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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure it was a mega-crapload in 1890 when the Sherman act was written. What needs to happen is fines specified in legislation need to be indexed to inflation. So that $10 mil would be like $1 billion today or something.
I'd like to see justice for consumers who were forced to pay for MS on OEM pc's. Of course, I'd also like to win the lottery.
I'm going to guess that you built your Linux machine yourself. I have a notebook so that option wasn't exactly feasible for me. Whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly, I wouldn't be too suprised to find out they've been doing some anti-competitive practices such as strict contracts with OEMS.
I know this gets mentioned a lot, but go try to buy an 'out-of-the-box' PC/x86 computer the same way as 'typical users' would which either:
1.) Does not have an operating system pre-installed that you don't intend to use.
2.) Comes with an operating system pre-installed, WITH real install CDs (not "system-restore" images) and a full license that does not bind the OS to the computer to which it was pre-installed.
I've got a "copy"(restore CDs) of Win-XP that came with my computer sitting in my closet. Legally, according to the EULA, I can't sell it to anyone who could put it to good use. I also can't install it on another computer if someone else wanted it.
I understand that the OEM computer manufactures need to cater to the mainstream..which is fine, but it'd be nice if they at least did Option #2. As it stands now...people to pay the so called Microsoft tax.
$cat
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"
Well dude, the law should just read, "And thy penalty shall be a mega-crapload of dollars," and you not only automatically adjust for any inflation, you also preserve the original intent of the law perfectly!
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
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!
I'm sure it was a mega-crapload in 1890 when the Sherman act was written. What needs to happen is fines specified in legislation need to be indexed to inflation. So that $10 mil would be like $1 billion today or something.
Er, not really. Consider that billionaires are not a 20th century phenomena. J.D. Rockefeller was a 19th century billionaire that had no problem making $10M/year. That penalty would have been poorly received, but hardly would have curbed the behavior. Who gives a shit about a $10M fine when you're pulling in $100M per year. And as another posted pointed out, the original fines were considerably smaller that what's in the statute today.
What most people overlook is that Sherman focused on restraint of interstate trade issues, not on monopolies. It was as much to manage labor unions as large corporations. Clayton addressed this directly. Consider the Anthracite Coal strike of 1902 which threatened to cripple the nations main heating fuel source just at the onset of winter. Roosevelt was willing to resort to having the Army seize the coal fields and operate them to prevent this from happening. MS isn't what they were worried about in the 1890s, the UMW (United Mine Workers union) was.
It's not something we consider today, but the 'trust-busting' moniker was a directive against all impediments to interstate trade. These were the days of small federal government, and protecting interstate trade was on the limits of what the federal government could do and unions were as much a threat to trade as were anticompetitive business practices. The problem today is that interstate trade is no longer something worth protecting. Nobody cares if California's tax economy totally goes to shit so long as the federal government is solid, and there are so many avenues supporting trade in the conventional sense that it can no longer be seriously impeded.