Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Antitrust Compliance Questioned
rocketjam writes "Federal and State regulators overseeing Microsoft's compliance with their antitrust agreement with the government, are questioning whether Windows XP's "Shop for Music Online" feature violates the agreement's terms. Specifically, the feature invokes Microsoft Internet Explorer, even if the user has selected a different web browser as their default browser. A Microsoft representative said they believe they have adhered to the agreement."
It may need to run IE for some ActiveX crud. My game box still has IE installed (alongside Firebird) for the MS updates. They don't seem to like any other browser for me.
Whoops, forgot this was
Trolling is a art,
Like Microsoft? I simply can't believe such nonsense! They'd never break their word, and they always play fair as their past actions have shown. This reporter must have them mistaken with someone else.
Well holy shit, I am shocked.
They seemed like such a nice company, too.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
When MSN Messenger starts, it opens an Internet Explorer window with some advertainment. If you click on any of the links in that window, they also open Internet Explorer. My default browser is Mozilla.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
[sarcasm]
Microsoft not complying with a settlement order? Say it ain't so, as there is no precedent for such a thing.
[/sarcasm]
It's simply a link that loads their browser and takes you to their music store. If they could get away with it, I'm sure they'd love it if used their ISP, too.
Effectively though, they are doing something "evil", or rather illegal - by not complying with the federal antitrust ruling.
FWIW, I would advise all users to take advantage and ditch IE/OE and use Mozilla instead. I doubt you'd still be able to if this antitrust ruling had never happened.
Govt: MS, you are not giving users a choice here.
MS: "But your honor, we are giving users a choice. They can use IE for shop for music online or just not shop."
Ahhhh, the MS way.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
A Microsoft representative said "they believe they have adhered to the agreement."
He then turned away from the camera and said "If you don't like it, you can always take us to court"... and then he softly snickered to himself.
I mean, 4 articles with the Borg icon out of the first 5 on the page? Nothing else going on today??
Microsoft still evil. Film at 11.
If you're going to try and bash MS, Taco, will you please post a story that actually shows MS doing something properly evil/insecure rather than just opening IE instead of the user's preferred browser?
Yes, folks, we've become this desentized to MS crap.
I will use whatever browser I want, thank you very much. I don't want any application deciding what to do for me.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Frankly, I was under the impression that MS was actively developing a non-compliant OS, Longhorn...
Shocked, I say, to discover that there are violations of the agreement here!
"Your bribe money, sir."
"Thank you."
"Shocked I say!"
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
A Microsoft representative said they believe they have adhered to the agreement.
In as much as Microsoft thinks they have a manifest destiny to conquer and subdue the entire computing industry, they certainly "believe" they have complied with an agreement they didn't want, fought against, and ignore whenever possible.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
*Crackle*
You can bet they wont rush THAT fix onto windowsupdate.com
you mean people who actually care whether they are browsing with IE or mozilla use buy now links in windows media player?
did you forget to take your meds?
what happened to breaking them upo ? that idea got shelved pretty quick, maybe this evidence might help peoples conclusions
They're just trying to sell real physical musical discs, not online by song. It lets them wield power against companies like Amazon, rather than Apple. Not to say it couldn't be changed in a future version, but as of now, it's not competing with iTunes directly.
And I believe that I am the omnipotent ruler of the amazon planet
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
Yes, I know this is an MS Hate Zone (TM), and please don't mod me flamebait etc, but what do the feds call iTunes, Napster 2.0, etc? The moronic feds have wayyyyy too much time on their hands.
If you read the agreement carefully, you will find that they are at least
... [snip]
minimally compliant. I believe this is the relevant section...
Microsoft shall publically indicate their agreement to undertake actions as
deemed necessary by the court to effect a reduction in the above cited
anticompetitive practices and shall not
If you read carefully, you'll note the language "publically indicate", which
Microsoft clearly has done. Therefore, they are technically in compliance.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Think about it, if MS wanted to stick it to the other browsers they really SHOULD use them everywhere like with Media Player and Messenger launches, etc.
With all of the proprietary crud that IE uses to make those things work the third party browsers would crash and burn (assuming MS only changed which browser gets launched and not anything else about the technology to actually support them).
Then MS could say "See judge, we told you other browsers were crap. Let us switch back to IE for the poor helpless users and all of their troubles will be over..."
When are people going to learn that Microsoft knows that the HEAT is off and they are back to their old ways.
They will keep doing this until SOMETHING(some state government not buying any of it's bs) forces that company apart, stops OEM exclusionary system and installation of XP software, and LIMITS their marketshare at a certain percentage. Something like 60 - 70 % would be good for me. This would allow true competition in os software again.
That would be a start. But the GOV didn't have the NADS to do that so let's just be content and enjoy their workarounds and trickery.
no wonder you posted anon, you're full of it
OpenSecrets
But it's NOT a nit-pick; it's a violation of the antitrust settlement. Why ever did people think Microsoft would actually PERFORM under this agreement?
The browser wars are over. What web browser you use no longer determines the operating system you employ. The point of the anit-trust suit was lost by the fact that by the trial came before a judge the technology in question was already out dated and the point of the suit moot.
If the government officials want to do something worth while, why don't they explore how M$'s changes to the CIFS licensing agreement are in violation of their agreement, since they make it difficult for non-windows machines (aka Samba) to interact with Window's network resources.
Or better yet, why don't the government officials fire themselves and put my tax dollars to better use, like education, roads, or even buying cheese.
-Runz
Knowing MS, the site probably requires IE to function anyhow (what with all those advanced IE-specific DHTML extensions that are oh-so neccessary for e-commerce) so whats the problem? ;)
"Old man yells at systemd"
just how sharply Microsoft had their wrist slapped. I mean really. That wrist stung for over 15 minutes. There was a red mark that lasted at least until dinner. Microsoft had trouble typing for the rest of the evening. I personally believe that Microsoft has really learned their lesson this time. I feel comfortable going on vacation and leaving them here alone, with the keys to the Porsche and the liquor cabinet unlocked. I'm confident that they now understand to respect the rights of other companies and that they won't give them wedgies and leave them hanging from the fence. If we can't trust our own Microsoft, then who can we trust?
Its a joke - i thought the whole idea of the settlement was that you had choice over programs. Can you use a browser other than IE to access windows Update? NO! If there was one thing that you should be able to access in something other than IE - then that should be it. Ok - so FB clearly cant do activex stuff- fine - lets make it so FB can do windows update- and all the other browsers- Opera, Mozilla...
That's the goal. You can even download processor optimized versions of both .7 final and the latest nightlies if you want to try for a bit more speed.
They've allowed all of microsoft's blatantly illegal monopolistic manueverings, and now that there are no legitimately widely used internet browers BUT IE they cry foul for not allowing the option for alternatives that don't exist?
MS is now set to use "security" and digital rights management to go to new and widely publicised monopolistic behavior... but not a word is said because "it's for safety".
Of course they said they believe that they're compliant. What would you expect?
A Microsoft spokesperson was quoted as saying "Hell, I dunno. Sounds pretty bad to me, what do you guys think?"
--
Since Microsoft was clearly caught napping with ITMS who cares to bet how long it will be before MS puts a integrated store into the WMP? My guess is they will throw wads of cash at the labels to grab the rights and then put out "optimized Windows Media Player 9" WMA files that wont work on anything else. Either way, the Itunes for Windows + ITMS is a rare win for Apple, and Microsoft knows it.
Wha........
Ho......
Whi......
Nope. I give up. I cant even act surprised.
When 1.5 came out, I setup windows media player as a plug in. It worked great for one day. At the next reboot, it loads but does nothing. No visible settings have changed. In Explorer, it works perfectly. It aggravates me because I thought Microsoft was giving me choice.
Is their Netscape plug-in just one giant troll?
Microsoft isn't complying with anti-trust laws. They were more than happy to see George Bush appointed by God and they hope God appoints him again.
Too many weird things happen when attempting to use software that competes with a similar Microsoft product. Not even IEradicator seems to be able to remove all the tentacles.
Without voice dictation, I can't move to Linux so if you planned to tell me just that, try offering a suggestion instead.
Laws are for people with no friends.
This is interesting. Firebird is my default browser. I use Yahoo LaunchCast occasionally, which is IE only, and when I open the launchcast app it pops up an IE window. This is exactly what I want it to do -- if it popped up a Moz window telling me Moz wasn't supported, I would just get pissed off.
If LaunchCast was owned by MS, would this behavior be illegal?
I don't get it. In an article ran not too long ago M$ complains about the incompatibility with Apples iTunes with their music service. Then, not surprisingly, they turn around and basically return to monopolistic practices. I know what is going on, M$ knew they were doing this and figured they'd wait until they got slapped on the wrist and then they will fix it. I wonder how many other hidden treasures like this exist.
You never saw a fish on the wall with its mouth shut.
The article doesn't explain the terms of the agreement which were violated, or possible remedies. Many Slashdotters will focus on either the technology, which is trivial, or the duplicity of this practice, which also seems rather trivial in the context of web merchandising. The law, however, is a different world, and the seriousness of M$ breaking their agreements (if they have been broken) is a different matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
I'm not an MS fan, but this is a little silly. Anti-trust or no anti-trust, if Microsoft wants to give their media player a shop option that points to their shop using their browser, let them. What next, do you want to be able to set default shops so when you click on the button, it opens your favorite music store in Mozilla? I mean, that's just a little silly...
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
Microsoft should be forced to make the "Shop for Music Online" button in Windows open iTunes.
haha. Amen.
LOL!
iTunes uses IE as its browser no matter what browser you choose. Maybe it's because the functionality of iTMS requires IE or Safari, as other browsers are not supported.
Preach about W3C standards all you like, but I've seen some _strict_ code and there's still issues between Safari, Opera, IE, Moz, and Netscape. Limited browser support, when reasonable, is a great way to keep costs down. It just makes sense that the Microsoft Music Store would require IE, just as much as iTunes does (for Windows users at least).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Now that the SCO case has hit lull, we're back to the usual regimen of 1 part pro-Linux, 4 parts anti-MS, with a sprinkle of cool gadgets.
Yes in fact they would be in the wrong. What everyone keeps forgetting is that they where convicted of illegally using their monopoly position. To avoid being broken up they made certain promises, now they have to keep them.
Got Code?
If you notice, the shop for music online feature leads to several different music retailers. One of which is buymusic.com; a site which ONLY accepts internet explorer. Of course that doesn't make what they're doing right at all. BuyMusic.com's IE on Windows only policy is just MS trying to further lock people into the windows platform.
Photos.
Yawn. I'll leave the Bush slag alone (I don't go for shooting fish in barrels) but there is something interesting about that OpenSecrets chart.
[Tinfoil Hat]
It looks like over time they are contributing mostly against the entrenched party. Could it be that they are engaged in a deliberate campaign to keep the government politically destabilized and therefore incapable of concerted action against them?
[/Tinfoil Hat]
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Outlook and MSN Messenger "suffer" the same problem too.
It is a simple case of them explicitly calling iexplore.exe with the URL rather than the URL with the "open" action and letting the operating system handle with the appropriately registered application.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
A Microsoft representative said they believe they have adhered to the agreement.
George: "Remember Jerry its not a lie if you believe it."
Why can't other browsers have the same access to those links? I'm sure Mozilla or Opera or whoever could work out their own deals with companies and help pay for the costs of development.
Microsoft originally got in trouble not for just being a monopoly, but for abusing it's OS monopoly to crush competition in the Browser market.
Now while everyone is crying over their Mozilla not launching instead of IE (come on babies... big freakin deal), the fact that Microsoft is abusing it's OS monopoly to go after online music sales and online search engines slips quietly under the radar.
I know you really love those Mozilla skins and Tabbing... but follow the money to see where the real crime is happening.
Perhaps it is not I who is desensitised, but you who is hypersensitive to something as trivial as this.
My default browser under MacOS9 is Mozilla 1.3.1. MSIE does not exist on my Mac. I have, however, installed Outlook Express and MSN Messenger.
Whenever I click on a link within either of these two programs, an attempt is made to launch MSIE and not the default browser. Of course, nothing happens because both of these programs unsurprisingly launch only MSIE for this function.
Since this is MacOS, are they allowed to do this kind of thing? I assume "maybe" but if not, where do I submit my complaint?
I use Mozilla almost exclusively, but there are some sites that require IE (Yahoo Launch and usair.com until this month). Didn't really effect me.
Just a wild theory:
Maybe politicians feel more indebted to 'return the favour' if contributions got them in to office rather than just kept them in office, which is why it might be economically more advantagous to contribute against the entrenched party. More political bang for the buck, if you will.
"Old man yells at systemd"
So what does iTunes invoke when you go into the iTunes music store? A browser that came with iTunes? Mozilla? IE? In all probability it calls IE, so I think Apple should be suited and that I be made available for large cash prizes..
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
I use and love IE becasue if its intregration into Windows. I like that I can type in a URL anywhere and I get there. The problem I have is that my daughter got a few viruses due to those damn IE holes just by browsing websites. I only go to sites I trust so I do not mind the danger but I cannot tell here which sites are good and bad so I installed Firebird for her and told windes to deny access to IE. Well guess what if you happen to type in a URL in a Explorer windows it goes to the site in IE. I thought it would launch the default application for URL. So I told here never to do that and to first click the flame icon (firebird) before browsing the web.
This is a joke right??? Your asking the wolf to guard the hen house??? Yea.. right.
This issue has been a problem for a long time and Microsoft asserts that if you call complaining about it, you are instructed that IE is the ONLY browser to be used as everything links to it, and not other browsers.
Frankly, I think there is more going on here politically than anything else... but thats my opinion.
I could never get most other MS software to call up Opera or Netscape... only crappy IE.
Junk
Cheers;
Jeff
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
When is the Slashdot community going abandon it's zealotry and recognize these fundamental truths?
1) Apples are only for graphic artists
2) Linux is 20 year old technology
3) Sun has the best interest of the open source community at heart
4) Microsoft is a fair-dealing, inovative company.
<disclaimer>
Come on guys. This one should be obvious. Do I really have to do one? Oh, okay. It's sarcasm. There. Disclaimed.
</disclaimer>
OMG!! OMG!1!
That's like a 4th article about microsoft, this morning. Are they really that cool? Gosh.
You could only tell that MS is compliant if you would be able to uninstall IE without affecting other MS apps.. And that includes the MSHTML control..
--heavyvoid
Rhetoric about "choice" aside, this is clearly Microsoft's real objections to iTunes for Windows--it bypasses Microsoft's efforts to channel less sophisticated users to Microsoft's favored music vendors--presumably those that pay Microsoft a kickback.
One of the States involved in the antitrust suit did set up a website for reporting suspected compliance violations. I remember reading an article about the site, but damned if I can remember the URL. Anyone remember the address so we can report our violations?
P.S. Again, the subject of this article was already being discussed in the last iTunes article. Which is funny, because that last iTunes article was already being discussed in the previous one.
Just plain awful.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Did anyone expect M$ to abide by any agreement, ever?
Why would anyone think they are trustworthy?
History shows that the above is as likely as M$ releasing a product that works correctly on the first try. It ain't gonna happen!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Elections are next year...
Lets open the wallet
Perhaps it is not I who is desensitised, but you who is hypersensitive to something as trivial as this.
I don't enjoy being forced to use a bug ridden software package that could, should I browse to the wrong site, allow a remote attacker to root my box.
So yeah, I am "hypersensitive".
Here's a clue, free of charge: It's your computer. Not MS's, Not the RIAA's, not Apple's and not the MPAA's. Yours. You may do with it what you wish, and if that means allowing MS to tell you what apps you get to use, that's your choice.
Note, however, that that would not be my choice.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
A Microsoft representative said they believe they have adhered to the agreement.
Tobacco execs "believe" smoking does not cause any harm.
GWB "believes" Saddam was behind 9/11.
I "believe" I am the Queen of England.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
On the scale of evil, "insidious" is at least +2 points. Besides, state's attorneys general are getting exercised over this, so it's not a triviality.
Helium balloons want to be free.
No wonder I posted anon, I am 100% correct and still get modded down as a troll. Try it yourself. It's not hard to reproduce.
Considering how well many things like direct links to torrent files and movie files don't work in Mozilla (and Firebird), even with the MIME types edited in and the latest versions, I don't blame them. For some funny reason they want a browser that works, particularly when looking at media files.
I'm fairly certain that Microsoft representative drove away from giving that statement fully believing he or she was riding the back of a flying pig.
Maybe he likes to see it, but also likes to warn people. I'm not offended by that picture, but I can see how others might be and how any sane adult should expect other to be offended by it.
Why would they give you a choice in the first place if they are just going to use IE anyway?
Engineer: There's this property here for 'browser', can't we just use that instead of hard coding IE everywhere?
Manager: Nope, wrong answer. Always hard code references to our applications! Giving the user a choice is bad. Your fired.
TallGreen CMS hosting
I suspect Microsoft will just drag their feet until they can intergrate the browser even more in later revisions of windows. No matter I just use what works now. Linux, Windows, OSX.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
43% of Americans believe they've been abducted by a UFO.
Nearly 33% of Americans believe the moon landings were faked.
Beliefs a funny things, at times. Since they are not statements of fact, but merely statements of thought, the only way they can be "wrong" is if they don't believe what they say they do.
Beliefs are not facts. Beliefs aren't even knowledge. Microsoft can know, perfectly well, that they're in violation, but believe that they are not. This is entirely possible, and not even unusual in people. That's why I tend to hang out with machines.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Jon Katz is on Fresh Air on NPR right now.
What about all that "Windows users expect choice" mumbo-jumbo? Way to throw a boomerrang, fellas!
Maybe Microsoft needs to fix their store so that it is compatible with other browsers, but it only hurts other browsers if Microsoft uses those browsers when the store doesn't support them.
Sorry judge, I didn't comply with your ruling because I was too lazy.
Other world players is Tandberg of Norway and Laplink.
Go here for a thoroughly pissed of Lawyer that has covered this debacle from the onset
Help fight continental drift.
Both Napster and iTunes use IE MSHTML component to do their browsing. This has nothing to do with whether IE is better or worse, it's just that it's so damn simple to include it in your app, you'd look stupid if you reivnented the wheel with Mozilla. Besides, Mozilla isn't installed on every freakin' windows machine.
Let's see... the browser has been ruled to be not a part of the OS, so users are free to use any browser they like, but the implication here is that if a feature is offered, though the feature is clearly not a part of the OS, is must be compliant with the user's selection of browser?
Is it true that the majority of folks here have failed logic?
--- Bill
Willing suspension of disbelief is good for reading books, but not as a method of approaching real life. I usually am only willing to suspend disbelief when the story and characters don't suck - Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer read like cardboard cutouts to me, Microsoft's actions combine the least exciting components of the New York Yankees' yearly exploits and a cell being swallowed by an amoeba, and the character development is much like that of the famous short movie Bambi Meets Godzilla. So if they're not reading, they must be doing something else to generate that frame of mind, and I'm guessing it's not legal.
As an irrelevant side note, if I said that I believed I could circumvent copy protections either by legal or illegal drugs or by the force of my mind, would drugs or self-delusion be rendered illegal circumvention mechanisms under the DMCA?
That Apple stop thinking Small and make OSX for the x86 and then it will really make money and we have a real choice. Sorry, but Linux is not there yet.
Well, I just choose not to use such sites - they lose my 'business' permanently. (I generally don't buy online to begin with)
After all, I (currently) run ZERO microsoft products. As to whether or not it affects their antitrust agreements? That's a good question -- one best answered by lawyers. If this is specifically a microsoft-owned site not specifically OS-oriented (such as the Microsoft Update Site which IMHO it makes sense to make IE-specific) then perhaps it's a violation. Microsoft wrapping their browser into the OS is a violation of their antitrust but that's another story and they've already had their wrists lightly dampened with wet paper towel for it.
quick rant - IE is not on everyone's computers folks. Try not to assume too hard that it is. (end of quick rant)
No one else has access to thier browser NOR THE WINDOWS DESKTOP!!! Thats the whole point they control everything, and use that control to force themselves on everyone. Thats what a monopoly is. This would be no issue if they controlled only 30% of desktop OS instead of 97%.
1980: Should'nt ATT be able to do whatever they want, after all they control 95% of all long distance and land lines in US?
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Isn't it obvious? Funding is now underway for Bush/Cheynney 2004, and they want to make sure Microsoft sends them another big check this year.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
They believe..whatever they want to believe.
Sorry, I saw Reloaded again last night...
Sosumi.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
They blow the antitrust thing and let Microsoft off scott-free and then watch Microsoft continue on with its dirty tricks without saying a word. Why even bother with this? Is this some sort of joke? Because I'm not laughing.
Want to do something right and not this petty crap? Force MS to actually open up some of their products so we can interoperate with them and not let MS hide behind the terms of that settlement agreement which does nothing but enforce their monopoly.
Sorry guys you blew it. You had all the dirt you needed to nail MS to the wall for their corporate sins and you folded. I'd honestly rather they not even waste my tax dollars pretending like they are actually enforcing a settlement which as we know only rubber stamped the "Microsoft Way" of doing business.
Blech.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
everIEbodIE knows the felonious kingdumb of payper liesense softwar gangsters is just a swarm of megalomaniacal corepirate nazi, phonIE stock markup FraUD execrable.
/.puppets, who advertise for the felonious wons, for monIE? what's the difference?
what about the ?pr? ?firm? scriptdead
direct links to torrent files and movie files don't work in Mozilla (and Firebird)
I use torrent links via Firebird all the time.
Trolling is a art,
Blah blah blah
What I really want to know is when /. is going put Alfred E. Nueman ears on the Bill Gates gif?
Maybe a nice litte "What? Me Worry" caption along the bottom.
Way off topic, but the borg gif is stale."Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
I know I know, that might not be an option - but that's just more fuel for the anti-trust fire :)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
When a lawyer says in court: I believe... it is actually a sign to the judge that whatever follows is not true. So, I believe MS knew they were lying when they commented that they believe... Whatever...
I began using Linux and FreeBSD about three months ago, and I was shocked to discover that in KDE the Konqueror browser is used in the same manner as IE in MS Windows. Personally, I dislike both IE and Konqueror and hate that they are the medium for interacting with the file system. However, I have never seen anybody complain about the similarity in function of KDE's Konqueror and MS Internet Explorer. In my opinion, if Microsoft has to keep their integrated browser from providing default fundtions in the desktop environment, then every other desktop environment needs to keep their integrated browser from providing similar functionality. Otherwise, every person who uses KDE and complains about Microsoft's integration of IE is bordering on being a hypocrite.
From a consumer standpoint the problem is NOT that this "Shop for Music" feature included with Windows XP only opens IE.
The problem IS that this "Shop for Music" is even in the OS to begin with.
I don't need this crap, I don't want this crap, and it shouldn't be there. We shouldn't be forced to have to deal with embedded advertising to use an OS, or an application we paid for.
Whatever happened to the three strike rule?
1996
Feds: You agree not to bundle anymore right?
Microsoft: Yes
1999
Feds: You broke a rule again, and put Netscape out of business. You won't do this again right?
Microsoft (in 2002) : Yes, now that we own the browser market and have killed Java and Netscape, we promise to never do it again!
2003
Feds: Dude! We talked to you about this!
Microsoft: Yes, but iTunes, Napster, and so many others are STILL in business! Oh, and we're NOT a monopoly! Give us a few years to sort this out will you?
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Fuck You
Oh come now, does anybody seriously believe that ms ever had the slightest intention to comply with the spirit of the agreement? They will find loopholes everywhere in their struggle to avoid being forced to compete - that you can bank on.
P.S. Fuck You
Today, Multi-Mega-Bucks incorporated was accused of wrong-doing in their latest stream of litigatory aftermath.
When asked for comment, a spokesman for Multi-Mega-Bucks, incorporated said in a statement, "Whoops, our bad. Yeah, we really screwed that one up."
In other news, millions of geeks suddenly dropped dead from shock today...
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
If you want another browser, fine install it and tweak the system to make it use that, or, don't install windows.
The point is even if you have tweaked the system to use another browser WMP is harcoded so that it calls IE, which you can't remove from your system. To use your analogy it's as if Honda welded their engines into their cars so that you couldn't swap the engine if you wanted to. A browser shouldn't be welded into the system, nor should a buy button provided with the OS be hardcoded to go to a particular site. If MS want to put in their site as a default fine, but at least let me alter the defaults. It's my OS I paid for it, I don't demand control of what they do with the money I paid them.
They might have ordered them to change business practices related to IE, but they made subtle changes here and there outside of the code base.
One instance is hotmail/msn.com requiring Konquerer to identify itself as IE5 to allow you to use the file attachment... apparently they don't believe you can attach files from Konqerer.
I don't use netscape, and don't feel like checking it with Netscapes browser ID to see if they let Mozilla users attach files.
-AC
White House's reasons for going to war in Iraq questioned.
Slashdot reader's claim of getting laid questioned.
Congress's reasons for impeaching Clinton questioned.
Kobe Bryant's marital fidelity questioned.
California's decision to elect a guy with big muscles questioned.
MIT's dedication to providing affordable healthcare to its grad students questioned.
Lucas's decision to overuse Jar-Jar in Ep 1 questioned.
That's the POINT, MS should be supporting competing browsers with specs on how to integrate with other Windows components, otherwise MS is just abusing their monopolist position.
Perhaps it is not I who is desensitised, but you who is hypersensitive to something as trivial as this.
"you who is"???
I'm hypersensitive to verb conjugation.
Office XP always Launches IE regardless of the Default browser selected
--meh--
A pointless grumble here, but I submitted a story that covered this 36 hours ago, and was rejected. Oh, BTW, it also covered the EU and Massachusetts antitrust cases, too. My link? Here. Read about the antitrust trifecta.
Despite the ranting and raving by Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems is also bunding software into a single package. According to "Sun eyes application server market", Sun is bundling server application software into its Solaris OS. Sun is deliberately trying to destroy BEA Systems.
Remember. If we attack Microsoft for bundling stuff into its OS, then we should attack Sun for doing likewise.
microsoft doesn't have any beliefs. just money.
Any Jabber client is multi protocall on the server end
Jabber is great that way
See Jabber.org
--meh--
Any Jabber client is multi protocall on the server end
Jabber is great that way
See Jabber.org
Hadn't thought of that. Looks like TVJab and the discontinued Jabbernaut are available for Mac OS 9. I don't use Jabber myself, so if the server needs to be set up as a gateway to other protocols, I don't know what's involved in that (can you just connect to jabber.org servers and have everything work?).
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Mozilla is not under a court order.
Microsoft is, and it's because they have been violating antitrust law.
Your point is like being under house arrest and pointing to your neighber "but he doesn't have to wear the ankle beacon, he get's to leave -his- house".
-pyrrho
because Microsoft has an extra agreement, which they got instead of heavy penalties they would otherwise have to get for violating antitrust law. These extra requirements above and beyond normal business procedure are because of THEIR action and are specifically a "lighter" sentence. It's the easy way out, but it's still too hard?
If Sun is stupid enough to get caught violating the law and forced into such a settlement, only then should you bother to attack Sun for doing likewise.
Sun, for all it's many faults, for all it's death wish death spiral I think it's now engaged in... they are great at interoperability and have never tried to break interoperability. If Microsoft followed the same philosophy their domination of the market alone would not have gotten them into trouble.
-pyrrho
"S. Ballmers' Honesty Questioned"
or, perhaps,
"Politicians Integrity Questioned"
Mod it as troll all you want, moderators, but look at the categories of stories currently on the front page today. Four Microsoft (all flammatory), one Linux.
Does that sound right for a pro-Linux site that's News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters?
"Sufferin' succotash."
Fuck all you assholes who post just to get modded up. [sarcasm] Microsoft are annoying. They're a nuisance. They're simply bum bums. Oh well, what can you do? ... Bill Gates doesn't deserve to have his balls smashed. He doesn't deserve to have his throat slit. He doesn't deserve to be nailed to a cross, burned alive and rot in the pits of hell for eternity like all capitalist pigisms that define The great American Empire of pure horse shit. Noooo, they're simply bum bums.
[/sarcasm]
I'm not anti-microsoft. I'm anti-bullshit. Which means I'm anti-microsoft.
Hey, fuck you man, let people speak up. And elaborate! Explain to us why this guy should go fuck himself.
Because he bashes slashdot? Because he appears to be pro-Microsoft?
I don't give a shit what's he's for or against, but I sure as hell give a shit about assholes like you who repetedly post lame "Fuck You" posts as replies.
Disabling Javascript effectively stops their lock-out code from working, but the site itself still works fine. lol.
:P
:P
:P
Wonder if I'd get in trouble for posting info on how to get around the attempted lock-out of non-IE browsers, maybe even sending an email to BuyMusic saying how easy it is to get around it.
Yes, they might be able to change the code to try to block non-IE browsers from working on the site, although I don't think there is a way they could have a truly un-avoidable lock-out.
I'm not sure if posting info about getting around the lockin would be considered breaking the DMCA though
I bet they (BuyMusic people who are trying to enforce the lock-out) are getting $$$ from Microsoft to lock-out other browsers, although I imagine they'd get mad if I sent an email saying how I managed to get around the lock-out, especially if I said I posted on Slashdot here or other places the info
It's certainly near-impossible for them to do this, but I imagine they wish they could somehow make it illegal to get around lock-out code
Wonder if I'd get in trouble for posting this... lol.
For long distance it worked fairly well, until recently. (Deregulation is slowly consolidating power in the hands of the 'local' phone companies again.)
For actual dial tone service, though, it worked incredibly poorly, unless you consider waiting 20 years for cell phone service to become cheap enough to be a good alternative is 'working great'. And we're back down to what, three baby bells? Four? And there's talk of another merger. But even if they didn't merge, the fact remains that they have been price gouging and will continue to, and since each one takes up a different market segment, you're still at the mercy of a monopoly in your area.
So split up Microsoft... the OS division will be a monopoly, the apps division will be a monopoly, and the MSN division will quietly disappear. The OS division doesn't need the apps division to maintain their monopoly, especially since they've 'proven' that IE is part of the OS (and IE was going to be part of the OS division in the tentative company split plans.) The apps division doesn't need the OS division to maintain their monopoly, they just need their current app market share and very carefully crafted file incompatibilities that make it impossible for people to switch to new software.
Splitting companies up can be a useful tactic, in some cases, but splitting MS wouldn't help anyone, in the same way that splitting AT&T up into the baby bells didn't endanger their profits or force them to be in any way competitive. It just took away one (admittedly lucritive) part of their business, and left them more determined than ever to gouge the consumer as much as they could.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Funny... I noticed something similar this morning with ASP web pages. No matter how many ways I try to tell Windows that I have a different browser, outlook always spawns IE when I click on a URL that ends in .asp
Good one.
Splitting up monopolies is not a cure for creating competition in the marketplace.
The government still has no clue.
It's really the lower courts that have to change things. MS ALWAYS wins in the lower courts out of "fairness" issues. Things like the OEM contracts have been tossed out so low down they can't set any prececent--or worse the WRONG precedent. MS has hid most of their monopolistic behavior behind "confidential contracts" that none of the lower courts will bust thru. No lower court or trade committee will prevent them from buying up patents, companies, etc...even though they are a monopoly in one area already! The Public and DOJ can't see the REAL issues...like the BootLoader rules!...that hose AltOS by making it impossible to install. Or even tell WHY you can't co-install!
The BootLoader rule is still in effect AFIK! That was the crux of the BeOS argument, and BeOS was the only company to have a legit claim for that little slice of monopoly pie! That means that you will NEVER see a commercial dual-boot system from a major vendor -- small shops that don't qualify for discounts & hence enforcement excluded...but only until MS decides to crack down to protect the Majors!
The government is evil . Andrew Carnegie is god.
The government is satan. John Rockefeller was a genius.
Sherman antitrust act = rubbish.
Robberbarons good. People that want fair wages and working conditions = communists.
YOur right. Same as what Carnegie thought.
Irrespective of who is doing it, tying the sales of product A to the sales of product B is still bundling, but bundling as such is not necessarily illegal.
The (legal) situation changes if the party responsible for the bundling wields monopoly power in the market of at least one of the bundled products; bundling is then usually illegal.
Thus [*], if Company A (which may or may not be called Microsoft) sells product A (possibly called Windows) for which it has no or little competition, i.e. in that particular product market it is a monopoly, only on the condition that you also buy product B (say, Internet Explorer) for which competition exists (which we shall here call Netscape), then Company A is illegally bundling product B with product A; Company A is guilty of monopolizing.
Now, under federal anti-trust law it is not entirely clear whether monopoly per se is illegal; the act of monopolizing, however, is.
[*] The names used in this hypothetical example are, of course, totally fictional and all resemblance to real life is totally unintentional and coincidental.
The liver is evil and must be punished.
Given my interest in grammar, you will almost certainly have to go beyond the conjugation of common verbs in order to catch me out, I'm afraid.
Try not to sprain your elbow patting yourself on the back there, matey (you aren't the only one who reads James Kilpatrick), but I wasn't arguing with the "it is I who is" conjugation, but rather the "you who is" part. I understand the former, but not the latter. I suppose you could say a second "it" is implied, but I think it makes more sense to say:
"Perhaps it is not I who is desensitised, but you who are hypersensitive to something as trivial as this."
The problem stems from the fact that when you use "it is I," you are using "it" in an odd idiom in which it (it) serves only as a placeholder for the actual subject, "I", until it (I) is (rather quickly) identified. For that reason, I favor using "It is I who am," although I wouldn't argue with the way you used it as an idiom. But once the "it" is gone, its "t" having been burned to ashes in the crucible of "is," (and the "i" having been stretched on the rack of... aw crap, I think my metaphor's getting away from me) I see no sense in invoking it again in the second clause. Its purpose has been served and it has vanished. Therefore, I advocate using a conjugation appropriate to "you" in that instance.
Happily, since English has no official arbiter, my opinion carries as much authority as James Kilpatrick's. Then again, so does yours. We seem to have a draw. As the only people on the planet willing to discuss this, I suggest we each walk away muttering to ourselves.
Windows Update is one of those things which should be a standalone application. If dozens of game companies can automatically upgrade their games using standalone apps, then so can Microsoft.
But then again, they would want to make the standalone app use Internet Explorer's rendering component. Is this the same evil? If so, then well, Messenger itself uses the IE rendering component. So does Rhymbox, and that is practically Messenger's competitor!
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Why don't you mellow out and use Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris x86, or QNX then?
It's not like you don't have free choice in the matter.
A Good Intro to NetBS
You're violating your legally binding EULA. You're not allowed to say if IE is faster. Expect a call.
IE programmer: Woops, I hard coded IE accidentally instead of looking up the default browser
...
User: Who wants to shop there anyway? I'll go to my own site.
Mozilla programmer: Woops, I hard coded the background color of the bookmarks window, history window, sidebars, prefs windows, etc instead of using the system background color.
User: but wait, up until v1.2 it WAS using the system background color.
Mozilla programmer:
Conclusion: www 10 yrs on, a 'great browser' no longer exists.
Windows Update also requires you to use IE. How is this different?
Microsoft is offering a service and provides it through IE. If you don't want to use Windows Updates and be forced to use IE, download patches directly. If you don't want to use "Shop for Music Online" and be forced to use IE, don't.
I like buying through the iTunes Music Store, but I don't mind having a choice.
You're so anti-Sun it's sickening. If anyone cares, look at his past comments and read his anti-Sun, anti-Indian and anti-Asian remarks.
Oh and you want to know why you didn't get modded up? Because you're a fucking moron. Jesus, look at Microsoft desktop numbers veruses Sun's desktop numbers, think for a good 10 or 20 minutes (maybe more for you) and then post something more reasonable.
PS: You're really reaching on this one. What happened, did you used to be a Sun programmer who's job got outsourced to India?
Yes, you can just connect to any one of many Jabber servers and it just works. You have to find a Jabber server that has the MSN connection up and working (I don't know if Jabber.org or Jabber.com has it though). Search on Google for open Jabber servers or click here and you can see what protocols they are supporting.
BTW: I have used TVJab in the past and liked it.
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
Fuck You
Why don't you mellow out and use Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris x86, or QNX then?
:)
Were it just me, I would in a heartbeat ( a humming bird heart beat even ). But alas, I don't have that choice for my organization.
I do have a choice on the browser, which is currently firebird.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Dear OCG,
I'm a big big fan of your work attacking the morons and Slashbots here and trying to wake up the goofs trapped in the Slashbot Matrix, but I have one question: why do you ignore the raving lunatics we all know and love as the Mac Zealots? Those guys are really messed up, biased, bitter, and deserve a good spankin'. The Slashbots are actually more pro-Mac than they are pro-Linux! Insane. And anything Mac is making the front page, not just apple.slashdot.org. Everything. Like point releases, stupid security patches, adding a new color on their computers, lowering the price on RAM, whatever. Hell, Dell can start giving stuff away for free and they wouldn't make the front page. I'm calling on you, SuperCriticalMan, to help us innocent victims of this corrupt and propagandistic regime.
Anyway, I'm posting AC due to a corrupt and biased pro-macintosh Slashdot editors karma bitchslapping of this afternoon. Check it out on my Journal.
I eagerly await your response.
Yours in Christ,
Doctor Reginald Scooby
Slashdot Trolling Academy