Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Not Out Of Anti-Trust Hot Water
tickticker writes "EWeek is reporting on the Anti-Trust follow up, and of course it sounds like a victory for Justice: 'The judges 'were encouraging in the sense that they went to the heart of the case,' Robert Bork, who represented the Computer and Communications Industry Association and the Software and Information Industry Association, said following the court arguments. Bork formerly was a judge on the appeals court.' Microsoft comments included the 'abundance of choice' defence. Which to me means that Microsoft wants the last of the hold-outs to choose Microsoft."
lets just hope that the attorneys pushing for stiffer guidelines dont Bork the process ;-)
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
What will happen?
Wrist slap, a million in free software to schools, lawyers get money, MS expends monopoly even further, profit.
--
Talk to me. 1-888-633-3446
After sifting and sorting through the myriad of posts pointing out that this site is running IIS 5 and how the govt. is so hypocritical for doing so, I've come to the conclusion that some if not most slashdotter's are too riled by minor details. It conveys a serious lack of intelligence on our part. But I digress...
While going through some of the PDF docs on the site, mostly pertaining to court judgements, I noticed that many of these documents reference the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2
Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court
For those that don't know, this is Section 2 of the Sherman act, which Microsoft was found in violation of. I see the fine of $10,000,000 as a maximum to be completely impotent against a company with a financial foundation such as microsoft's. There should be some sort of percentage of profits reaped from the anti-competitive behavior that should be taken away. $10,000,000 is a drop in the bucket for microsoft. The penalty should be stiffer.
I'd be interested in filing a complaint regarding their procedures regarding the computer sales market, how pretty much all PCs come with their product and their "tax" regardless of whether or not you want it. THAT is a complaint worth filing. I am being FORCED to pay for a PRODUCT that I NEVER asked for nor implied that I wanted.
One can only hope that they get two black eyes, and a broken arm, instead of a tap on the hand with a ruler(it might sting for awhile but you'll recover). It's about time someone of high authority how Microsoft kills the economy with their illegal tactics. People always argue that a complete break-up would hurt the enconomy, well I have a question for people, why did you integrate Microsoft so much into the economy, and why did you invest all your money in Microsoft.
What exactly does being a successful, agressive company have to do with being "unjust?" Nobody *has* to use Microsoft now, and nobody hever has.
Is this the same Robert Bork??
Based on the fact he doesn't believe the settlement goes far enough, I can't imagine it is the same guy!
Gates forgot to write the check for the campaign contribution to "Committee to Re-Elect the President in 2004".
Ashcroft is just reminding him about his dues.
and of course it sounds like a victory for Justice
Justice for whom?
Microsoft's competitors, who were the people who lobbied the government with huge donations to bring the case in the first place?
Netscape? A failed company who tried to create their own monopoly, but failed when Microsoft gave away their browser for free -- something that every single other browser manufacturer before Netscape was doing already?
Sun Microsystems? A company who created a virtual machine designed to best work on Sparc systems, who suddenly started to get cold feet when Microsoft managed to come up with a virtual machine that worked faster than anything they expected could be created? A company who also completely failed to sue Netscape for creating their own non-compliant Java libraries?
So I ask again... Justice for whom? Anti-microsoft zealots?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Microsoft won't have any trouble converting Red Hat users now.
Since I'm sitting here typing this on my Linux machine, my response is no.
If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly? Some people need Windows to run certain critical applications, in fact almost all corporations do, but the alternative is there.
Microsoft is a powerful mega-giant corporation that has a bunch of power, but why don't we focus our attention on developing alternatives?
It is my strong belief that if we the people can stop Microsoft by tying our need to their products, then we won't need to resort to getting Washington to do it.
Corporations are starting to get royally pissed at Microsoft. They're using their corprorate dollars to fund alternatives and migrate away from Windows at least in the server room. Come on, folks, let's take care of this the American way.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
is this really true?? please provide some proof or real evidence.
And Microsoft will be forced to run only their own programs internally... as they are off the shelf... plus, provide customers with any patches they have to write for themselves. DOH!
stuff |
Is that the article goes on to explain that "[...] there is no evidence indicating that the settlement will have a meaningful impact.", and that "To restore competition, the settlement must go further than allowing OEMs to remove the Internet Explorer icon-it must require the separation of middleware code from the OS.".
On the subject of API Disclosure, Michael Lacovara (who represents Microsoft), said that "the challengers' request for greater API disclosure is not based in fact.", and further went on to state that "The theory of the states is that more is better.".
It's really no wonder they don't like Linux, when not even their own API's are open. For crying out loud!
With great numbers come great responsibility!
I think "mildly warm water" would be more appropriate here. I don't recall this Anti-Trust thing being anything more then laughable and a symbolic victory, at best, anyways.
Hate me!
A decision in your favor - Ambrose Bierce
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
'Zee joodges 'vere-a incuooregeeng in zee sense-a thet zeey vent tu zee heert ooff zee cese-a,' Rubert Bork, vhu represented zee Cumpooter und Cummooneeceshuns Indoostry Essuceeeshun und zee Sufftvere-a und Inffurmeshun Indoostry Essuceeeshun, seeed fullooeeng zee cuoort ergooments. Bork furmerly ves a joodge-a oon zee eppeels cuoort. Bork Bork Bork.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Karma was getting too high, anyway.
all the people "in the know", the people who comment at slashdot, already know that linux is our new master. why don't they?
It is my strong belief that if we the people can stop Microsoft by tying our need to their product..
..but then you turn around and say do it with lawsuits:
Come on, folks, let's take care of this the American way.
Which is it?
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
"Abundance of choice?" I get the feeling Microsoft still doesn't understand that they aren't "special". If ever I get to go to court over a traffic violation, I'm going to ask for the same thing.
That is, if I feel like making the judge laugh that day.
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
Kuney said that Internet Explorer is a fruit, but Microsoft's Lacovar said that there is no evidence to show that.
I admit that I hate microsoft just as much as the next guy but reverting to this kind of name calling is just plain wrong.
Internet Explorer's preferences are its own buisness and nobody elses!
We should all acknowledge Internet Explorer's decision to operate in whatever way it sees fit and allow it to use whatever plugins it enjoys. I know it acts a little differently than the other browsers but that's their choice to make and for what it's worth I support its decision and hope that despite all the Microsoft bashing the slashdot community chooses to show Internet Explorer no predjudice.
I stole this Sig
Have I grown so cynical that I have a problem finding a "good enough" solution? I've thought this through -- the OS isn't as stable, the interface isn't all that grand either (c'mon, all of you KDE/Gnome users out there who got used to middle-clicking to paste...tell me you don't miss it in Windows), the OS cost is laughable, the security has let MANY companies down -- and yet people use it. Like staying in an abusive relationship, really.
Sure, MS leverages their monopoly to get things done...but ultimately, don't people choose? The way those folks in Germany chose Linux over an overly discounted Windows -- or the way city after city is realizing that Linux gives more value.
We keep hoping that the only thing Linux needs is a (fill in the blank here) and it'll eat away at MS marketshare. Trust me, I want to see bad software crumble as much as the next guy -- Real Soon Now.
Not even the government can possibly do what an educated IT community is capable of in terms of cutting up MS. Let's get a good product up there, educate the masses, and (finally) compete on the technical merits of the software.
Yes, but this is Judge Bork, not the Muppets Swedish cook.
I hope people boycott redhat for the SCUM that they are. They have consistantley produced a shitty desktop (Gnome), shitty hardware support (My generic VIA chipset works on everything but redhat), and the depencancy hell (Every other distro sorted out, either by apt-get, yum, synaptic, urpmi, or other means).
Boycott both Redhat and microsoft, stick with Distros such as Mandrake, Suse or Panther.
make changes to software using said money to ensure upgrade lock-in, more profit, antitrust, repeat process using gained money
Don't forget, Microsoft benefits the country because schools get to use MS software without paying. Seriously - should this kind of arrangement with schools be allowed? How are schools a 'charity' any more than the government? Yeah, people may pay a few pennies less on taxes due to almost free MS software, but the reduced competition costs much more. A monopoly, in time, reduces choice and raises cost. And people support this type of action because it saves schools money, which in reality is just saving a very small amount off of taxes. How is this different from donating to any government institution? The end result for the taxpayer is the same.
At least they're paying to find hackers. Sure they should use that money for better coders, who's complaining, I'm looking in the mirror debating on whether I should turn myself in for fun and profit.
MoFscker
Reading through some of the articles, I get the impression that many of the judges are
Since the settlement, the software developers competing with Microsoft have heaved a collective sigh of relief, exclaiming to the world,
Competing products are springing up like weeds and resellers are completely ignoring MS by putting all kinds of cheap inexpensive software onto PCs!
"Provided by the management for your protection."
And don't kid yourselves, a computer OS is not that important in the scheme of things.
Are you trying for a +5 Funny?
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Try leaving off any references to Microsoft on your resume.
Besides, as mentioned elsewhere, the crime is in MAINTAINING the monopoly, not in having on in the first place.
Microsoft's actions are closer to the myth of "The American Way" than any kind of commercial rebellion. "The American Way" is about maintaining power, not challenging it. This is why most rich people are Republicans.
It was. I had to read it twice to get the joke.
What planet have you been on for the last 15 years? Msft has a consistant proven track record of leveraging their existing base into other market areas, starting from the DOS cash cow on PC's in 1981 and forward. Remember the Msft slogan "DOS isn't done untill Lotus won't run", or the Win3 beta code that was proven to test for and exclude DR-DOS? The real solution was and still is the os / application breakup - that's what Gary Kildal envisioned for the pc world, a competitive environment where many players can compete, whereas the Gates vision was "I'll own everything" and that's what we have now. In effect they own the 'common carrier' for intel pc's and can control anything that runs on it, except for viruses and security holes.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I'm wondering why it is that people don't question why a side feature like windows messager can get patches while their core product windows, bleeds and gets infected from all sides? Why some MSN content is served exclusively to Internet Explorer? Why their implementation of java is not byte code compatible with Java? Why their version of kerberos... And why does Microsoft condone piracy tolerated in countries where they do not own 80% of the market? If everybody is buying Microsoft it it must because they are the best right? Or could it be that buying Microsoft is compulsory if you want to get a PC?
KFC mogul Colonel Sanders was found dead in the chicken barn of his Lexington, KY headquarters.
Police suspect fowl play.
If it was a monopoly, everyone would use Windows. We can see clearly this is not the case. Whether it's a T-shirt or an operating system, popular products are not a monopoly. Almost everyone buys gasoline but gasoline isn't a monopoly.
lets just hope that the attorneys pushing for stiffer guidelines dont Bork the process ;-)
.. dont fork( ) the process"
For a second there, I thought you had made a typo in saying "lets just hope that the attorneys..
*Sigh*. You know you are a geek when..
You would have a monopoly when almost everyone buys your shirts. It is perfectly legal to have a monopoly.
It is even legal to make arrangements so that people wearing your shirts get discounts on other merchandise.
It is illegal to somehow manipulate that monopoly so that people must wear your shirts in order to buy gas.
...why did they make it a menu option?...
(I'm having disturbing images of an MS Proprietary form of 'choose your own path' porno served by IE...)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Every time MS anti-trust news comes up anywhere, someone invariably voices the opinion that MS is not a monopoly. This is utter nonsense and should be roundly condemned. Monopoly is both a legal and economic concept. In legal terms, this is settled. They have been so found by the US Federal Courts. Both at trial and on appeal. You may know a lot about computers, but I think US Federal judges know more about the law. One can debate the relevancy of the legal definition, or the fairness of the process, but one cannot debate the fact of the matter. Microsoft is, legally, a monopoly.
The economic definition of monopoly is looser than the legal. Anyone with a dominant market position could qualify. Someone with a 90% market share, the ability to change price at will, and the means to move the overall market is a monopoly in every sense of the word. Simply to say that one needs a 100% market share to qualify is nonsense. All MS would need to do to avoid anti-trust problems would be to not entirely wipe out the competition. Throw a few crumbs. Like say investing $150 million in Apple and continuing to provide Office and IE for Mac.
Its nice that you use only Linux and avoid MS products. That is to be commended. But to extrapolate your experience market-wide is rank arrogance. Just because you personally haven't suffered because of their crimes is entirely irrelevant. If a bank gets robbed, but it wasn't your money, would you argue the robber should get off?
Microsoft is a monopoly, they broke the law in protecting and extending that monopoly. They are liable for punishment. These are facts, not opinion, and not open to debate.
BOSS: "You'll find my nuts require extra attention today."
DILBERT: "Hurp."
-- The Dilbert Hole, Tristan Farnon
Also, there are _countless_ alternatives to Windows, and several alternatives to every MS product that is supposedly a monopoly.
Oh, so when Joe User is unhappy with windows, which operating system can he choose and still run all his apps?
So the monopoly issue depends on what you define as the product - and if the product is defined as "a Microsoft Windows compatible operating system" Microsoft most definitely has a monopoly. And just in case somebody wants to point out that the definition is stupid, try a different one: "A Ford compatible car". Well, there are quite a few other cars that can drive on the same roads...
Karma. Moderation. Is my
Just about the only thing left out of this story is Opera. Bork!
Another area most people don't consider is public libraries. As an IT guy in a library, I can vouch for the fact that many are investigating going as far as transitioning staff desktops to Linux distros, especially considering the "security" that will be built into Longhorn. Then there's the Gates Foundation, which provides free computers for libraries to use for the public, provided they agree to MS' licensing terms. Free, yes, but some would say it's just another way to keep the library world saturated with Microsoft products.
"To restore competition, the settlement must go further than allowing OEMs to remove the Internet Explorer icon-it must require the separation of middleware code from the OS."
Also, IIRC, isn't Microsoft looking to eliminate IE altogether for Longhorn and build Internet browsing directly into the UI itself-similar to how you can type a URL into a Windows Explorer window and be taken from your local directory to a website? If that's not a violation of the antitrust settlement, I don't know what is. If this is true, then we're looking at the elimination of the web browser altogether as a stand-alone application. And if there's no necessity for a web browser, then nobody will think to use one other than Longhorn's integrated browsing.
Of course, I could be mistaken, or my source may have been incorrect, paranoid, or both, and if so I'm sorry, but I wouldn't necessarily put it past them to do something like that. You can already do the same thing with CD burning; it's just that 3rd-party CDRW software offers enough benefits over XP's built-in support that it's hardly anticompetitive to just offer the capability to write some assorted files to a CD.
In IE's case, though, one thing that intrigues me is that it's the least full-featured of browsers out there, yet it's still this popular? Without tabbed browsing, built-in popup control, and some of the other goodies offered by Opera, Mozilla, Safari, and Firebird, it almost seems to me like it's in the same vein as the CD-RW support-bare minimum offered. Perhaps the threat lies in the popularity of web browsing over CD burning?
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
This trial is like a big magic show. Microsoft is the magician.
Everyone needs to stop throwing their hands up in the air and wondering where the rabbit went.
Its time to look at the court room itself and ask how the government allowed it to became rigged with smoke, mirrors, and false floors.
If there's one thing that I've learned since the mid-80s when I started becoming aware of monopolies, insider trading, junk bonds, etc., it's that white-collar crime is always profitable. If you're willing to do the time, you won't ever be fined as much as you gained from the illegal behavior.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
...until she sings the classic epic poem of the castration of Melinda French and the liposuction of Steve Ballmer's face.
They don't have to run everything with a logic gate. To qualify as a monopoly, they just need the power to distort what would otherwise be a free market. To prompt justice dept. action, they need to abuse that power.
In both cases, BINGO. Does MS have the power to distort the market in desktop operating systems? What market? MS offered different prices to different OEMs, for the same thing. As I recall, Gateway was screwed in a relative sense, they all were in an absolute sense.
Anticompetitive pricing in browsers, specifically to annihilate Netscape. Remember, Gate's thought giving the browser away was "communist" until someone explained its use as a dirty trick. Could a startup compete on those terms? Nope. Would any other company be able to stick anything it wanted into Windows? Nope.
Competitive is running a race as fast as you can. Anticompetitive is tripping your opponent. MS is guilty of the latter, and is a hopeless recidivist. Hang 'em.
Oddly enough he's exaclty where the term comes from.
That's why he made the pun.
Douchebag.
If you read the complete Title 15 Section 2 (15USC2) and look at the amendments log at the end you'll see that the fee was updated to $10m in 1990 as part of Public Law 101-588, and a few times prior to that as well. In fact the original law in 1955 was only a $5,000 fine and only a misdemeanor. Note that those fees/punlishments are for the felony act. That doesn't necessarily limit what the government can do to end the monopoly or act in the public's interest.
However while pretending to be an informed /.'er, you should really read the whole law as it aplies to monopolies, not just the small section 2. See the 15USC Chapter 1. In particular you may want to read section 21, 24, 37 among others.
I'm buying two copies to make up for the one you aren't buying.
when the schools get the "free software" they'll be required to pay license fees on it later on.
with microsoft, there's no such thing as "free"
Mod me to +5 for being the 1000th poster to say "M$". Oh god how astoundingly clever that is!!
Wait!! If I say mod me to -1, it won't happen, right?!
Operating systems aren't like cars, you can't have a monopoly because you don't need one for anything. It's a luxury like a diamond ring. You'd be better off if you went outside to play and healthier too.
"In effect they own the 'common carrier' for intel pc's and can control anything that runs on it, except for viruses and security holes."
Yeah, all the Linux distros are following MS protocols. What are you smoking?
...in Macintosh-compatible operating systems?
I think the definition is that Microsoft possesses a monopoly in "desktop operating systems for x86-based computers".
If you own an x86-based computer and wish to use an operating system other than Windows, and do all the same tasks that you can do with Windows--e-mail, games, web browsing, office applications (using comparable alternative apps, not necessarily Windows-based apps)--then, according to the Federal Court circa 2001, there is no alternative x86 desktop operating system available to use.
The monopoly definition cannot be broad enough to include all desktop operating systems (regardless of microprocessor architecture), because then an Apple Macintosh system would be considered a viable alternative. Microsoft has no market power over Apple in what OS Apple uses on its Macintosh computers.
they shouldn't be out of the water, because they
don't want to get out of the water. they want the
water to go away. it's like some guy in the street
stabbing people as they walk by, and bitching about
the cops bothering him. the cops aren't going to
leave him alone until he quits, and he's not going
to quit, so you've got to make him.
we will absolutely have to force MS$ behavior to
be legal, because they aren't going to do it on
their own. the only judge that figured that out
was seen as biased.
The Justice Dept. won the case but couldn't come up witha viable remedy and, therefore, effectively lost. The remedy of vertical breakup was knee-jerk, uncreative, ineffectual, unfair, and based on 20th century cases (e.g. Standard Oil, AT&T).
.Net, etc.
There's no law against a monopoly, only leveraging and abusing it. How does MS abuse their Windows and Office monopolies? In the case of IE, they diverted hundred's of millions of $s to develop a browser they would give away for free, thus "cutting off Netscape's air supply". Who could afford to do that? Who can afford to fund billions in dozens of money losing projects, business endevours, and acquisitions from the profits from two product lines?
You want a remedy? Severely limit the amount of profit they can divert to dominating new markets from the markets they already dominate. You'd have seen no MSN, Xbox, MediaPlayer, C#,
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the legal sense, the moment that a consumer is financially compelled to stop considering other software strictly for its normal functions and start including the question of comptability. To put it in the form of the analogy above, as soon as there are major economic consequences to picking a non-ford compatable, and these begin to have an impact similar to the physical reality based choices and conditions that limit the consumer, such as the ground clearance needed for the local roads, that is the very measure of monopoly. As one example, I attended a state university that required the purchase of Microsoft products for some courses. Did I have alternatives? Of course. I could have changed my major. I could have attended a private university. Both these choices would have cost me several tens of thousands of dollars, but technically no one was holding a gun to my head. What was not allowed was to use another C++ compiler, regardless of its technical merits. By your definition, that's not a monopoly. In fact I can't think of a single monopoly that has ever existed, by your definition. Obviously, there are no monopolies, and anti-trust law is a fraud that creates a null class and pretends to find members of the resulting set. Still, this non-monopoly elevates Microsoft's desire to make that particular sale to the same level as physical law.
Who is John Cabal?
Now does Microsoft want another Monopoly,
with their $250,000 offer for virus writers?
Geeze!
Instead of a slap on the rist they will get more money in the hand... ...because they will get to "donate", pawn, off more software on schools so that more people get locked in to microsuck.
Interesting how this gets put in the "Your Rights Online" section (despite having next to nothing to do with it) while a story on Apple's own monopolistic practices isn't.
How would you like to fuck me up the ass?
I know you want to fuck me. And I know that you know that I know that you know that I know you want to fuck me.
I'm just gonna bend over here, and you can shove your dick up my ass,
Huminahuminahuminah
However, the singular consumer market is not where the decisions are made. Businesses use Windows because Developer XYZ wrote a viable application to simplify/automate/whatever their operation. Parents use Windows at home because they use Windows at work. Kids use Windows because the game developers make games that will run on their parent's computer.
See the cycle?
Given enough time (to develop useful software alternatives outside of end-user desktop software -- read: Point of Sale System, Medical Imaging System, etc... instead of another Word Processor, Email application, MP3 player, Web browser), migrating to another OS might actually become a viable option. At this point in time (for many) it simply isn't. As long as businesses (outside of file/print/web serving) require applications that require Windows... nothing changes.
The Mac was/is a prime example. How long was it considered to be a system whose primary use was for graphic arts/DTP? That's not all a Mac is good for... but that was the general perception. Now, we're beginning to see a shift. Mac's are actually seen outside of service bureaus and studios, because people have realized that Quark sucks... er, sorry,I mean some business managers have seen that there are viable tools available to expedite their required information flow.
Ironically, the lesson to learn from Apple is that attempting to infiltrate the desktop market (as a means of expanding marketshare) may not be the smartest move. I give Apple credit, they're giving it a solid try -- but that probably isn't going to be good enough for an x86 newcomer to take on Microsoft.
In short... quality software needs to be written to fill market requirements (even if they're niche markets... say, Pawn Shop software, or Video Store POS managemet) before a non-MS based OS is viewed as an option. Once respectable marketshare has been won, the desktop users will follow.
I'm not here to pick a fight, burst bubbles or rain on parades with this statement (hell, I love picking on Microsoft as much as the next guy): It's not Microsoft's fault that they have the most popular OS around. It's the fault of business owners that don't demand an option. You can cry me a river about how Microsoft bullied their way to the top -- doesn't matter. If it hadn't have been MS, it'd been IBM w/ OS/2, or Apple, or Commodore, or someone else. And given the right set of circumstances, you'd all be in here cursing the day that Linus ever wrote a line of code.
I'm lucky in the fact that my profession/interests allow me to use multiple OSes. I have two Mac's sitting in the same room as two Windows boxes... and my servers (web & file/print) run Linux. And, I can happily get my little geek thing on by keeping them all talking. But, most businesses can't afford to do that. They are looking for the simplest solution to provide stability, connectivity and a (relatively) simple end-user experience for their employees. Windows provides that. And say what you want about how Microsoft should learn to play ball with everyone else... but jesus, man. All that money, all of those developers, nearly 20 years at the top and you want Windows to work seamlessly with other platforms and OSes? Hell, they haven't even figured out how to work seamlessly with themselves yet. ;)
Okay, nuff out of me. I predict two things in the next thirty minutes:
1: I will drink a beer.
2: I will go to bed.
----
#SickNotWeak
"Nobody *has* to use Microsoft now, and nobody hever has."
Really? I want to buy a Dell without Windows XP.
WHOOPS!
I guess I don't *have* to use Microsoft, although it turns out that there is no adjustment made if I don't use it. I guess Windows XP is free.
But I get your point, I can pick Gateway.....
WHOOPS!
Or how about Micron.
WHOOPS!
Or a Sony....
WHOOPS!
Cripes, in your world I have to buy a Mac, and that's my "choice".
Gawddamn, I want to try the dope that you're smoking.
business wise, it strikes at the core of the problem...break MS up and you just get smaller "pals" that carve up the market...business as usual! It is mostly fair to investors because you are not actually suing them for being "successful" mearly tying their hands to give everyone a chance! The goal of course, is to let other software compaines grow to the point MS can't bully them anymore...and has to deal square with them. Also, there would be extreme pressure from stockholders to grow at the famous "20%" or the stock will tank [normalize] and push MS back into being a normal mega-corp.
On a second note: they should have to publish all costs of software just like a public utility...absolutely zero exclusive deals...and no contracts! If I want a million copies, I get them at the same price as anyone else..no "top ten" execptions either. If this hurts a few "collaborators" like Dell, then so be it.
Unfortuntely, a neat, sharp strike like this would never make it thru the lawyers!
However while pretending to be an informed /.'er, you should really read the whole law as it aplies to monopolies, not just the small section 2.
/.'er " an oxymoron?
Hmmm, isn't "informed
Arf!
The govt needs to stop trying to treat the symptoms and hit MS where it lives! They should be prohibited from buying any patents, copyrights, programs, companies...anything at all! If they're so big and bad, that shouldn't hurt right? Except they use that Monopoly money to buy up the future competition. I'd say lock them out for 5 years...Unless they are really good, it's a death sentence. neat, clean, and simple!
Take away their ability to spend money! It doesn't have to be a fine, just prevent them from buying any other software from anyone...make them write all their own stuff...from scratch! It still makes the other companies work at getting customers, but remove the constant threat of MS buying the cheapest one and giving it away to kill the rest. In a few years MS will have to sign FAIR agreements to get anything to work with them! The market is already tipping..the beauty of the court case it what the market looked like 4 years ago! And remedies can be base accordingly...but extra effective now!
Worse the companies and customers at the receiving end of this abuse have received little more than a few gift certificates. A just end to this affair would have been a leveling of the playing field. It would have forced things like:
I fear that all we'll get is another discussion about separating the OS from the browser and, smoke and mirrirs aside (like handing out MS vouchers to schools and adding a few more 'Justice Compliance (TM)' buttons to the install wizards), nothing will really change.
Its heartening to read about the various government initiatives (mainly outside the US) recommending, and in some cases mandating, the consideration of non-Microsoft alternatives when purchasing software. This will probably cause a larger behavior change than the anti-trust judgement and will do more good than the Justice Department has done so far. So perhaps there's hope.. but not from the US legal system.
Sigh.
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
For doing a good job as an editor (ie. not letting troll-scum like you to run amok)?
But nobody can create a "Microsoft compatible OS", whereas there are quite a few "Ford compatible cars".
Well of course we have an abundance of choice. We can choose from:
See? Loads of choice!
This is Microsoft remember. you would have to createProcess() instead, with a whole load of useless overhead to go with it :-)
Your question:
BLATANT astroturfing completely distorts the facts. You have set up a straw dog. Step 1: put words in your oponent's mouth as if you are speaking on his behalf"being a successful, aggressive company is unjust." Step 2: expose the fallacy in the bogus argument you posed: it is truly a non-sequitur argument and thus invalid.The problem is that you have put a spin on the argument. Let me correct this Anonymous Coward. You have discredited not only yourself but every other pro-Microsoft Slashdot Anonymous Coward short post.
If not every short pro-Microsoft post on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward is bogus, enough of them are bogus to completely justify ignoring them. The assumption that all pro-Microsoft Anonymous Cowards are malicious is relatively safe; the cost of the cases in which the assumption is wrong is negligible. You have yourself to blame, Anonymous Coward, friend of white-collar criminals, author of foul spin and misleading crap. You chose to lower the signal to noise ratio and your pollution must bear a warning label.
Long live critical thinking skills AT THE EXPENSE OF PROFIT.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
...and keep microsoft from abusing thier position it would be very easy - without even breaking them up.
1 - Establish an independant (i.e. not MS controlled) program for certifying a piece of software is compliant with the Windows API. Any vendor wishing to claim "logo" compliance would have to be certified by this company. Microsoft software would have to be certified by this company in all cases.
2 - Allow Microsoft to incorporate ANY feature into the OS that they want, but allow any component to be substitutded by another certified componenet by either the user or a vendor without penalties or losing support.
3 - Require Microsoft to disclose the complete API (DLL exports, COM interfaces, etc) for EVERY component that ships as part of the OS to the certification company. This disclosure must be sufficient to allow comprehensive complaince validation - functions, return types, paramters, valid inputs and outputs, etc - enough to build solid test cases. Any program that uses any "undocumented" functions or features may not be logo certified. In Microsoft's case, failing certification means that it can't ship the product.
4 - Require the certification company to make the documented APIs available to the public, but allow it to charge fees for logo certifications. (Non-MS vendors are not required to be certified)
5 - Empower the certification company to broker and resolve post-certification compliance and compatibility issues by requiring updates to compliant componenets and/or further disclosure of API details.
This lets MS innovate in any way they want, embedd anything they want in the OS, and protect any API they want. But if they bundle it with the OS (thier monopoly) they have to subject it to external certification and full API disclosure.
The heights of genius are only measurable by the depths of stupidity
Yes, Bork was the hatchetman for Nixon, agreeing to fire the prosecutor appointed by the Justice Department to begin to investigate Watergate. After several others were hired/fired by Nixon for that sole purpose, but refused, the compliant Bork was happy to oblige. Fortunately his dirty work was insufficient to stop the juggernaut of Watergate, even if Congress failed to fix the Bork hole in the proceedings.
He showed his leering eyes again under Reagan, after a mere 10 years of slinking around "conservative" think tanks, when nominated to the Supreme Court. But we didn't go for his approach to meting out justice based on reading the archival entrails of the first Americans' writings and biographies, regardless of how we interpret the Constitution and our freedom today. But since he converted to Catholicism this year, at such an advanced age, maybe he's trying to bargain his way into an eternal reward, according to some kind of legal fantasy. Be careful not to take his thoughts too seriously - his influence comes from who his words serve at any given historical minute.
--
make install -not war
In stunning news today, fast food chain Burger King has filed a suit in civil court accusing the giant food chain of levereging its monopoly in the Big Mac to induce them into buying McDonald's brand Fries.
"It's despicable what they're doing. I went into the mall the other day, and went up to the 'mini-McDonalds' counter. I tried to order a Big Mac and some Burger King fries. They actually refused! This is outrageous abuse of their monopoly power."
Enough said.
I imagine it must have been tough to not laugh when the settlement was agreed to.
"I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
Pull their corporate license.
Take away all those immunities they have, and see thigns change as responsibility and accountability come home to roost.
They can still do business, they just are not protected from everybody.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
I think you meant
LPCSTRZ fork(HWND hwnd,
PWND pwnd,
PWPARAM pwparam,
DONT_YOU_HATE_IT_WHEN_WE_MAKE up_datatypes_and_name_all_params_after_them = ITS_REALLY_JUST_AN_UNSIGNED_CHAR_ANYWAY)
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
True, but it was in authentic mock-Swedish, as spoken by the Swedish Chef. (Sorry I couldn't find a d-umlaut to spell Swedish Chef correctly.)
Bork! Bork! Bork!
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
http://www.os2hq.com/archives/arch26.htm
The game MS is playing is that the FTC can't keep up with MS monopoly plans in order to slow them down. They're a declared monopoly, but still allowed to funnel those funds into creating new monopolies! The only effetive way to stop MS is to cut them off. They can't actually engineer new products to save their butts...most new features even in Windows or Office are Bought not developed in-house.
Also, it's still somewhat fair competition. Basicly, MS has lost the right to play ball for a while and should sit in the penalty box while the other companies catch up. [just like in sports] It still requires companies to develop products and compete...it just removes the 800 lb Gorilla from being a threat...and maybe will let a couple new 500 lb Gorillas grow up so when MS is out of the penalty box, they can't just "buy their way" back in...no matter how much money they have. on a side note, cutting MS off from using capital as a business weapon puts that cash pile at the mercy of the wall street sharks that rewarded it's abusive business practices in the first place. Once MS can't "Grow" at 20%+ per year, the sharks will want all that money $$$ in their pockets as dividends...allowing MS own practices and expectations to kill it from the inside!