heretic...maybe even a terrorists. Yeah, that's it! You're weakening our country with your truth, which makes you a terrorist.

Something to look forward to

[fz00]

I personally hope that these Asians repeat the successes they've had with automobiles and create a reliable commercial OS for the US market. They'll help bring down the price of commercial OSes with higher quality product. Microsoft's reaction is justified in light of what the Asians did to the US car market. It'll be fun to watch them squirm.

Heart of Darkness

[bedouin]

Kurtz is that you?

Split up Microsoft...

[PetoskeyGuy]

Right, split them up into OS and APP companies...

That's pretty PC-centric though. Lets not forget the XBOX. Split Microsoft into OS, App and Video Game Companies.

Well then there is the MS Smart Phones... so split Microsoft into OS, App, Video Games, and Mobile Phones.

Hmmm, that leaves MSN out. Hotmail and Passport too. OK then we need to split Microsoft into OS, App, Video Gaming, Mobile Phone and Internet Services.

Of course they make hardware too... Tablet PC's, Microsoft Mouse and Keyboards. So - oh this is it!

Split Microsoft into ...
OS, Applications, Video Gaming, Mobile Phones, Internet Services and Hardware Companies.

And do it quick before they start making Media Centers!!!

Government Subsidies

[BagMan2]

This is no different than a government subsidy. It would be really easy for the United States to completely take over say the bicycle industry, just have the government start subsidizing bike makers so they could sell the bikes for dirt-cheap overseas. Of course, foreign countries would counter by imposing tariffs on US bikes so as to not put their own bike makers out of business and the next thing you know you have a nice little trade-war going on.

I don't see how software is any different from bikes. If asian governments start funding software development and make it such that US products (ie. Windows) can't compete, then the US would respond be putting tariffs on other products produced in those countries, again, nice little trade war where everybody loses.

I wonder how quickly Korea would quit making AsianOS when we slapped a 20% tariff on Hyndai vehicles (effectively putting Hyndai out of business in the US). Or how about Toyota, Honda, or Sony?

It's all too easy for them now to sit back and decide to make their own OS, as they have no presence in the OS industry now to speak of. But they are nuts if they think the US is going to just roll over quietly as they subsidize out of asian existence a multi-billion dollar industry that we are dominant in.

Red Flag Linux

[Sphere1952]

http://www.redflag-linux.com/eindex.html

Poster doesn't understand the arguement

[geekee]

Microsoft's arguement is simple. It is bad policy for govts. to run businesses that compete with industry. A govt. that cares about individual rights has no business taking taxpayer money and using it to develop products that compete with industries. A govts. only job is to defend individual rights. It shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money on social engineering by messing with the free market. I certainly would object to the US govt investing in software that wasn't directly related to national security or other govt. functions. A govt developing software to compete directly with commercial software is taking a step towards communism. Let Redat, Mandrake, and free orgs. like FSF develop Linux, but don't force taxpayers to pay for it by turning it into a govt. project unless you have a really good reason. I won't even get into the practical problems of who's in charge of development when govts. get involved.

Microsoft's definition.

[rice_burners_suck]

A plan by Japan, China and South Korea to develop an operating system alternative to Microsoft's Windows software could raise concerns over fair competition, Microsoft said Friday.

Microsoft's definition of fair competition: "A single company has a global monopoly and uses it to gain monopolies in other areas, unhindered by any market forces or acts by government agencies."

... my comment...

[tkrotchko]

You're not thinking it through.

My comment had nothing to do with fair business practices, it has to do with return on investment. MS is making billions. Great. Where is the *return* for the investor? The stock prices are bad, and they only recently paid a paultry dividend.

MS's doing well is great for Ballmer, Allen, and Gates, but is it good for anybody else?

Who was using the exploits before the publicity?

[Futurepower(R)]

A government that uses closed-source, proprietary software is not an independent government. Who was expoiting all those security vulnerabilities in Microsoft products before they were discovered by someone willing to make them public? Maybe not just script kiddies. May one of the secret agencies of the U.S. government, such as the NSA, CIA, or FBI, or one of the others whose names are not well known.

A government that uses proprietary software is subject to hidden control.

Yes, a government should not compete with industry. But the issue is an extreme crisis that requires a change in the way things operate. Once the change is made, industry can support open source software.

This isn't economics class, this is the real world

[Infonaut]

1) Microsoft isn't interested in what is good government and what is bad government. They are interested in what keeps competitors from threatening their global monopoly.

2) "A government's only job is to defend individual rights" is an absurdly simplistic statement. Ask any ten people in any ten countries what the primary role of government is, and you're likely to get ten answers. Americans right now might tell you the primary role of government is to safeguard its citizens. Thirty years ago, they might have told you it was to provide every citizen an equal opportunity to succeed. A hundred years ago, they might have told you it was to provide law and order. Ask someone in South Korea right now, and they may say it's to prevent war. Ask someone in China, and they might say it's to raise the standard of living.

3) There is no truly free market, though as a libertarian I'm sure you would love it to be that way. Microsoft and other high-tech companies in the US receive tremendous tax benefits and the powerful backing of government agencies and elected officials, who apply pressure on other nations during trade negotiations. It would be fantastic if there were true globalization and dropping of subsidies and barriers worldwide. But that's not the reality. Microsoft is not acting alone. They have the support of the most powerful government on earth.

4) The US government considers weapons systems used by the US military to be of strategic importance. That's why, with few exceptions, almost all key American weapons systems are built by American companies, even when there are sometimes better alternatives produced in allied nations such as Germany, Britain, Italy, or France. What would happen, for example, if the French chose to stop supplying the US with weapons systems? Now imagine yourself making decisions about the security of any country on earth other than the US. The Americans have shown how sophisticated computer-driven information systems can reduce the fog of war and create staggeringly effective results. Would you want all of your own systems to be run by American-produced computer systems that you couldn't get the source code to? Wouldn't you be worried just as the French revealed the inner workings of the air defence systems they sold Iraq, Microsoft wouldn't do the same or worse to you?

Even close allies spy on each other. Why give the overwhelmingly most powerful nation on earth an open door into the heart of everything you're doing? Sure, that might be a paranoid conclusion. But if you're in charge of a nation's security, your job is to be paranoid.

Leaders in other countries are beginning to realize that software is not just an economic issue, it's an issue of much broader strategic importance.

MS Greatest Fear

[salesgeek]

Governments realizing they can reduce a large tax on their entire economy by eliminting Microsoft's monopoly.

Linux is like the rubble before an avalanche