Slashdot Mirror
Judge Examines Microsoft Settlement Progress
Infonaut writes "The judge who presided over the settlement between Microsoft and the federal government may be starting to realize what a lot of people already know about Microsoft. The settlement was predicated on the belief that competitors would be able to license technology from Microsoft in order to get some relief from Microsoft's desktop OS monopoly. As Kollar-Kelly admitted, 'I think all of us had hoped for more agreements.' Now the judge is asking federal prosecutors to examine specifically why more licensing agreements have not been reached. I'm truly shocked that the settlement isn't turning out as planned, after the Justice Department so shrewdly rolled over when they had Microsoft over a barrel."
I won't make any agreements to license this baby!
who will be on bush's pardon list (provided he gets booted from office)?
i'm betting kenny-boy, and microsoft.
Microsoft? Not allowing agreements that would let 3rd party stuff onto the desktop?
Well, paint me shocked!
At least the judge is finally starting to see what the rest of us saw years ago.
Can Bush actually pardon MS for its crimes if Bush gets booted?
isn't funny they're listing SCO as a "heavy-hitter"?
Other world players is Tandberg of Norway and Laplink.
Go here for an assessment by a thoroughly pissed of Lawyer that has covered this debacle from the get go.
Help fight continental drift.
I'm not expecting much other than lip service so long as the current administration is in place. Let's face it, Asscroft and company haven't exactly been busting a nut when it comes to M$.
As much as I dislike having to do this, I have to agree. Microsoft is right here. After all, it's not their fault if the selected President* told his people to give a brisk slap on the wrist to Microsoft after the previously administration had won the case in court and had them bound, bent over and greased up. It's not Microsoft's fault if the lawyers left who actually wanted to try and salvage some sort of basic human dignity from this whole sordid affair didn't watch those movies where someone makes a deal with Satan and leaves out that one little clause that eventually leaves them in a pile of feces. You give an Evil Civil Judgement Decided Monopolist an inch, they HAVE to take a mile and your wallet and laugh while they're doing it.
If I was Microsoft, I'd get out the Icy Hot or Tiger Balm to deal with those sore, sore wrists.
The judge said it was unclear whether Microsoft's competitors were unhappy with terms of the offers or simply not interested, "and there's not much we can do about that."
Doesn't sound like the judge is "starting to realize" anything. Next time try reading the article before posting a summary.
Mmmm.. Donuts
"Never attribute to maliciousness that which can be explained by stupidity." - Twain
The main problem is out judicial system is not setup to deal adequately with technology lawsuits. We have lawyers with barely a clue trying to explain to judges with practically no clue what the technology does nor what the ramifications are.
The idea of 3 more years of school might turn you off, but for the out-of-work CompSci degree holders, law school might be a great choice. The world needs lawyers who intimately understand technology to be able to try these cases, and those lawyers need to go on to become the judges who preside over such cases. Without such people in the legal system, we will keep seeing ridiculous judgements.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
It is Kollar-Kotelly, not Kollar-Kelly.
It can be just that alot of people have realized that it's not worth it. Microsoft will either make it difficult for your software to operate properly; especially if it directly competes with something from them or they'll simply try to screw you in some other area. IE, higher mark up fee for X software. It's simply not worth the headache and trouble for any business especially a startup business. Sure, Microsoft is a convicted monopoly with zero punishment, so they continue to act like a monopoly. If there is no punishment, even if a crime is committed; a monopoly will continue to do so.. heh you'd think a Federal Judge would understand that. For all those that are going to respond with a monopoly isn't illegal. Be sure you understand that a natural monopoly isn't illegal, a monopoly gained from unfair practices is, however illegal. I just don't understand how one company can be convicted of illegal monopolistic practices in an industry that garners them billions upon billions and are let go with; heh, please don't do it again, and oh yeah you can be on the board of persons who makes sure you operate justly and fairly.
This country, America is a bunch of bullshit.
The anti-trust case went to hell as soon as Big Business Bush got into office. Now that it seems we may actually have an election, things seem to be coming back to life.
Ah hell, it's not who casts the ballots, it's who counts them, right? 51 billion in cash reserves, Micro$loth will probably end up being the one.
Why do I get excited by viruses and tanking stocks? Long term freedom and prosperity.
Open source- the greatest equalizer mankind has ever seen.
WINE is not an emulator but a layer that provides Windoze functionality on X/Linux with all the win32 API or most. It is very good and a ton of people working on it. God bless them all. www.winehq.org
whatever! Microsoft is just a businness that the government lets go on (is behind, 100%) in order to get more money pumped into the military. I'm not talking this whole "oooh, middle east" conspiracy theory, either ... I'm jumping that and going straight to "technology we ain't never heard of before" theory. How many people out there think that the government has figured out the gravity problem?
Once in a while there comes a company that overtakes the rest, and completely buries everything remotely in its path. There are no words to describe the amount of money that MS has in cash, so I am forced to make up my own ........... Scrumtrulescent.
Please allow me to remind you that the DMCA passed through the Senate unapposed - No one in the Senate voted against it. There were 99 votes for it and 0 against. We have patents on simple software algorithms that last 20 years with no end in sight. Remember, even if you understand that software patents are bad, if you're in the business, you've got to play the game the way it's set up, or your competitors will not hesitate to screw you over. Remember the Amazon.com one-click patent?
The problem is that politicians clearly don't understand technology, plain and simple.
I think that a good starting point would be to impose strict term limits on our Representatives and Senators. Our country can do without the people who make it their career to be politicians and contribute nothing else. Furthermore, those career politicians live in a world of their own; they have no idea what it's like to have your ideas taken away from you because of some stupid patent law. Look at Gray Davis; he's pissed off because he's been recalled from office by angry voters. Gray Davis passed stupid laws from which he was detached from the consequences. He had a big political machine that crushed the opposition in the last election cycle. He didn't care that he raised car taxes through the roof. He didn't care that foolish policies crippled California's power system. It's great to see that someone finally made him face the music.
My point is, politicians don't understand anything but politics these days because that's all they do.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
How is this flamebait?
/.?
Is anyone getting 503 errors when trying to connect to
--
Poll: 75% of Palestinians support Haifa restaurant attack:
To control digital communication world wide.
To remove all competitors and hardware platform competition.
To invest in technologies that can become a monoply, and only make heavy investments in tech that they can completely control.
Legally steal software tech with coding virgins if they cannot Legally own it.
Protect their code base so that it cannot be cloned by altering the coding languages and making them proprietary.
They are completely within their rights in doing these things. It is the consumer and communication industry that needs to fight this monolyth not the courts. They harm the industry with their software patents and security policies, and the sooner the consumer realises this the better.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
At least the DOJ continues to check on Microsoft compliance on a regular basis.
Let's not forget that 9 states are objecting to the flimsy DOJ ruling and may overturn it locally. Additionally, the market may readjust in the coming 24 months or so, and rearrange Microsoft's dominance without the DOJ's assistance.
Today, the combined state of RedHat/Enterprise, SuSE/IBM, and OpenOffice, have started a huge push which will steamroll, garnering support (and dollars) from both small business and corporate end users. Steve Ballmer has become publicly shrill and irrational. Samba v3 tested faster than Win2k/AD.
Progress on this is like the minute hand- you can't really see it moving, but it's moving.
But has anyone considered that maybe other companies don't consider Microsoft's technology to be worth licensing? I don't even think it's worth pirating, myself.
--Shoeboy
Well, first of all, there are the arguments that in principle, we shouldn't have to, and then again, setting up WINE can be quite a pain in the neck and many applications don't operate correctly with it.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
- It's convenient for ISV's to concern themselves with a single platform. Way before my (professional) time, it'd have been tough for a smaller outfit to target all the popular platforms: atari, commodore, amiga, PC, Apple/Mac, various DOS flavors, etc. They pretty much picked one, maybe more, and gambled that they'd still exist and/or remain popular.
- Books, third party dev tools, publications, and training (formal and informal) have long been plentiful.
- Many software companies (ok...not as many now) target MS platforms.
- And a few more...
But as of late I'm having a change of heart. For the following reasons (and others):- nefarious upgrade practices
- restrictive licensing practices
- the lessening of system level tools/techniques available to third party developers
- still more incursions into third party developer space (search engines, email, possibly anti-virus)
I've about had it with Redmond. I don't even really want to create software for their platforms anymore. Still, I'm not in the RMS camp; I like the idea of making money on software, possibly by restricting the availability of the source code.I do recognize the benefit of open/free platforms and frameworks. My question is this: is there a place for proprietary (read 'closed') applications on said open/free platforms and frameworks?
I visited the "licensing" site a few weeks back, and the whole thing is "fill in this form and we'll get back to you about your payment". Sorry, that's not what they were supposed to do.
Let's hope the judge realises that for competition to occur, the main player cannot levy a fee against its competitors.
He is not wrong these are the Goals of Microsoft. And they reason these are goals of Microsoft are as you have stated. THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY.
The problem is most companies need to occasionally play nice with other companies in order to achieve there goal to make money.
Microsoft does not, or at least believes they do not need to play nice ever.
You got to be kidding, right?
The only reasons I can imagine you posted this is that:
- You've never used quality software that's not bloatware with 50 million intimidating features you've never used and will never use or,
- It's a troll.
Cheers!-Mybrid
Besides As much as I dislike M$, Microsoft does not have an illegal monolopy
Ummm, you haven't been paying attention, have you? M$ was in fact found guilty of being an illegal monopoly in a court of law.
Additionly, it was no secret that Bush and company had no real interest in pursuing M$. They said as much during the 2000 election campaign which is why M$ did their best to drag the court case out until after the inaugeration. It payed off for them. M$ got a slap on the wrist and basically walked away unscathed.
As far as hurting consumers, M$ hurt consumers by limited their choices by preventing competition. The result is that consumers are stuck with shoddy and overpriced software with few options to shop elsewhere.
When all else fails, run.
Did the DoJ "roll over"? Did Bush order a lenient judgement? Is Microsoft really government-proof? The truth is, the answers don't matter one whit. No amount of finger pointing is going to help anyone.
Let me repeat that. No amount of finger pointing is going to help anyone. Shocking but true. Bitching doesn't solve problems. So what do we do now that it's clear that the government isn't going to come to our "rescue" and slay the Evil Microsoft?
First, we need to throw away all our myths about being powerless. Microsoft is a natural market monopoly. They don't have any laws preventing competition with them (like the USPO does). Nor do they own the infrastructure (like the telco monopolies). As big as they are, they are still at the whim of the marketplace.
So use the market against them. Sell off any Microsoft stock you own. Don't buy any Microsoft products. Don't buy systems that have a Microsoft "tax". That's step one. It might not be easy, but it can be done. Stop buying your systems at BestBuy or CompUSA, and start buying them at the small mom-and-pop shops who will build you a custom system. Or build them yourself. Or buy a Mac. Then when you do, write to Dell, HP, Gateway, etc., and tell them why you didn't choose them.
Next step is to support the non-Windows operating systems, even the proprietary ones. You don't have to run them all, but you can certainly stop denigrating them. Stop bitching at the price of Macs and Sparcs. Even if they're too expensive for you personally, you don't want to discourage the people for whom they aren't too expensive.
Funny thing is, despite the Microsoft monopoly, there are others out there. Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, OSX, etc. Since this is Slashdot, odds are you probably use one of these already. Let your friends know you don't use Windows. Help your friends use another OS. Contribute to the Open Source project of your choice, even if it's writing docs or testing alpha and beta releases.
We gave Microsoft their monopoly. That's right, "we" did it. Despite their shady business tactics, it was ultimately we the consumer who chose to purchase Windows. Now it's time for us to take that monopoly away from them.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
If you are getting blank pages in Firebird 0.7 it may be due to /. returning http 503 errors. It appears that Firebird and, maybe, other related browsers do not show 503 errors, they just silently fail.
Microsoft's monopoly came largely in part due to agreements with computer manufacturers to ship their operating system pre-installed (even today most computers come with windows).
So the question is, if Microsoft DIDN'T have this agreement would they be able to charge aprox $200 for the "home" edition of their software? Can you imagine buying a computer first, then going out and choosing the excellence of Windows for just a low $200?
Basically, is Windows true market value $200?
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
Back in the days of the antitrust trial, Lewis was actually rather instrumental in explaining the legal mumbo-jumbo underlying antitrust to the ZD-Net community. I personally checked many of his assertions and never found an inaccuracy.
At one point though, Lewis just posted the same piece over and over and over again, with little variation. Users complained he was hogging bandwidth and as a result of those complaints he was booted on the pretext of having a URL in his signature. A few people cheered. A few people mourned. Most ignored his absence. When he was actually posting argument; he was well worth reading. When he was in diatribe mode; less so.
Personally, I wouldn't categorize him as a kook, and certainly I've not found a record of his JD (though I admit not having looked very well) so he may well be a legal hobbyist. Still, at face value his less-belligerant rants make for a good editorial opinion - simply don't appeal to him as an authority. Far better to read the case law and decide for yourself. Your clickage may not be commensurate with Lewis'.
JL'B
M$ was in fact found guilty of being an illegal monopoly in a court of law.
Actually, they were found guilty of abusing their monopoly status, a very different thing.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The reality is Microsoft won. They put everyone else out of business, there is no competition, and there will be no penalities for their means and ways - no matter what Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly thinks! Best way to get ahead at this point is to learn the dynamics of monopoly capitalism...
Rishi Chopra
www.rishichopra.org
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Here's a thought. Suppose Microsoft is destroyed and disbanded. That would open up a huge chunk of the IT market, and we'd see gazillions of startups, small and medium companies, with pricing structures along the whole range from free to heavily overpriced. A real IT renaissance.
Seems funny. I kinda thought it was a good marketing department and a better legal department. Shit, most of the open source world spends their time coming up with alternatives that are almost exact clones of what Microsoft does. Seems like they could make a good copyright case if they really wanted to. Even if they didn't have a case, they have the money to suffocate any open source project that they set their eyes upon.
In case you have not realized, you get modded troll because you have no real opinion. Back up your retorhic with a pursuasive argument and you may finally be taken seriously. The next time I get mod points, I'm using them all to mod you down. Unless you change your ways and make a real statement. I respect your opinion, and admire it in some cases, but you make an ass out of yourself and the rest of the people who share your beliefs by being a complete fool
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
I'm so sick of seeing (4 times in the last day) people writing a post with "then" where "than" should have been used.
I know that's not the only term misused, but I'm getting damned sick of it.
Don't have a link to send these idiots to to teach them grammar, but you know I wish I did.
BTW this is not the worst, but there are more typos there as well.
And yeah, the poster is a troll...
db
Cig:
ôô
Hopefully, She will keep brutally silent as MS plays its games with her. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, "speak softly, and carry a big stick" if she maintains absolute silence now, her smack down will be un-appealable! The Appeals court thought Jackson was HARSH, not WRONG! Also remember that MS made a fool of a Federal Judge...when they attempt to do it again, the Appeals court will be watching...and won't like what they see from MS at all! The appeals court didn't seem inclined to deal with any of the facts of the case, only the judge's behavior. Unlike poor judge Jackson, they don't have to discuss publicly their choices...only the final rulings. Stunts like MS's make for very bitter judges, but they only have to produce a neat ruling draft, and not the very sarcastic comments they are known to make while debating it! [read Supreme Court docs sometime to see that the higher courts don't take bull...or play "pretty" about it! They can be vicious even by /. standards.]
MS is too big and stuck on itself to learn to play nice at this stage of the game. They will screw even this joke of a settlemen up. Not IF, but WHEN!
Microsoft has been convicted of a crime, therefore it should be punished. I don't believe it putting random people in jail, but I do believe in putting criminals there. Likewise, it is possible to believe that MS should have terms dictated to it by the government, because of its anti-trust violations.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
You just wish your ID was as low as mine! I used to be proud to have such a low id, but not so much now. Slashdot most
Did you say the same thing about the telephone monopoly? After all, it wasn't oil, air, water, or food. Nobody died because of it. There were plenty of other choices.
If MS doesn't have a monopoly, their court case where they were convicted must have been pretty screwed up, then.
Plenty of people in the "real world" (as if we're in some fake world, hah) care about the MS monopoly. They hate the low quality of MS's offerings. They wish they could change. But they don't think they can because the interoperability isn't there, everybody uses MS, etc. etc.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
And I'm not talking about games. I'm talking about programs such as Origin, MS Office and Matlab I use at work.
The owls are not what they seem
I know I'm not. Let's face it. Nothing with Microsoft ever goes as planned. Not for Microsoft competitors, not for Microsoft partners, not for Microsoft fans, not for Microsoft at all.
People can die because of the telephone companies. That is why 911 is required to work on phones even if you do not have service. If no one knows to help you, how do you get help?
-]Phreak Out[-
http://www.codeweavers.com
That's all you need.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
I think the anon coward did not read what I wrote. So whats new. A companies intentions are their methods. This is not the financial plan, but it is the method by which one achieves the financial plan.
The Policy Statement of MS would not look like what I wrote. But the operational directives coming from Gates and Ballmer no doubt reflect what I have written, if not by exact word then surely by inflection. I am sure that they are very hush about their preception of what MS really is, like most monopolist their actions are like that of J. E. Hoover and make the CIA look like an open organisation.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Because the bloody system is corrupt. How else can you explain a clearly criminal act (exasperated by the repeated further missteps of MS violating any trust they might have built up) going not just unpunished, but almost blessed by the courts when that court just said 'We can fine you millions...we can (and should) do to you what we did to Bell...but we'll do nothing of the kind; just don't do it again'.
That is nothing if not corrupt. Or criminally negligent.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
So you'd propose that I pay for an emulator that might or might not run these programs instead of paying for the original that will definitely run them?
The owls are not what they seem
Nerds? On Slashdot?
You're shitting me?!
If the 911 system screws up because of non compatable Microsoft interfaces,...then people can certainly die! If a hospitals pharmacy software or med imaging software screws up then ditto...etc..etc..etc. I will not name names and places but guess what, it happens, and MS gets away with it because they are not the vender responsible for the GUI that is tacked on to the MS servers. So trojans and worms are really a threat to these operations and have caused trouble and will continue to cause trouble because of the stupid MS .NET C# to OS communication protocols and their ability to infect client machines at the OS level. Strange that a Hospital now has to worry about computer viruses as much as real ones!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Why would this administration have rolled over when they had Microsoft over a barrel? Campaign contributions you might say. Possibly, but let me suggest a more likely reason. This administration is comitted to the "Project for an American Century". If you read this document you will find that one of it's goals is to ensure American domination of world commerce using all forms of leverage at its disposal, including military. I suggest that this idealogically driven administration views Microsoft as a tool in this program. The compete domination of worldwide computer technology via the WinTel platform is a major component of economic power.
Did Apple really open source the code behind their desktop environment? I didn't realize they had.
Regardless, while open source is very nice from the perspective of geeks and developers, at best it is a very small part of customer satisfaction. Mom and pop could care less if they can sift through thousands of lines of code, for that matter, the vast majority of Linux users will probably never touch the code behind their chosen operating system. It's nice to have that possibility, but customer satisfaction is really built more on listening to customers and trying to give them what they want. I think Apple does a pretty good job of that with OS X.
I'm not so sure that Microsoft's breakup would have the effect you seem to think. The division would probably fall along the lines of the OS, applications, consoles, etc. So you'd still have a company behind Windows, which is still going to maintain it's market share by a wide margin. You'd have the applications company that would have MS Office which isn't going anywhere. XBox without the backing of the large MS pockets might die if they are still selling systems at a loss, but all that will do is piss off some gamers and strengthen Sony's share. So I'm not really seeing where the huge change would come from at least in respect to the major markets that MS has a stranglehold on.
- b
I kinda thought it was a good marketing department and a better legal department.
Then your understanding is as flawed as any I've seen. Umpteen judges certainly didn't seem to buy the notion that Microsoft owed it's monopoly to it's marketing skill.
Shit, most of the open source world spends their time coming up with alternatives that are almost exact clones of what Microsoft does.
Yeah, right. Like Linux, Apache, Gnome, Gimp, MySql, vi, emacs, GCC and all those other office-style products. Talk about the clueless pot calling the kettle... sheesh.
In case you have not realized, you get modded troll because you have no real opinion.
Of course he has a real opinion. You may not agree with him, but his opinion is stated clearly in his post. He disagrees with the notion of copyright and doesn't think it's a useful idea. That's a perfectly respectable opinion, whether you agree with him or not.
Back up your retorhic with a pursuasive argument and you may finally be taken seriously
Learn to spell and people might begin to assume that you're something other than a 14 year old schoolboy living in his mother's basement.
Oh, bollocks. A single misplaced tag and a perfectly elegant flame is completely fucked.
I wouldn't mind, but it happened *after* I'd previewed it.
Only if the emulator meets your needs. It would be a bit stupid otherwise, wouldn't it?
FWIW, you can find out whether it will run the programs you want by checking the website before you buy, running a demo, etc.
HTH.
Hey moron. It is about the government FIXING THEIR OWN FUCKUP!
Why is it all you free market advocates only scream free market after the free market has already been closed and the disasterous mess is all that is left? The government is SUPPOSED to fix the break. Why is it only THEN you start squealing like stuck pigs about the free market?
Where were you when M$ was illegally steamrolling their competition into the ground by govt sanction? What about that free market violation?
If you had half a brain you would realize that in a true free market monopolies CANNOT happen. Monopolies exist ONLY because the government sets up market control scructures that favor monopolies. Some are good overall (patents, copyrights, trademarks, WITH LIMITED TERMS), but most are not (copyrights that last over a century, government payoffs and backdoor dealings, etc.).
The day free markets are truly free is the day when future M$'s cannot happen anymore. Something I doubt will ever happen because most free market advocates are really not free market advocates at all. They just use the term as a whip when things don't go their way after they have raped, burned and pillaged and their dastardly acts have been uncovered.
-- Mean People Suck
Why is everyone fussing about MS when you can run WINE
Because we'd rather WHINE than run WINE.
Do you think so? You think there's never been a case where a crash caused by MS's hopeless security and reliability endangered or even cost lives?
There was a recent case where a MS security flaw took out the signaling on an American railway. I would have thought that might be a safety issue.
Did the last 20 years pass you by or something? Computers are pretty common in life-critcal situations nowadays. Having the field dominated by a monopoly (ie, a company that knows that no matter what the quality of their product they're the only game in town) is an issue where people can die in the street.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Maybe redundant, but some may find this background interesting.
....Prior to 1998, the company and its employees gave virtually nothing in terms of political contributions. But when the Justice Department launched an antitrust investigation into the company's marketing of its popular Windows software, things changed. The company opened a Washington lobbying office, founded a political action committee and soon became one of the most generous political givers in the country."
From the page:
"
During 2000 - 2002 election cycle, Bill and Co. gave about $5M to Rep., nearly $4M to Dem., which are nothing significant for their bank account. Under the current administration, no one will ever come to harm Microsoft's monopoly. Period.
The Register says examples of the technologies Microsoft is licensing are SMB and CIFS.
There is still a case existing: EU commissioner (competition) Mario Monti against Microsoft. Perhaps it would be better to focus on this case.
There is an article on EU Business: Microsoft faces 'final chance' in EU anti-trust probe from August. And Newsfactor thinks Don ' t bet on it.
The response of Microsoft is already very strong. They want to take the case to the US, where the justice system is probably more corrupt (home advantage). See Hindustan Times's Reuters article for more information on this issue. They present the same accusation in an more polite manner: "Microsoft Corp has been trying to drum up support among US lawmakers as part of its effort to fend off antitrust sanctions being considered by European regulators, congressional sources say.
With the European Commission weighing a fine and behavioral changes that could go beyond its US antitrust settlement, Microsoft lobbyists have taken their case to key members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sources said.
While Microsft is under investigation because of its abuse of power, Microsoft propaganda requests stronger IPR law, criminal prosecution . They claim the proposed EURO DMCA++ (IP Enforcement directive) was not strong enough. Examine the horribleEU directive proposal paper by AEL Wiki (page of Association Electronic Libre, Belgium).
Welcome our MICROSOFT Overlords...err... Overlord
There was ample evidence on record that MS is an incorrigible scofflaw, with numerous violations of court orders, and yet Kollar-Kelly let them go with a behavioral remedy. She finished off her decision about the punishment with a couple of paragraphs about "You better do what I said, or else I'll be really, really mad, and you'll be really, really sorry." I guess we get to find out now if she has any balls. It was going to happen sooner or later.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Like, a broken Devo record or something.
Are we not nerds?
Why are people modding this guy down? He's right, Microsoft isn't in foreign countries feeding propaganda to parents to feed their kids Microsoft brand baby milk that gives the kids all sorts of diseases, or in our country building Microsoft brand private prisons that torture people and give life sentances for misdimeanors because prison labour is profitable.
But we do need to realize that our society is built on more than the basic neccesities. The monopoly affects us in indirect ways; slammer getting into hospital databases could mean death for a number of people. Sobig getting into a food distrobution companies system and wrecking it could mean some small town's food shop won't get their shipment this month and the people there will go starving. Some hacker exploiting a RPC hole in the DOD's nuclear mainframe...
So sure, if Microsoft's monopoly goes on I won't starve...yet. If you've ever listened to the tales of the afternow (www.theafternow.com) you'd realize that monopolies have a tendancy to grow, defang goverments (whichis the purpose of the wto btw) and screw people all in the glorious name of gr33d.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Can someone actually answer me simple question: Why? Does anyone know what MS has done is technically wrong? They came out with their OWN architecture for their OS. Sure it was based on Apple's, but there's no such thing as true creativity, rather an improvement of existing ideas and theories. So what, they came out with some decent technologies and now they're an evil empire? Actually, if you look into it, they're far from it. Their employee treatment supersedes most large corporations. They DO NOT force you to buy their products. You may feel that you're obligated to do so, or even just bootleg them (like even 90% of the people that read and post on this site do anyways). Honestly you have no right to complain. Chances are, you didn't purchase your copy of Windows. What Microsoft has done is capitalize off of the corporate America that we as a nation allow to continue. I say good for them, as, I'm sure, would anyone that's actually trying to do something with our lives in this oddity of a country. Sure there's many downfalls to our society, granted. However, that's not the topic of this post. The point is, they created something, (within legal boundaries of barrowing and/or improving technologies) which they should not be punished for. Good for them. Maybe a few of you can go on to be the next Gates. Who knows? But keep in-mind, Steve Jobs had the monopoly going first. Gates and his associates just took it to a new extreme. Why don't you stop wasting your time worrying about what MS is doing, and maybe, start worrying what you're going to do, in order to succeed in this area of work (that's if you're even pursuing it; over half of you won't). As a developer, I appreciate what MS has created. As to those of you who complain about the bugs... TRY DEVELOPING. Those of you that do, I'm sure you can appreciate those bugs a bit more. If this post hasn't got you thinking a bit different, which it probably won't, just remember, all empires eventually fall due to an over size. May very well be a few decades, at their rate, possibly a few years, they will break on their own. Causing all sorts of legal mischief in licensing their OWN technologies. If you Linux gurus out there still remain unsatisfied with the virtue of patience, all I can say is stfu. Your tech isn't exactly best for a nice profit margin. Plus, once it provides as much flexibility to an array of users such as old man Rivers down the street, to the thirteen year old Asian in a basement somewhere in China (probably cracking the leaks of Longhorn right now), to developers AND servers then we'll talk. Not saying that Linux is a poor choice of web-server, but does it accommodate the rest? No it doesn't, if you just argued that statement. Unix was a great system, don't get me wrong, but it's time to let go, and wake up to a standard so we can ALL communicate effectively. Sorry about dragging on, but have any of you anti-MS reps actually seen the working conditions of MS employees. It is simply incredible. Those of you that appreciate free caffeine as much as I do free cocaine (I wish MS provided that in product packaging. Maybe I'd purchase it too), you should respect it a bit more. In defense to the developers, I'm sure they're not as money hungry (the damn well get paid enough) to release any of their products with any bugs, that may reflect poorly on them. Being a developer, of coursed based on Window's techs, I sure as hell don't like being responsible for assets gone missing when my 30 mile long TSQL proc actually listens to what I accidentally wrote. Nor are they wanting to be responsible for $50k in patch development. Then again, it is job security for all of us, isn't it?
To control digital communication world wide.
To remove all competitors and hardware platform competition.
They are completely within their rights in doing these things.
Wrong. Being a monopoly, Microsoft is not permitted to do either of the first two items on your list, as it would run coumter to anti-trust regulations.
These laws were written in the late nineteenth century to counter the increasing control over comerce that the railroad industry was having over trade and the damaging effects of that control on interstate trade and on private citizens.
It was costing farmers more to transport thier goods to market than could be gained from the sale of those goods, RR company investments in banking and mortgage companies were enabling them to evict farmers from thier land and to replace them with company owned tennants, and the price of foodstuffs was becoming exhorbitantly expensive for consumers as the RRs were beginning to control the markets over the goods they were transporting as well as the market for transporting those goods.
Essentially, the Railroad companies enjoyed majority monopolies in the markets that they served and were using thier monopoly control to regulate those markets. This was unacceptable to the private citizens who were increasingly finding themselves subject to rules and regulations that were unevenly applied (Goods from the RR company owned farms were shipped "free" while the rates were being increased to push the family farms closer to forclosure) and were implimented by persons who they did not elect and who were in no way representing them.
The possibility of a single company controlling digital communication and the tools necessary for business in a world dependant on computers in order to conduct the affairs of government and business is exactly the reason that antitrust laws were authored.
It is the consumer and communication industry that needs to fight this monolyth
As most of the communication industry enjoys near monopolies on last-mile technologies, it is unlikely that they will embrace any alternative to the possibility of restrively licensed technology. They are too afraid that open technologies will be able to lower the cost of entry into the last-mile market and alow smaller competitors to threaten thier currently strong positions.
the sooner the consumer realises this the better.
Agreed, but it is difficult when media associations and communication giants enjoy the power that they currently have. It is against the interest of the media to suggest that monopoly is harmful when the media companies are attempting to deregulate (through lobbying the FCC) in attempts to gain monopolies over individual markets. Likewise, it is against the interests of the communications giants to support (or permit) alternatives to Microsoft software when they themselves are attempting to regulate how consumers are using the connetions that they are selling. The cross investment between big media and the communications giants ensures that the news will foster an belief among consumers that there are not any monopolies in the software, media, and communications industries, and that if there were it would not be a bad thing.
IMHO, it is perfectly fine to use the courts in an attempt to apply currently existing law in order to pry open the markets, including going to court as well as applying the laws that these companies use to maintain thier monopoly positions in new ways (ala GPL).
Read, L
is that there must be a monopoly. Personally, I believe that if M$ had not become a monopoly, no one would have! Why should Apple have become one?
There were a whole bunch of different operating systems, on different hardware platforms, poised to take off between the mid-80s and the mid-90s. What was it that crushed them--was it merely the presence of a bigger fish? Or was it the fact that the big fish was systematically going around eating and killing the little fish?
Apple's philosophy has always been different than Microsoft's. Where Microsoft has made things cheap and functional, Apple has made things solid and elegant. Where Microsoft has bought or squashed new, useful technologies, Apple has developed their own, or licensed existing ones. Where Microsoft lied, cheated, and stole their way to the top, Apple was still plugging away down there, making good, dependable hardware (generally) and elegant, well-written software to go with it.
Yes, there have been times when Apple did bad stuff, too; I'm not trying to paint them like some kind of saint. For a while, they lost their way, in the Amelio era, and they have done unpleasant stuff before & since, too. But they didn't make a pattern out of it the way M$ did.
I think that if Microsoft had not become the monopoly that they did, the playing field today would look totally different. I suspect there would have been at least ten major OSes (including Linux and its OSS brethren as maybe 2 of those), playing by a set of standards that mean that almost any software will run easily on most of them.
The worst part is how close M$ came to dying before it was even born. Have you watched Pirates of Silicon Valley? You should. The beginnings of Microsoft and Apple were both incredibly precarious. If one tiny decision had gone the other way, everything for the past 25 years would have been changed.
And, once again, I don't think that anyone but Microsoft would have become the monopoly that they did. No one else has the mindset that Gates does, that everything belongs to him. Jobs is a control freak too, but he just likes to control everything that does "belong" to him absolutely. Not make everything his.
That's the difference between Microsoft and Apple.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
You mention that there are genetic pressures towards pro-social behavior (or, to satisfy the purists, genetic pressures towards biological features that in turn encourage pro-social behavior).
However, you neglect the other side of that coin: a society (or genetic population) where pro-social behavior is the norm is itself an environment with genetic pressures towards anti-social behavior. A big network of bonds of trust is a network of opportunity for one willing to abuse those bonds.
It's just as inevitable as evolution itself, I'm afraid: if genetic pressures can and do push for cooperation, they can push back for defection. As Jack Handey said: "I can imagine a world without war, a world without fighting, a world without weapons. Then I can imagine us attacking that world, cause they'd never see it coming."
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
I have consistently had more of those errors when browsing Slashdot on W2K than on NetBSD, both using Mozilla behind the same NAT router.
User Agent trickery??
A Good Intro to NetBS
Actually, some would say that the DOJ attorneys, i.e. 'wonderboy' Boies, made a fool out of the judge. Jackson was duped and become so blatantly and clearly partisan that he lost most credibility.
A Good Intro to NetBS
Linux, on the other hand, is just the kernel. The distros put together collections of software from hundreds of different sources, most of which have alternatives. Sure, there are clear favourites in the common applications, but you're not forced to use them. Shoot, you even have a choice of distro! RedHat, Suse, Gentoo or about 2 dozen others. You can pick one that fits your usage.
And no, the various different Windows releases don't count as distros. Microsoft is end-of-lifing most of them so that companies that rely on them have to upgrade to the latest version. Which by total coincidence comes with a different licensing deal, forcing the consumer to either lock-in on several years worth of upgrades, or pay a big fat fee next time around, when the document formats have mutated yet again...
No, it was NOT under the election system of the US. It was a selection by the SC. They stopped recounts mandated by the Florida Constitution and recognized by the Florida Supreme Court, declared W to be the winner and stated that any further recounts would cast doubts on their selection. While he may be in office, all I'm doing is noting that he is the Selected President*. Why does ignoring Republican spin and pointing out the reality of the situation irk some folks?
As for your second paragraph, it made a huge difference. The "Justice" Department, after winning the civil case under the previous administration and holding all the cards, suddenly decides "Let's Settle" under the current administration. And then they set the terms so lax and pathetic that calling it a slap on the wrist is an insult to slaps on the wrist everywhere.
The way to beat Microsoft is to beat Microsoft. Bitching the judge, justice dept etc didn't throw the game isnt going to help anyone. Arguing the courts should interfere in business won't win converts or friends.
The way to beat microsoft is to consistently build better products. Products that do things Microsofts don't, offer choices Microsoft won't, or provide economies that Microsoft can't are the key to dislodging them.
No one who makes decisions at a company is going to ask if a product is politically correct, if they do they should be fired. They either want something that will help them win against their competition or will mean fewer headaches for them. It doesn't matter if stalin, some crazy leftist wacko, or pat robertson is making it.
If you want to bitch about microsoft bitch about how they put their users at risk. Bitch about how the complete lack of security in windows products will make companies with sensitive data LIABLE. Bitch about how the lack of security in microsoft products makes certain business crimally culpable (healthcare, banking)
Don't go on and on about how microsoft pushed the envelope of business practice. Everybody respects a tough competitor nobody respects whiners.
while open source is very nice from the perspective of geeks and developers, at best it is a very small part of customer satisfaction. Mom and pop could care less
Actually it does force "customer satisfaction". When there is a problem and the source is available, some geek or developer is going to fix it. These fixes tend to get to "mom and pop" one way or another. That also puts a lot of pressure on the company to fix the problem in the "default installation".
While this prossess is good for resolving unintentional problems such as bugs and lousy design, it is especially importand for fixing problems intentionally imposed. Microsoft is particularly guilty of this. Microsoft puts specific "features" into software that Microsoft wants people to have, even when those individual "features" reduce customer statisfaction. Things like Secure Audio Path, Product Activation, ID codes, launching Internet Explorer for a variety of tasks even when a different browser is selected, forced DRM patches to the media player, locking all other applications out of WindowsMedia formats. I'm sure others can list far more examples and better examples. One of my own pet-peeves is they way Windows Media Player automatically launches a browser windon to some spam website when a web-address is embedded in a video file.
Microsoft intenionally designed these things into the software for selfish reasons and contrary to the interests of the customers. If the source code is available they can no longer force these mis-features on customers because someone will fix them and pass on those fixes to "mom and pop". That's the most important benefit of source code - undesireable code can no longer be forced into the product.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
So, with a "fix" that is specifically designed to forbid use by the only competitor, why would anyone think that the fix would ever work?
The APIs and file formats for Windows and Office need to be public and open to all, no exceptions, no licenses. The document formats are in many ways more important, even; it makes no sense that much of the world's public records are only accessible via a private gatekeeper.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
M$ was in fact found guilty of being an illegal monopoly in a court of law.
Actually, they weren't. They were found guilty of abusing their monopoly status. The distinction is huge. Their monopoly has always been legit - people here are just bitter about it. Once MS had a monopoly they started leveraging that monopoly to shove out any potential competition via "strong-armed" agreements with OEM's. This is where MS was found guilty, and rightly so.
The result is that consumers are stuck with shoddy and overpriced software with few options to shop elsewhere.
My Dad, his brother, and his mom all love their Macs. You can buy many Linux distro's in major electronics stores. The choice is there, it's just that most people choose Windows. Remember the Windows95 MAD RUSH to stores when it was released? Microsoft did _NOT_ have a monopoly at that time. If Apple only came out with a quality OS like OSX sooner then they would have easily thwarted off the monopoly. Linux on the desktop was nowhere to be found at the time. BeOS had shoddy hardware support (up until it's "death"). The lack of _good_ competition was not Microsofts fault.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
A win against MS using govt. thugs rather than free market is a hollow win that will come back to haunt you some day.
Yeah, just like we've been so haunted ever since the AT&T breakup. Damn, I sure preferred the old days where you rented an old clunker rotary dial phone for like $10 a month without ever getting the opportunity to go down to BestBuy and buy a 2.4GHz wireless with digital answering machine and caller ID for $20.
When there's an abusive monopoly involved, there's no such thing as a free market.
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The next time I get mod points, I'm using them all to mod you down.
For a statement like this, you should be permanently banned from moderation. (Kind of like the jerk/enemy that routinely hits me with five Overrated mods on unmodded posts -- at least have some balls and don't hide from metamods) Moderation should be done on a post by post basis.
Put identity in the browser.
Win the fair way.
It is hard to win the fair way when the competition is cheating.
A win against MS using govt. thugs rather than free market...
The problem is that capitalism favors monopolies. To keep the market free, a competing power (like "govt. thugs") is necessary to maintain a balance between capitalism and a free market. If you believe otherwise, then you must be a Republican strongly in favor of market deregulation and supply side economics. (That was not an insult, it was an observation.) You are deluded. (There, that was the insult.)
Consider the formal, medical definition of antisocial disorder (colloquially known as "being a sociopath") and ask yourself: Gates? Ballmer? Alchin? Hmm." By the way, all you Microsoft employees: how does it feel to work for the betterment of people who share a diagnosis of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and Jim Jones? Do you sleep well at night?
Diagnostic Criteria for 301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
-
(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
Microsoft business practices conforming to social norms? Yeah right! Subject to arrest? Violating antitrust - well not in the US, unfortunately. Perjury in federal court? Definitely. Repeated theft of IP? Sometimes.(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
Does perjury in federal court count? Does stealing IP, multiple times count? Aliases? Does SCO count?
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
Go back in comp.risks 10-15 years and note that people have been warning about MS security and design flaws for a very long time. If ignoring widely published warnings by leading CS professors and leaders isn't lack of planning (and responsibility) I don't what is. If designing schlock and passing it off as quality product isn't lack of planning...
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
Does Billy Boy get irritable and aggressive against legitimate competitors and start "cutting off air supplies" in response sound like a form of assault? Does throwing legal departments count as a fight or assault? Duh! Yeah!
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
Nuclear power plants and medical devices using Microsoft Windows!?!? HP, IBM and Sun have long had this barred in their Ts&Cs. Microsoft doesn't. 'Nuff said!
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
Does failing to comply with a Antitrust Consent Decree count? I'd say so.
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
Sounds like the Microsoft press relations department's broken record. Sounds like every word from Gates, Ballmer and Alchin regarding Microsoft's antitrust conviction. Sounds like what they all say every time their hands are caught in the cookie jar. Check!
B. The individual is at least age 18 years.
Ah, yeah. Check.
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder (see p. 90) with onset before age 15 years.
Hard to know, but we got all the other criteria covered anyway
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode.
Well, our boys (and girls) in Redmond haven't been officially diagnosed with anything else, that we know of, but the antisocial behavior seems pervasive and perpetual.
Well, there you have it. A positive diagnosis doesn't even required all points, yet Microsoft and its management qualifies on every single point! Perhaps we need men in white suits instead of federal courts.
I'm not surprised that SCO is one of the "major" licensees for Microsoft "technology", given that Microsoft has purchased nonsense licenses for SCO's "technology".
I thought that this behavior was exactly what got Enron into trouble. They inflated their revenues by selling nonsense "product" to companies who had already sold them (the same) nonsense "product".
Clearly i'm doing something wrong, here. I'm just trying to build stuff, but there's obviously not money to be made in that...
Jackson was duped and become so blatantly and clearly partisan
Have you actually looked at what Jackson said and why he said it? Microsoft was repeatedly caught presenting FALSE and INTENTIONALLY MISSLEADING evidence and testimony in court. The appellate court did not dispute Jackson's findings. They clearly stated there was no indication of actual bias at all. They quite clearly indicated the reason they set aside Jackson's sentencing was to avoid the APPEARANCE that there may have been impropriety. The fact that he gave comments to the press before the case was over simply looked bad. Jackson simply should have waited for the case to end before justifiably blasting Microsoft for their antics in court.
On re-sentencing the DOJ agreed to an absurd settlement and gave Microsoft almost exactly what they wanted. A sentence with virtually no teeth.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
My take on copyrights is:
1. That I believed that Congress was mandated not to establish kingdoms, monarchies, or any other set up where one person, group, or organization could control things for long periods of time unless it was a government run entity. 275 years is a long time. I know I will be dead, my sons dead, their sons dead, and so on for up to fifteen generations.
2. That each generation (ie: 20 years) is supposed to be given the chance to build upon the work of the previous generation without having to worry about owing the previous generation anything (like royalties). See the rules about The Patent Office for more information. Current copyright rules have destroyed this balance.
3. I am in favor of:
3a. Copyrights.
3b. Of the author being paid for their works.
3c. Of extending copyrights to the life of the author so long as the author is being paid for his/her work.
3d. Of the author being able to lease his copyrights.
4. I am not in favor of copyrights being bought or sold but that is just because I believe it muddies the water over how long a copyright should last. The person or entity who buys the copyright wants to make as much money as they can on what they paid out money for. As such, they have a vested interest in extending the copyright.
5. I am also in favor of having a group of small businesses get together,reviewing, and rewriting the copyright laws from the standpoint of those who are most affected by the changes in the DMCA. It would be interesting to have non-multibillion dollar companies present their views on what Congress did.
As as side note: I have heard (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) that one of the reasons for the extension was because people were living longer. My rebuttal to this is that whomever said this was not lying but they were not speaking the truth either. That is because the length of time people are living to be is still the same but the number of people living to that age is increasing. So the number is only increasing because there are more people living in the world and not because they are living a greater number of years.
To back the above up I refer people to Plato's "The Republic". In the section on when should men and women be allowed to procreate, Socrates replies that men between the ages of 25 and 55 may have children and women between 20 and 40. Now, ask yourself - if men lived to be 55 (and older) centuries before Christ came along, how can someone say we are living longer in terms of years?
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
"Without copyright and patents, the price of software would be reduced down to near $0, the cost of reproduction."
Software development is a service that is funded through productization. People's time and knowledge are not "zero cost", even if their volunteer it without pay. There always is an opportunity cost involved.
-Stu
Relative revenues are irrelevant here. (Wow, very alliterative!) Ignoring the entire issue of whether such a merger would make business sense, Microsoft's market capitalization (stock price times shares outstanding) is so huge ($287.52B) that there's no way on earth Wal Mart could acquire them. Wal Mart's capitalization is only $253.89B. It would be more feasible for Microsoft to aquire Wal Mart than vice-versa.
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Unites States is a highly regulated country in almost all industries: rules, regulations, subsidies, trade barriers, etc.
Pure lassez-faire markets are not usually acceptable in a modern society: society can not handle the pace of change and wildly-swinging boom bust cycles of the 19th century that led to widespread and deep unemployment every decade or so.
Since the 1980s, the "conservatives" decided to be the exact opposite of what a conservative would do: instead of taking gradual steps to proven solutions, they have been reactionary -- trying to move us back to the 19th century classical liberalism that apparently will work much much better than the 20th century's approach.
Unfortuantely, the U.S. in particular has also had to deal with some world-class coporate scandals lately, leading to the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, the biggest set of business regulations since... wait for it... FDR! So much for that deregulatory agenda.
No, I don't think regulation will come back to haunt us, if it is well-designed regulation. I think, for example, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which came as part of FDR's New Deal, was a good regulation. It insisted on auditing for publicly traded companies and public filings on the state of the company. It's widly known that at the time most businesspeople derided such changes as communist and blatently anti-free market. How times change.
-Stu
...Shoot, you even have a choice of distro! RedHat, Suse, Gentoo or about 2 dozen others. ...
2 dozen? There's a lot more than that! It seems like a hear of a new one every week. Sometimes more often. I heard of a new one yesterday (rubyx -- a source based distribution vaguely like Gentoo, but using ruby as it's scripting language). And I only heard of that because I was browsing the comp.lang.ruby newsgroup...so how many do I just not hear about?
Also consider "linux from scratch". Basically, anyone who feels like it can put together their own distribution out of GPLed pieces. It may be missing a few pieces, but not much! (For some reason most commercial efforts seem to start from Debian.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
During 2000 - 2002 election cycle, Bill and Co. gave about $5M to Rep., nearly $4M to Dem., which are nothing significant for their bank account. Under the current administration, no one will ever come to harm Microsoft's monopoly. Period.
This is what is called a Shake Down.
The politicians weren't making enough money from Microsoft, but were making a lot of money from KPCB-venture group companies including Oracle, Sun, Apple, etc.
As such, the California guys paid for an antitrust trial with their campaign contribution. Once Microsoft started paying cash to politicians - as they 'should' have been doing all along - the problems for them stopped.
But hey, as long as the system works in your favor you really don't care about that, do you? All you care about is that Microsoft has figured out the game, and is now immune from it. Never mind that it was the game that got Microsoft into court in the first place.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The problem is that capitalism favors monopolies.
This is a fallacy. That the current incarnation of politico-economic systems favors monopolies is true. And that a part of that system can fairly be called a capitalist system is true.
But note that a rather than the . There are many possible implementations of capitalism. Many of them favor monopolies. But not all of them. Possibly not even most of them. (OTOH, I will agree that the ones easiest to navigate to from feudalism do tend to favor monopolies.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
various authorities in favor of deregulation point to the plethora of competition in their markets. A true testimonial to the benevolence of large multinational corporations:
Cox Cable shows industry executives the diversity of the marketplace via a poignant slide show depicting 37 year old Milton Lagrois offering his own Cable TV service (currently consisting of one channel "views of my fish tank" but soon to expand) to all 3 tenants of the local apartment complex in Topeka, KS.
Clear Channel Communications dismisses any claim to local market domination by hilighting the diversity of programming in their many markets, including as Clear Channel describes, the "wildly successful station KRBT in Butte Montana featuring 24-hour updates of traffic conditions on County Highway 17".
Insiders at the Justice Department's antitrust division remain confident that competition in the marketplace will continue to thrive.
Even in the presence of messed up italic tags, I can understand what you mean.
I kinda thought it was a good marketing department and a better legal department.
Then your understanding is as flawed as any I've seen. Umpteen judges certainly didn't seem to buy the notion that Microsoft owed it's monopoly to it's marketing skill.
No, they didn't understand marketing at all, but they did understand their legal department which I said was better. In any case, the guy I was replying was against copyright, and that is perfectly legal so their is no misunderstanding in the courtroom about that. The case was monopolistic practices of forcing their OS and software onto computers or none at all, plus some other side issues such as pricing, etc. I hate Microsoft as much as anyone. My understanding of the case is most certainly not flawed.
Shit, most of the open source world spends their time coming up with alternatives that are almost exact clones of what Microsoft does.
Yeah, right. Like Linux, Apache, Gnome, Gimp, MySql, vi, emacs, GCC and all those other office-style products. Talk about the clueless pot calling the kettle... sheesh.
OK, most is probably exagerated. I'm the biggest fan of open source you will ever find. I've quit using Microsoft completely. Gnome is, however, an attempt to come up with a decent desktop environment. This is needed to compete with microsoft. The interface is different, of course. My point is open source is trying to rectify its average user inadequacies that microsft has had for over seven years. It is we how are behind in this. vi, emacs, and gcc are not office-style products, period. Geeks can use geek products, end users cant. You're mom would die trying to use vi, unless she has some sort of technical degree. OOo is an office style product, again trying to come up with an alternative to MS. Linux, Apache, MySQL, all beat hands down MS's products. Open source and unix are far supierior in the server room. They are not easy enough for the front office though.
In case you have not realized, you get modded troll because you have no real opinion.
Of course he has a real opinion. You may not agree with him, but his opinion is stated clearly in his post. He disagrees with the notion of copyright and doesn't think it's a useful idea. That's a perfectly respectable opinion, whether you agree with him or not.
You are right here. He has a strong opinion. I see it as more akin to a religion, however. He has no (or at least presents no) real ground on which to base his opinion. He mindlessly just states what he thinks, real drone-like. Go back and look at his post history. One or two sentances, copyright = bad, no justification. To me, if someone is going to have an opinion, they better be able to justify it. You can go to my post history to see my justifactions against this guy. I've asked him to justify his position, but he hasn't, and I beleive he is incabable of doing so.
Back up your retorhic with a pursuasive argument and you may finally be taken seriously
Learn to spell and people might begin to assume that you're something other than a 14 year old schoolboy living in his mother's basement.
Jeez, man, that is harsh. Check out the time on that post. I just got back from having a fun night out, and my spelling is no good in the first place, and the night's activities certainly didn't help.
I'm sure you can find errors in this post. If you like to use spelling to discredit logical arguments, that's fine with me. I judge them on the actual statements, however. This is Slashdot, you should be used to the misspellings by now. If I were typing a formal report, I'd try harder on the spelling issue, with the help of a spell checker. Here, I just don't care enough. (I will always get my tags right though).
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
I agree with you here. I'm not actually going to blow them all on this guy. There are people who can justify their position who need to be modded up. However, evaluating on a post by post basis, this guys posts come up trollish a good portion of the time. If I find they lack the appropriate moderation, I will waste no time doing the job myself.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
I've said this before, and I will say it. I have no problem with you're opinion, and I respect it in certain ways. However, at least you have mathematics to back you up on 1+2 != 4.
You never give any justification for your stance on copyright however. This is why you get modded troll. If you are going to take a controversial position, you need back up or you will be seen as a fanatic. I've seen countless controversial posts get modded insightful, but they do that by giving justification for their beliefs. Progress happens when brilliant people really challenge the status quo. You don't challenge anything by spouting trite, unfounded propaganda.
Again, I respect you're views. I don't respect your methods. If you could positively contribute to the copyright argument, you might find your views taken seriously, or at least considered rather than disregarded outright.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
So while it is all so very popular here to bash MS (and they deserve it for the many boneheaded security blunders in some of their products) the fact is that if MS dissapeared today it would NOT create an IT renaissance. It would start the race for the next monopoly.
Anarchists never rule
You're right, there were people living long in ancient times. The non-murdered Roman emperors would live into their 60s. But what about the average Roman? Even today, there are countries with an average life span in the 40s. So yes, we do live longer in terms of years. I guess the industrial revolution got this rise started, but that's just a guess.
The other thing is averages. Adult cavement would live into their 40s, but the average life span then was in the 20s. Why? Child mortality. If you have kids dying early, then that brings down the average, even though if they survive childhood they'll live to a ripe old age. That is probably responsible for the biggest 'rise' in average life spans over the centuries. That and soap.
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
While I think the above post is both very funny and very scary, it appears to come, without credit, from here:4 /23_res ume.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/0
-Trillian
The IT admin that puts hospital computers on the same network that has internet access is an idiot, regardless of what OS they run.
-]Phreak Out[-
Comparing MS to the mob is ridiculous. MS never pointed a gun at anyone. Monopoly laws are an attack on freedom
Vote for Pedro
Monopoly laws are an attack on freedom. Supporting them may hinder Linux in the future, since Linux will eventually surpass MS.
Vote for Pedro
MS never used forced against anyone. They got to where they are because people value compatibility more than anything else when they buy an OS. That what the free market decided. The govt. had no influence in the matter whatsoever, and they have no business interfering. Antitrust legislation is an attack on freedom, and someday, when random companies are suing Linux distributors for bundling applications after MS is long gone, maybe you'll understand that your freedom is also being attacked. Anyway, I'm not going to stoop to your level of name calling. The facts speak for themselves, but you've completely misinterpreted them.
Vote for Pedro
The difference between the Bell break-up a(not AT@T) nd MS antitrust is that the govt. created the Bell monopoly by only allowing them to run phone lines to residences, so they screwed that up to begin with. The so-called MS monopoly evolved because people decided compatibility was the single most important feature in an OS. Given that Linux is a viable alternative, calling MS a monopoly isn't even an accurate description.
Vote for Pedro
copyright and patent enforcement protect a free market in the same way laws against theft protect a free market. There's a difference between free market and anarchy. The govt had nothing to do with making MS a "monopoly".
Vote for Pedro
The time and place for Jackson to hammer Microsoft for their courtroom behavior was in his courtroom.
The fact that he waited, and then took the opportunity to badmouth them afterwards indicates serious poor judgement on his part. If Microsoft's courtroom behavior was so horrible, why didn't he DO something about it when it was in his purview to do so? Or is it a case where he felt his innuendo and unofficial remarks would do them more damage?
It just doesn't make sense, and Jackson looks unprofessional and like a zealot.
A Good Intro to NetBS
You are completely correct, sorry.. man they should have modded me down for this and you up. I'm starting to seee how fucked UP the system is.
Post-election recounts by the media aren't the issue. The SC made the decision without that knowledge.
As for the actual media recount, as the NY Times admits, their standard for counting disputed ballots would not necessarily have been the legally accepted one. They were playing by their own ear. And since their final recount came out very shortly after 9/11/01, many (myself included) tend to doubt it's inferences.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
The recount DIDN'T have to be stopped. The SC chose to stop it. Since they chose to stop it without the recount and certified the suspect vote count already achieved, they selected W as President. Everything after that was proforma. He's the Selected President*. There is no getting around that.
The time and place for Jackson to hammer Microsoft for their courtroom behavior was in his courtroom.
I believe in some cases he did legally "hammer them" when their antics crossed the line and violated the law. When their antics did not technically violate the letter of the law the proper time to "hammer them" was in sentencing, for being guilty. The most important thing about Microsoft's courtroom antics is that they failed to provide any actual defence. The findings against Microsoft were upheld on appeal. They were guilty.
Or is it a case where he felt his innuendo and unofficial remarks would do them more damage?
That's quite absurd. Even assuming he had some intent to "cause damage", what sort of damage are you saying he expected to cause? Anything he said unofficially was vanishingly meaningless compared to his power to speak officially in his ruling. He had the power to order a Microsoft breakup, just like the Ma Bell and Standard Oil breakups. You suggest he though he could do more "damage" with unofficial remarks?? That's laughable.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If the posts are trolls, please mod them so.
Put identity in the browser.
and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
So the recount DIDN'T have to be stopped for the continuity of our government. The writers of Amendment 20, section 3 thought ahead. The SC decided to ignore that, ignore the fact that there was all the time they needed to order a full recount if they really thought that was needed. Instead they selected W as the President. And they declared that recounts would cast doubts on their selection. That's why he's the Selected President*. And willfully ignoring the rest of section 3 won't change that.
Put W in as seatwarmer, recount every damn state in the Union if that's what you want. Whoever came out of that would have been a legitimate President. That's clearly not the case here. He's the Selected President* and always will be. And all the professional Republican whining (Bill "Liar" O'Reilly, Rush "Hillbilly Heroin" Limbaugh, etc.) won't change that.
The only clear outcome was that there was not a clear outcome. --- When things are so close that the ballot counting errors can determine the election, we learn that a problem exists. The real winner is the American public who will have a much more closely monitored ballot system next time. There will still be errors, but not so much.
It's unfortunate that most of our politicians follow the leader like Lemmings. I welcome evenly divided legislative bodies at both the federal and state level. It keeps either party from become overly foolish for very long.
At this point, GWB is our president and the republican party has a slight majority. If you cannot pick out both good and bad legislation passed by them, just consider yourself biased, conservative and close-minded regardless of your political affiliation.
And thank God that we live in a country where we can have this bantering. (or thank the devil if you do not agree with me - ha!)
"What was best for his country" was to ensure a legitimate Presidency. We don't have that right now.
Since I'm the one who keeps calling for the enforcement of Amendment 20, section 3 (the one that you and the SC seem to find so inconvenient), it seems rather Republican typical of you to accuse me of an extreme position that is completely removed from what I've been saying.
Do me a favor: Keep imagining that W won 2000. Keep drooling over pictures of him in a flight suit and imagine that an AWOL coke-snorting chicken hawk that has put the ecomony in the dumper, presided over the first net loss of jobs in 70 years and turned world sympathy over 9/11/01 (which happened on his watch) into world hatred can compete against people who've actually put their lives on the line (Clark, Kerry). Or is that harsh?
As for W in 04, I won't consider him legitimate if those Diebold black boxes are being used all over the place. Funny how an electronic voting machine with no possible audit trail and no real security is being put in place all over the country subsidized by the W's Federal Government. Funny how the head of the company is a W state chairman who has vowed to win his state for W.
By the way, laugh of the day: "the setup for those loss of jobs happened under Clintons watch". That's a funny one. And the past three years (3 YEARS) have all been the Clinton recession. W gets all his tax breaks, has control over both houses, has effectively tossed out the Bill of Rights and all we get is a jobless "recovery" that's just about ready for the third dip. 3 years and the first net loss of jobs in 70 years! But thank heaven's that people making more the $200,000 a year off of investments are safe to plan what to do with their tax cuts. That's the important consideration.
What is of course most telling and amusing is the Republican conspiracy mongering (which you gladly handed me) about Hillary. Let's see, the party of Nixon's plumbers and dirty tricks, Lee Atwater, Willy Horton, Florida '00, California uber alles, Diebold, etc. sees the people they hate and fear as engaging in conspiracies. Hmm, where could that idea come from?
He's the Selected President* and all your Clinton whining (Bill and Hillary) won't distract from that. He can't find Osama (the guy who actually is responsible for 9/11), can't find Mullah Omar, can't find Saddam, can't find WMD. He turned the most of Europe, most of Asia, most of South/Central American against us. He's losing the peace in Iraq. He's almost entirely lost Afghanistan (the warlords are cutting it up, the Taliban are back). He's got the biggest deficits in history. But I'm sure that heroic carrier landing and W in a flight suit is a winner.
What is the Selected President* doing in an ejection seat? He didn't need to be in it. The ship was close enough to shore for them to helicopter in (the safe way). Instead, Rove et. al. decided to create a pathetic photo op for your AWOL coke-snorting chicken hawk. The man who slipped into the Air National Guard with the lowest scores possible (displacing someone who deserved the slot), then decided he couldn't be bothered with the last 18 months of his service (so inconvenient).
The guy who failed in business after business (but who was conveniently bailed out each time by another friend of daddy who was willing to throw good money after bad). The guy who "forgot" to file the papers concerning his insider selling, the guy who happened to find an anonymous buyer for all of his (rarely) traded shares just at the moment he needed the money to be let in to the Texas Rangers deal. The guy who, despite putting the least money into the deal, was put in charge. The guy who used all of that fat corporate welfare and eminent domain to make the money he has now.
And let's not forget the guy who got they let into and kept in Philips Andover despite being a Gentleman's C student. The guy who had SATs 180 points below the Yale average of 1968 yet was still accepted, where again he never achieved above a Gentleman's C. Talk about affirmative action: The drunken coke-snorting alumni's son exemption. The guy who actually considers his acceptance by Yale and Hardvard as a sign that he deserved to be there, never noticing that drunken coke-snorting idiot sons of rich guys have to be protected from the big bad world that doesn't always recognize their entitlement.
The SC decided to explicitly ignore the Constitution which had specific instructions on what to do in situations like Florida. It made it up as it went along (Scalia's must have been copping some pills from Limbaugh when he wrote his parts of the decision). They Selected W: hence, he's the Selected President*. If they were concerned with the legitimacy of the situation, they never would have done what they did.
I'm sorry if I'm paying attention to the issue at hand: W, the Selected President*.
So why WAS he in the ejector seat? Hmm?
Oh, and where is Osama, Mullah Omar, Saddam, and WMD?
Letting corporations write the laws is why things are so screwed up. The cause of the problem is rarely, if ever, the solution.
I have heard (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) that one of the reasons for the extension was because people were living longer.
Many people of that era lived longer than 28 years. Nobody today lives longer than life + 90 years(by definition). Whoever said that was an idiot.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
Yes, that is why I said small buisnesses. As an example I recall something about Winnie the Pooh and Epcot Center. Both from the same company who applied extreme pressure to have the government to pass this law. My suggestion is to allow small businesses who would otherwise not have to pay royalties to these companies to produce Mickey Mouse T-Shirts, Donald Duck T-Shirts, cups, mugs, hats, pants, and the like sit and create the laws. Because then they would not only be considering their own needs but the needs of those who can not pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars just to make something to sell.
You see, the copyrights are monopolies and monopolies are an aberration to how the U.S. is set up to run. That is why they were severely limited in the first place. So succeeding generations would not owe, in coin, their predecessors. But they would have to acknowledge them. Now, we are slaves. Shackled by invisible bonds which make us all criminals if we even sing the "Happy Birthday" song. We are sinking into the haves and have-nots with the haves gaining more power faster than the have-nots can ever hope to overcome. That is wrong. We do our best when everyone can build upon what went before without fear of reprisal.
As for the "living longer" - just type in '+copyright +"people living longer"' and you will be amazed at the results.
Gotta run!
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.