New Documents Shed Light on Microsoft's Tactics

Tigen writes "As the NY Times reports, even as MS prepares to face penalties from the European Union, testimony during the second week of trial in the consumer class-action lawsuit in Minnesota has revealed some embarrassing internal documents from Microsoft which were not disclosed in the 1997 federal antitrust lawsuit. Items include a 1990 letter from Bill Gates to Andy Grove, and Microsoft's illegal tactics against the Go Corporation, a Silicon Valley startup."

Comments

Article

[BigDork1001]

Here is the Google link to the article.

Re:Article

[jimmyCarter]

Whenever you append "&partner=google" to the end of a NYTimes URL, you're in sans registration.

Re:Article

[AftanGustur]

Whenever you append "&partner=google" to the end of a NYTimes URL, you're in sans registration.

Well, whenever you append "&partner=[Anything]" you are in ...

Try http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/technology/24sof t.html?ex=1080709200&en=81be83eda9c09dad&ei=5062&p artner=AlQaida

Re:Article

[flewp]

Whenever you append "&partner=google" to the end of a NYTimes URL, you're in sans registration.

But what if San wants to use his registration when we already are? Then what will he do?!

Re:Article

[willamowius]

BTW: Appending "&pagewanted=print" gives an even more readable page.

Re:Article

[Dolda2000]

In fact, the partner doesn't matter at all, you can remove it. Only the ex, en and ei parameters matter.

Re:Article

[AKnightCowboy]

Well, whenever you append "&partner=[Anything]" you are in ...

Well I wish Slashdot would append that to the links by default. They link to the god damn NY Times so much that they might as well use a partner link. Thankfully kind people like yourself usually post a link within a few comments as long as the moderators don't come along and delete your posts.

Re:Article

[ykardia]

And now that the link is on slashdot, the admins at the NY Times will wonder why AlQuaida suddenly is their biggest partner! Picture their faces when they run their log analysis tool...

Re:Article

[sangdrax]

Isn't that forbidden by DMCA? :)

Re:Article

[sisco]

"In late 1993, Go was sold to AT&T where it was ultimately merged into the company's portable computer subsidiary. In 1994 the phone company shut down the effort in portable computing. Three months later Microsoft canceled its PenWindows project"

As if this doesn't make it obvious what M$ was doing! They were only in the game to keep somebody else from innovating new technology. As soon as a potential competitor closed down, they stopped attempting to "provide a better solution for the customer." What a bunch of hooey!

Re:Article

[robnauta]

In late 1993, Go was sold to AT&T where it was ultimately merged into the company's portable computer subsidiary. In 1994 the phone company shut down the effort in portable computing. Three months later Microsoft canceled its PenWindows project"

As if this doesn't make it obvious what M$ was doing! They were only in the game to keep somebody else from innovating new technology. As soon as a potential competitor closed down, they stopped attempting to "provide a better solution for the customer." Dude I think you got your history all wrong. When Apple announced the Newton in 1992, everyone wanted to jump onto the same boat. Several companies rushed development of similar devices, including Microsoft, Go, and several others.
When the Newton was released in 1993, and proved to be a fiasco, many companies put their projects on hold or sold them off. That's why Go was sold, and that's why MS stopped development.

The humiliating failure of the Apple Newton put mobile computers on hold for a few years, until Palm revitalized the once dead market.

Re:Article

[WillAdams]

Microsoft renegged on a promise to bundle Windows Pen Services w/ Microsoft Windows 95. They also withdrew form a consortium to allow the development of BIOSs for portable systems which would allow dual-booting between Pen Windows and PenPoint.

This is business, one is supposed to honour one's commitments.

They then went on a firesale buying spree of companies doing pen computing:

- Aha Software's InkWriter once available for Windows and Penpoint? It's Microsoft Journal

- some website markup tool company and a couple of other things.

and most recently Creaturehouse Expression, and despite a promise that it'd be avialable again in November of _2003_ it can't be had for love nor money now.

William

Re:Article

[Speare]

Well I wish Slashdot would append [&partner=] to the links by default.

When YOU abuse their lax partner system, the NYT isn't going to waste their time. When a company, OSDN, or its officers abuse their lax partner system, it is (1) a potential legal liability on the part of OSDN, and (2) going to make NYT change their whole system, probably for the worse.

What's this?

[TypoNAM]

Microsoft has actually been a bad big corp? Tell me it isn't so...

OK it's so, let the "Exchange server ate my email" excuse begin!

Re:What's this?

[Alphix]

dont you mean "the Exchange server wrote my email"?

Re:What's this?

[spellraiser]

Recently overheard somewhere at One Microsoft Way:

What's this: "New Documents Shed Light on Microsoft's Tactics" ?!

I thought I told you guys to SHRED those documents, nod SHED them!

The Microsoft Damage.

[torpor]

I've contended for years that computing in general has been held back by Microsoft, not pushed forward, and this is an example of just how that has been the case.

There are a lot of 'high order' dreams in the computing science. The CS holy grail of pocket, portable computing is only now coming to fruition (thank you Palm), but has been on the cards since at least the 60's as a design reference/specification. Go could've given us this in the late 1980's, early 90's. Microsofts' machinations, however, prevented that from happening.

I understand now, why the Palm founders adopted their 'found and leave' strategy for PalmOS. In the light of Go, Inc's demise it makes sense to light 4 or 5 small fires that the enemy can't put -all- out, rather than making a very large target, like Go and Motorola did ...

I stopped using Microsoft products in 1998. They'll not get one penny of $ from this consumer, and not one item of code from this programmer. I tell all my Microsoft-using friends to fuck off with their self-made problems, too, and get real operating systems, from real software companies ... and most of them do.

Re:The Microsoft Damage.

[pubjames]

I've contended for years that computing in general has been held back by Microsoft, not pushed forward, and this is an example of just how that has been the case.

I think the clearest demonstrator that Microsoft has held back innovation is PowerPoint. Because it is virtually installed as default on all business machines, everyone uses it. Microsoft has had little motivation to update it, so it still functions like a piece of software from ten years ago. But ask any graphic designer about it and they will free out about how impossibly sh*t it is for creating presentations, especially bearing in mind the amazing graphics computers are capable of these days. And yet where is the strong competition for PowerPoint? There isn't one, because it is impossible to compete with the kind of product bundling Microsoft can get away with.

Re:The Microsoft Damage.

[prat393]

It's very interesting that as a consequence of Microsoft's domination of the market, people give you very weird looks when you tell them you don't use windows. Then they calm down, an idea hits them, and they ask, "Oh, so you use Mac, then?" The weird look, however, wrests itself upward from its grave where the pallbearers were finally resting with (they thought) the satisfaction of a job well done, and climbs back on to the poor user's face when you're forced to disillusion them.

Using something other than windows is almost a stigma in some circles (circles the average slashdotter has little contact with, and avoids as much as possible), and it's the fact that most people only know and (ha!) understand how to use one OS that leads to this sorry state of affairs. A consuming fear of new ideas leads to stagnation, not innovation, and this fear is exactly what the Microsoft monopoly has led us into.

Re:The Microsoft Damage.

[cmacb]

"I've contended for years that computing in general has been held back by Microsoft, not pushed forward, and this is an example of just how that has been the case."

Same here. Only now I find people don't argue with me so much. While Intel has done a credible job of advancing the hardware, they probably would have done more had they not relied on the nod-nod-wink-wink relationship with Microsoft.

The true agent of change is the hardware, and now software technology moving off-shore. Sadly, the cost of overcoming the Microsoft bottleneck will be America's loss of dominance in computing. Emerging economies have no desire to pay top dollar for a mediocre operating system, and with fabrication of hardware all going on elsewhere the PC is becoming close to a disposable device which means the OS needs to be that way too.

History will lay a large part of the blame at Bill Gate's feet. Having squandered our technology lead for his own personal gains and ego is a distinction he well deserves.

Re:The Microsoft Damage.

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Frustrated with PowerPoint? Try Apple's Keynote. It's everything PowerPoint should have been years ago, and then some. Smooth drop-shadows and alpha-blending of everything. High-quality 2-D and 3-D transitions. Photo cutouts. Integrated chart support.

All that, and it even imports and exports PowerPoint documents, so you don't have to start from scratch.

Yes, it only runs on Macs. But if you give presentations a lot, it's nearly worth getting yourself a Powerbook just for Keynote!

Re:The Microsoft Damage.

[danheskett]

Heck, even a minor hurdle like installation and configuration of Trumpet Winsock to get online would cut down the riffraff by at least two orders of magnitude.
Wow, you are a grade A prick. I tell you what, why not call up my parents and tell them they are "riffraff" and don't belong on the Internet.

In the end you'd be huriting yourself, and I'll tell you why:

Without the riffraff you hate:

You wouldn't be able to afford broadband Internet access, becase common DSL/Cable technology wouldn't be cost justifiable. Your only option would be costly ISDN or a fractional T1

All computer hardware would still be expensive, niche-ish, mostly proprietary and stagnant because of a lack of high-demand, high-profit incentives. Think IBM's MCA architecture as the baseline for what to expect from every manufacturer.

Thousands, if not millions of excellent paying, very rewarding positions in software development, hardware development, IT, and computer related industries would be no more. Entry level positions would be no more.

You and everyone else would still have to pay a graphic designer $100/hr to design a simple brouchure, business card, letterheard, or form. And don't forget expensive multi-color printing costs for virtually anything not able to be photographed.

Online multi-player gaming, high-quality games, and amazing simulations would be gone, thanks again to low demand and crazy high cost-per-unit ratios.

That's just a taste. To all the whiny "joe6pack" hating asshole nerds out there -- try to remember who subsidizes your low-cost, commodity hardware, low-latency high-speed connections, and increased social status. If Sun, or IBM, or other early players had their way the "average" PC would still cost $3500, require expensive manuals and training to operate, be based on closed proprietary hardware requiring expensive licensing to develop software or add-ons for and be out of the reach of the "joe6packs" out there.

Re:The Microsoft Damage.

[shaka]

What would a pocket pc look like in the early 90's ?

Perhaps like this: Psion PDAs from 1986-1999
Or like this: Apple Newton H1000 from 1993
Or like this: HP 95LX from 1991

How effective would it be ?

About as effective as today's PDAs, minus the audio/video stuff, and some glitz. Oh, and less space. But all the apps, calendar, calculator, memos, spreadsheets, and syncing. Sometimes Internet functionality to boot.

IMHO, it must have been limited on processor power and hardware more than the software.

IMNSHO, this is a typical statement of some self-proclaimed "geek" who has written, maybe, a web application in the early 00s. If you didn't use computers ten years ago, don't babble away about how ineffective they were back then. Mmmmmkay?

Re:The Microsoft Damage.

[Daengbo]

I want to debate your claim about unity, but first I'd like to say that if using a C64 was like driving a moped, then I don't want to know what you think my use of a Model I through to 1987 represents.
Anyway, I think this unity argument is just propoganda that we've heard for years coming to rest as truth. Really, before Windows, there were a multitude of DOS variants, operating as the launcher for programs written directly to the metal, for the most part. MS owned this one from early on with IBM, but DR-DOS might've had a chance. These were all effectively neutral as far as the program went.
Then we had the window managers which appeared on top of DOS. There were several, including the fledgling Windows, but I don't remember them, because my Model I had died, and I didn't own a non-DOS computer for several years after that. Anyway, MS didn't own that part for a long time, and programs were still pretty much DOS.
But no matter what, it wouldn't have stayed that way. Toolkits other than MS versions would have appeared. We could have seen DOS cores with competing window managers and toolkits, and things would look pretty much like they do now on Linux.
And, just like now, computer manufacturers would be integrating these components looking for consistent appearance and behavior, leading to standardized APIs, most likely.
So, I don't think that MS brought unity to the computer industry, because I think that it was an inevitable result of market pressure. MS was simply in the right place at the right time (because of their contracts with OEMs) and used the right (aggressive) business tactics to own the whole thing.
We can argue whether this is all true or not, and certainly whether the result under MS is better or worse than what I've laid out, but I do believe that, if MS had not taken the desktop, someone (probably several someones) would've done it in MS's place, and we'd have unity in the form of standard APIs.

Re:The Microsoft Damage.

[jimhill]

I may well be a grade A prick. Your doom and gloom scenario of what sorts of things we'd have to do without if not for the legions of clueless doesn't pain me too greatly, mostly because the loss of every item you listed wouldn't affect me a jot. However, that wasn't my point.

My point, such as it was, is this: The oblivious and the clueless are capable of causing (or being used to cause, same effect) great damage to the 'Net as a whole. Almost invariably, those people are using a Microsoft Windows product as the base of their computing experience.

In the US, just about everyone has a car. Even our poor people do. They are ubiquitous. That ubiquity has led to subsidies which lower the cost of vehicles, fuels, roads, and the like. And yet, we _still_ demand that people be licensed because if they get onto the public infrastructure without some basic skills they can cause enormous harm.

Granted, getting your box pwn3d because you think someone you've never heard of sent you a calculator attached to a message consisting of random nouns doesn't quite rank up there with driving an 88 Buick through a preschool playground, but it has a cost. The burden on the infrastructure thanks to Windows machine is estimated to be billions of dollars. Identity-theft stories frequently involve vulnerabilities in IE or IIS.

All I want is to see some basic skills. If you're the kind of person who clicks attachments from strangers then goddammit, you do not belong on the Internet with the rest of us. And yes, that extends even to your parents, who I am sure are delightful people and don't actually do that sort of thing because you know what you're about and they'd certainly listen to you.

If a company invented a circular saw that was so "intuitive" that no one read the user's manual, indeed no manual came with the saw, there'd be a lot of injury. And no one would applaud that company for bringing circular saws to the masses, or for leading to a price drop across the board on power tools.

Now I'm going to conclude with an admission that I've been awake for about 52 hours so if my initial message or this one are more incoherent than usual, it's not alcohol's fault.

Re:The Microsoft Damage.

[gui_tarzan2000]

I can't help but wonder why so many people think that Microsoft has been the driving force in computer innovation? Do you naysayers really think that Mirosoft has the only people in the world that can think up new things or advance technology? How bizzare. I would argue that people have always been the innovators, not companies. Since people make up the design teams it would make sense that no matter what company is in charge, innovators are everywhere. It's just a matter of whether or not Microsoft will let you bring your product to the market. If you have enough power to tell OEMs such as Dell, Compaq, etc. that they *will* only sell MS Windows on their systems you have the power to do just about anything including controlling the market, something Bill Gates excels at. I know that some companies like HP and IBM are now pushing Linux, but where have they been for the past 15 years?

For those of you who are too young to remember, Microsoft's marketing people destroyed the market for GeoWindows (a far better GUI), DRDOS, WordPerfect Suite, OS/2 and many other far superior packages by either buying them or forcing them out of business with whatever tactics they chose to use. My gut feeling is that threats were part of that equation but alas, I have no proof other than what people inside a couple of companies have told me.

There are resources on the 'net for a list of companies that Gates has purchase or "acquired" over the last 20 years and if you look at it closely, it's scary. I can't find the link, maybe someone else can.

Yes, I hate Microsoft and everything it stands for. For the past 15+ years I've watched them devour everyone around them save a few early pioneers. If IBM hadn't failed so miserably at marketing OS/2 I think we'd be using that instead. But I have to use Windows for my job, much as I hate to. I can't even use a Mac because the software I have to use won't run on it. Virtual PC used to be an option but M$ bought that too. Linux isn't ready yet. It's close, but not quite there. I actually prefer that but again, not enough software.

So until there are lots more packages that run on a web server that are easy to use, fast and reliable (and don't forget inexpensive) we're stuck.

Bill Gates has accomplished something no one else ever has, and most likely never will again. He controls (or is close to controlling) most of the world's technology from computers to broadband to automotive to cel phones and is only getting bigger and stronger. Until our government does something to stop Microsoft from some of its illegal activities and other companies are able to stand up to them with legitimate, cost effective programs and hardware it will continue. As long as Washington is run by corporations, that will not happen.

$1.5 billion.....

[phillk6751]

The new lawsuit, which contends that Microsoft overcharged Minnesota customers from 1994 to 2001, seeks almost $500 million from the company. If the company, based in Redmond, Wash., loses, it could also be forced to pay triple that amount under Minnesota state law.

Looks like if Microsoft looses this case a fine of $1.5B would be imposed....THIS is the case Microsoft should be worried about, not the one from EU. Or do they think they can get away with this lawsuit?

Re:$1.5 billion.....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, with more than $50 billion in the bank you shouldn't be to afraid. However you should be afraid if the reason for having this kind of money in the bank, that is, not giving information to your competitors about how servers and the desktops interact and bundling your own products with your operating system in order to force competitors out of the market, is attacked, as it is in the European Case.

Re:$1.5 billion.....

[James Durie]

The case in the EU isn't really about the money.
If the fine were the only issue microsoft would have paid it and said "sorry we wont do it again" before going off and doing it again.

The main issue in the EU case and the reason Microsoft is going to appeal it is control.

Making Microsoft remove media player (and who knows maybe others will happen later).
Making them provide *complete* specs such that other software companies can make totally compatible products.

Those are the real issues. Efforts to control microsofts future not make them pay for wrong-doings in the past.

The best thing that could come out of the EU case is the interoperability thing. Imagine if you could choose your html renderer and it slots itself into place so perfectly that anywher IE was used before your choice of renederer gets used now.

How about an NTFS implementation for Linux with complete read/write compatibility.

How about open office reading/writing all of Office's document formats perfectly.

That is what microsoft is scared of.

If only GO Penpoint software was open-sourced...

[toesate]

If GO Penpoint software was open-sourced 14 years ago... as an attempt to counter Windows H agression...

I wonder what would the landscape of mobile computing be like today?

Microsoft Crimes

[amigoro]

From Analysing of the NY Times article: a letter in which Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, the chief executive of Intel at the time, that any support given to the Go Corporation,would be considered an aggressive move against Microsoft.
If this is not anti-competitive, then what is?

Microsoft violated a signed secrecy agreement with Go and showed that Microsoft possessed technical documents from Go that it should not have had access to.
Industrial Espionage.

Microsoft violated nondisclosure agreements with Go, and then used that information to build PenWindows, a competitor to Go's PenPoint operating system.
GO has loyalty rights for PenWindows. GO should sue PenWindows licensee's individually. This is what Microsoft is trying to do to Linux users through SCO. GO has more legal grounds to stand on that SCO.

Shortly after the letter was written, Intel reduced its planned investment in Go from $10 million to $2 million
Intel was held to ransom, and they paid it.

The advice read in part that the focus should be shifted from "killing the competitor" to "providing a better solution to the customer's problems."
So they did believe in Killing Competition. A tiger never changes its stripes.

I think some of these allegations could ammount to criminal offences. I do hope Mr. Gates does a time in a cell with No Windows

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

A simple solution

[dodgyville]

Microsoft would not leak so many embarrassing documents if they never wrote anything down. But, I hear you say, surely people will just record what they say and leak the recordings. Well, not if they conduct all their business in mime. So that is my suggestion. Microsoft should do everything by mime.

-

Re:But...

[runderwo]

Attempting to gain a monopoly in a market is also an antitrust crime under the Sherman Act. Abusing a monopoly one has already gained is wholly separate from that.

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.

Re:slashbot

[LostCluster]

Companies are always free to develop their own embedded OS; some do. Back then the hardware wasn't available. So quit the microsoft bashing.

You seem to have forgoten what Wintel is...

OS writers are very much in a co-dependant relationship with the chip makers... the direction that the OS writers take their software and the direction the chip makers take their chips have to be in sync because one will not work without the other.

Thus, research into chip design was up until recently funneled towards keeping up with the Moore's Law pace of faster and faster clock speeds. Research into creating a chip that could run on low power just wasn't done because there wasn't much of a market for it.

In order to justify writing an OS for a handheld, you need to know what chip you're going to be running on. In order to build a chip geared for handheld use, you need to be sure somebody's actually going to make handhelds.... it's a classic catch 22, and Microsoft appears to have blocked the Go-Motorola partnership that would have made those advances a decade or so before they actually happened.

Go

[damian]

It is too bad that the Go Penpoint OS never made it. In my opinion it was a very nice system and well designed. The Apple Newton came close, but not quite.

I read the book "The Power of Penpoint"
by Robert Carr, Dan Shafer but never had one of their computers myself (they are pretty rare in Europe). I nearly bought one on ebay recently though.

Some images: http://www.ojisan.com/penpoint/index.shtml

How History Repeats Itself

[Crash Culligan]

It's over. The antitrust trial has gone by. A decision was made and we've stuck to it.

A decision was made, but a lot of people believe that decision was just so much tepid crap. Courts have been overturned in the past; perhaps if enough new evidence comes to light, the case can be reopened.

What now? does dragging this stuff up accomplishe anything more? It's just for microsoft bashing.

Yes, it does serve a purpose. It serves to dig up more facts and evidence should someone in the judiciary ever get wise and reevaluate that case.

Even if the trial never reopens, the Court of Public Opinion is always open. The more people learn what kinds of jiggery-pokery Microsoft has been up to, the more likely Microsoft will gets its just desserts sooner or later, and the less likely anyone else will ever pull such stunts again.

Honestly. I'm trying to figure out your attitude. "Microsoft did it, they got away with it, and that's good enough for me!" Are you always this doggedly complacent?

This whole story should be market -1 FLAMEBAIT

Need something burned down in a big hurry? Then come on down to the Flamebait Market, for all your pyromaniac needs!

Re:slashbot

[maxwell demon]

and Microsoft appears to have blocked the Go-Motorola partnership

Go-Motorola partnership? The article talks about an investment reduction from Intel. Given that Intel and Motorola are competitors, maybe Intel just didn't want to indirectly fund their own competitor?

Re:slashbot

[baldass_newbie]

Please explain how pocket, portable computing would have been possible even ten years ago.

What about the Newton, circa 1993?

Re:Andy Grove intimidation?

[tbdean]

For those of you wondering about the refernce:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-02 -23

Re:Great Friend...

[cmacb]

Well, I've tried telling my Windows support leaches that I don't remember much about Windows any more, but it doesn't seem to help. They go on and on anyway about all the things they have already tried and still they get this message on start-up that doesn't stay up long enough for them to read but tells them that something is missing.

I suppose I COULD give them outright bogus advice... "Try deleting some of your registry keys. Too many of those can cause problems like that." But then, that wouldn't be very nice would it? On the other hand, once their system was totally toast maybe they'd be more inclined to give a true manly operating system a try.

"Dat girly-man operating system should be a ting of de past" - Ahnuld

Not relevant...

[Coryoth]

From the article:

A Microsoft spokeswoman said that many of these newly disclosed documents were not relevant to the trial, which focuses on Microsoft pricing actions.

Oh, of course, sorry. Yes, these documents aren't relevant for the current trial, so we should just ignore them completely and pretend they don't exist.

"These are not the documents you are looking for..."

Jedidiah.

Re:slashbot

[pesc]

Please explain how pocket, portable computing would have been possible even ten years ago.

While Americans might think that Palm (or Apple/Newton) invented pocket computing, I suggest you take a look at Psion. This company made several successful pocket computers more than ten years ago. They released the Psio series 3 in 1991. In the later models they managed to include word-processors, spread-sheets, graphical software, games, web browsers, in a tiny ROM. The computers were truly innovative.

Sadly, they recently decided to get rid of their innovative technology (Symbian) and focus on WinCE devices instead. No more innovation from Psion. From the leading edge to a me-too M$ slave. :-(

Re:slashbot

[ahunter]

Not 75Mhz, but 30Mhz would have been easily possible: 10 years ago, the 30Mhz version of the ARM6/7 was available (and shipping in production hardware). Designed for low power consumption and low cost, not much different from the ARM processors we see in portable devices today, really. The Apple Newton was shipping too, and it had an operating system that would not have looked out of place in modern hardware. Plus the original Palm Pilot was shipping, and the OS there hasn't changed much in that time.

As the ARM was shipping in hardware in those days, a full set of support hardware and software was available, Digital was licensing the technology in order to develop the StrongARM (1995/6 for the 200Mhz version IIRC - got a Palm on my desk that's powered by one of those). ARM didn't have quite the same profile in embedded systems markets in those days, but they were well aware of the potential of their CPU: the ARM6 was the first CPU they specifically designed for embedded applications.

So no, the hardware was *NOT* the limiting factor. The main limiting factor was the will to make the devices, especially as the (ARM6 powered) Newton was not exactly setting the world on fire.

See Here for example, discussing the ARM6 core - in 1991!

I bet that calculator is powered by an ARM7/8. A direct descendant of a processor available in quantity 10 years ago, not that much faster, and it wasn't the only one around.

Re:slashbot

[Anonymous Coward]

UK company called Psion had portable computing, including word processing, scheduler, database and a programming language with a keyboard you could actually type on in the early 1990s (Psion3 in 1991). They used Flashdisks for portable storage and you could even get modems for them to fax with and, if you connected them to a PC/MAC there were printer drivers to allow the Psion to print and just use the PC as a spooler. I used to use terminal softwatre on my Amiga to communicate and I could swap files between the Psion and my Miggy

This device was pocket sized, heavy but not as bad as the Jornada 620/720 and used two "AA" batteries with a watch battery for backup.

History of Psion here
http://3lib.ukonline.co.uk/historyofpsion.ht m

Re:slashbot

[Xenna]

The current Palm-brain washed crowd seem to forget we had powerful PDA devices 10 years ago as well. In fact I bought an Intel 80186 based HP 100 LX palmtop 10 years ago that had all the power of an IBM PC + a bunch of very good PIM applications. Also don't forget the Psion devices that were very popular back then.

Palmtop history

I now own a Sony Clie TG50 but I must say its PIM features are still not quite as good as that old HP (BTW: I still have it and it *still* works for about two weeks on a pair of AA batteries).

Of course doing e-mail and browsing with it was a real pain but I remember plugging it in in a Tokyo phonebooth to mail home with Compuserve.

I got a 10MB PCMCIA flashcard (not compact!) for it that cost me $500.

Also I remember beta-testing a hotsync type of application for a company called Palm software. I've always wondered if they took that hotsync technology and went on to make the Palm devices...

Regards,
Xenna

Re:slashbot

[RedBear]

Please explain how pocket, portable computing would have been possible even ten years ago.

I'll tell you how it was possible. I used to own one. The Dauphin DTR-1. It wasn't exactly a pocket computer but it was a very small tablet with a pen-based version of Windows, which even included a nifty handwriting recognition system *gasp*. This was in ~1994, and I got it out of a discount catalog, so it must have been at least a year old at the time. I held it in my hands and got a lot of use out of it, so I'd say it was perfectly possible to have portable computing 10 years ago. Guess what, the software back then didn't need nearly as much power as it does now. Full size desktop computers at the time ran fine with a 486SX/33 and 4MB of RAM.

I really miss that old computer. Had a 486SLC and a 40MB hard drive. Not much but it ran Windows 3.1 just fine. That thing was so cool. Everyone who saw it loved it. And I've always wondered why I've never seen anything like it in the intervening years. Well, this article about Microsoft and Go pretty much explains it. After Go Corp. collapsed, Microsoft dropped the whole PenWindows and portable computing project. I can only imagine what neat things we could have seen if Microsoft hadn't interfered as usual.

Slashdot FUD, my ass. This is real damage to market innovation caused by a real monopoly. Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

GO

[marksilverman]

If you want the whole story of GO, read Startup: A Silicon Valley Adventure by Jerry Kaplan. It's a great book. And it shows just how evil Microsoft really is!

Lets wait for groklaw shall we?

[SmallFurryCreature]

As others have pointed out the journalist in question is not 100% reliable and I rather trust Groklaw. At least people there know law. If these documents are real it should be trivial to verify having been shown in a courtroom.

IF it is true then it just goes once again to show how fucking rotten the legal system is. Tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth eh? So will these be grounds for a new case? Wasn't Martha Stewart found guilty of lying to an officer instead of insider dealing? Can they get MS on withholding evidence? Perhaps even going after people who can be jailed? I personally don't believe for a second that this could be accidental (IF of course it is real)

Some posts seem to mention that attempting to create or abuse a monopoly is a felony. Doesn't this mean that MS is a criminal? So how exactly is it still allowed to do business as usual? Companies seem to want all the perks of being treated a real people but none of the bad stuff like oh say being punished for committing crimes.

Oh well at least we can snigger at all the microsoft apologist trying to wriggle out of this one. This must be one of their worst weeks. Embarrising papers, being fined and if you look at groklaw yet more hypocrasy by claiming that the EU has no right to tell it how to behave while MS itself is asking the EU to tell Lindows how to behave.

I almost pity the MS fans. Almost.

Re:slashbot

[SlashDread]

Typical MS FUD.

Please explain how YET ANOTHER example of MS using dubious business practices to stiffle competition is not hurting progress.

You alledge that it is not to blame MS for not being able to use AAA batteries 10 years ago, and you are right.

That is however not the issue.

The -issue- is how MS is illegaly extending its monopoly into other markets, and how this IS NOT promoting innovation, if only simply because if your new innovation gets eyeballed by MS, you basically lost.

remember drdos?
remember netscape?
remember stack?
remember Citrix?
remember real? Oh well Ill ask that one in two years.

So why start in the first place? THATS what software devolpers are thinking, and I alledge that this is the reason for the lack of innovation in the past 15 years.

I alledge this is another reason for the dotcom bubble burst. I alledge this is the reason for the general dubious image ICT now has world wide.

And I -know- it has cost many Office Automation specialists lots of lost happiness.

"/Dread"

Microsoft - Still as anti-competitive as ever...

[OwlWhacker]

"All of Microsoft's conduct was designed to acquire and hang on to their monopoly,'' said Eugene Crew, a lawyer at Townsend, Townsend & Crew, based in San Francisco.

Many companies would desire to maintain a monopoly. The problem here is that after so many years of knowing that Microsoft has this attitude, nobody has done anything effective to stop it.

People can complain about the EU being anti-American in its anti-trust case, but personally I feel that the US should have imposed far more restrictions on Microsoft than it has thus far. Microsoft continually gets away with anti-competitive practices, everybody knows this - although some Microsoft apologists vehemently deny/excuse it.

"Consumers were harmed by being deprived of choice. The greatest harm out of the Go story was the suppression of innovation and new technology by Microsoft."

The extent of consumer harm can't really be known. People seem to be relatively happy with Windows. Then again, people just accepted that computers needed regular rebooting after running Windows 95, it just goes to show how most people just accept things without question. I guess we'll never know how far things could have progressed if it wasn't for Microsoft preventing competition by abusing its position.

Consumers are harmed, so are competing businesses.

Look how things are flying now because Microsoft has a bit of competition from Linux/Open Source. Of course, Microsoft can say, "Hey, we're doing this because we love you all, not because we're scared of Linux", but why does Microsoft care now when it obviously didn't give a damn for years (judging by the poor quality of Windows up until now)? If there's no competition then you work at your own pace, and as long as it appears that there's progress, people seem to be satisfied.

Re:good morning slashdot!!

[goatan]

I'd love to see a large company not go down in flames, we certainly don't need to see MIcrosoft need to lay off anybody, the tech sector is suffering enough.

Perhaps if companys where less like Microsoft and Enron Etc. and the senior managers actually punished when do act like that then you wouldn't see so many go down in flames.

Re:slashbot

[Dashing Leech]

So quit the microsoft bashing.

An odd statement to make given that the main article is about proof of anti-competitive and illegal activities of Microsoft, not to mention their recent European fines for similar activities.

What exactly does Microsoft have to do wrong before you'll consider "Microsoft bashing" reasonable. Perhaps if they clubbed some baby seals?

A desensitized public?

[thodu]

At times I wonder if people have become so desensitized to people in positions of power lying to them that they no longer care. People have to accept wrong behaviour from politicians, businessmen, the media and everybody else. It does not matter if George Bush lies, or Bill Gates bullies his way through or Wall Street analysts pump up a stock - this type of behaviour does not shock or surprise - it is expected of them.

Re:A desensitized public?

[The Queen]

We (the public) may be a little numb, but it still hurts us.

I would argue that you overestimate the majority, and underestimate the minority. I think most sheeple still do look up to Bush, and simply assume that America MUST be right to do what it's doing, because well, we're America. (Look at all the US flag stickers on all the cars around you...) But I think those of the public who are still thinking, reading, researching and really paying attention are hurt WAY more than any numbness could negate.

I do, however, agree about the role models. I have no doubt that there is a Benjamin Franklin, a Jimmy Hendrix, and a Marie Curie among us, but the climate is very inhospitable to them right now. It's impossible to rise to any sort of power or recognition unless the government tells the media conglomerates to LET you (for whatever reasons they have). Real radical thinkers and revolutionaries are in hibernation, and all we have to look up to are basketball rapists and Vin freaking Diesel.

I think I feel my breakfast coming back up...

Psion Lives on in Symbian

[SenseiLeNoir]

Their innovation continues to exist in Symbian Devices.

I own a SonyEricsson P800 UIQ based Mobile Phone. Based on the Symbian 7.0 platform, you can still see the Psion/Epoc influence underneath.

The result, a sold stable computing platform, which arguebly crashes FAR less than equivelent MS Smartphones. (this is from personal experience amongst me and my collegues)

A MultiTasking/Multithreading operating system that is easy enough to use (MAC/Palm style), yet DOES allow you access the filesystem (C drive, ddrive, etc), and other system details via freely downloadable software shoudl you wish to tinker.

Its Handwritign recognition is exemplar, and far better and more "user friendly" than Palm's old Graffiti system which was very good for what it was.

I use it as an Ogg player (who needs an MP3 player, its sound quality is excellent), a PDA (it synchs with Outlook contacts/mail/tasks/diary/notes, and has dynamic contact spaces (it dynamically adds new fields even when they are not provided in the main set of fields, try that with palm its its infuriating 5 max fields for numbers/fax/email/web and one address field)

For those not wishing to submit to Outlook, it also has excellent vCard and SyncML support. You can back up the contacts by selecting "send all" and pointign the Infrared or bluetooth at any computer (Win/Mac/Linux) and selecting send. it will create a standard vCard file with all contact details stored in it. and to send it back to the phone, just send the single file. Even outlook on the PC cannot handle a vCard with numerous contacts so simply and elegantly, heaven help Mobile Outlook users!

it is simply the best PDA i have ever had, and does follow to some extent Jerry Kaplan's original vision...

Oh and i forgot to mention, its a damn good phone too! :)

Re:microsoft abuses power

[Alsee]

what monopoly?

Legally Microsoft is a Monopoly. Microsoft was shown in court to control nearly 100% of it's market. Obviously a single person running a different OS does not alter the fact that Microsoft has monopoloy power. Even 5% of people using non-Microsoft not enough to signifigantly diminish that monopoly power.

Monopoly is not defined as absolute 100% perfection. It is (roughly) defined as an overwhelming dominance and control of the relevant market.

Microsoft was further shown to have (1) illegally abused that monopoly power to maintain their monopoly, and (2) to have illegally abused that monopoly power in an attempt to extend their monopoly into other markets (and thus exterminating competitors and competition in those markets).

Examples from the court case include Microsoft abusing it's Monopoly power to force all major computer sellers to sign contracts forbiding them from selling dual-boot machines. Computer sellers could have included Window/Linux dual boot option at essentially zero additional cost (or Windows/OS2 dual boot at merely the cost of an OS2 licence). The public would have greatly benefited from a completely FREE additional Linux system on their machine, and from the option for a low-cost OS2 (or other) second boot option. Illegally maintaing a Monopoly.

Micrsoft further worded that contract such that the seller had to pay Microsoft for EVERY machine they sold. If they offered a system without an OS, or with Linux, or with OS2, they STILL had to pay Microsoft for that machine. That has the twin effects of increasing the cost to the consumer to buy a Linux or OS2 machine, and it allows Microsoft to effectly collect a tax on its competitors products. Illegally maintaining a monopoly.

Microsoft also illegally leveraged it's OS monopoly in an attempt to create a new monopoly for itself in the web browser market. InternetExplorer has obtained a somewhat overwhelming dominance, but that doesn't matter. Even if InternetExplorer failed and had merely 1% of the market, the tactics they used in the attempt were themselves illegal. Illegally attempting to abuse a monopoly to create a monopoly in another market.

-

Re:Microsoft might stolen IP

[phillymjs]

You should read the books mentioned at the end of the article to see just how blatant it was. Microsoft sent people to a PenPoint demo given for the Boston Computer Society. They brought a video camera and taped the presentation and analyzed it when they got back to Redmond. Anytime a PenPoint feature drew a positive crowd reaction, that feature was on the 'must add' list for Pen Windows.

Yes, the argument can be made that it was dumb to allow anyone to bring a video camera into that presentation, but still-- this is complete and total thievery, perpetrated by Microsoft. I got angry just reading about it, more than a decade after the fact. Go had some neat stuff back in 1989-- I can only imagine how technological advances between then and how would have improved their product, had Microsoft allowed the company to exist.

In this day and age, I don't see how any company with a promising new product doesn't take great pains to hide the thing's existence from Microsoft to keep from getting ripped off. After all these years it's clear they had and still have absolutely no shame about it.

~Philly

Re:Media BS

[Brataccas]

Um, can someone explain to me exactly why this "comment" is marked as Interesting? This story has been carried all over the place - far in advance of the NYT article - and it is based on court submitted evidence, some of which is already available on the court's website.

And how do you sell your soul to a book? That just has some mightily amusing implications depending on one's literary choices...

Re:Funny, they needn't have bothered.

[phillymjs]

In 1991, the hardware for portable computing just wasn't there. It.. just... WASN'T. I mean, where did PenWindows go? Yep, right into the dumpster.

Here's a loose quote (I don't remember it exactly) from Marlin Eller's book referenced at the end of the article: "This wasn't about 'grow the market,' it was about 'block that kick.' Go Corp spent $(millions) creating their product, we spent $4 million shooting them down. They'll never sell their shit again." That's not the exact quote, but it's pretty close. I remember it so clearly because I was completely shocked to read such a thing.

IIRC, this was said in response to Eller expressing his opinion that Pen Windows was a failure because it didn't take off, and the person who spoke the words above explained that Pen Windows was a success because all it was supposed to do was cock-block Go Corp from building a presence in the market.

~Philly

Re:Newsflash!

[RetiredMidn]

Newsflash, they have made a lot of mistakes and set the tech industry back quite a ways by destroying innovation with subpar crap, but they also did a great deal to advance us.

Sigh. The whole point here is that they destroyed innovation by wielding their influence as a major player in the industry to starve potentially competitive emerging technologies of support by threatening companies (like Intel in this case) that were otherwise inclined to support it.

You can't "destroy innovation with subpar crap." You can certainly flood the market with crap, but that has relatively little effect on someone else's ability to create something better. Market dominance can certainly make it more difficult for someone to overtake you, but it's not impossible.

The point many of us make is that Microsoft has, in fact, done relatively little to "advance us." (Exactly what has it done, by the way?) Instead, it has abused its relationships with other companies to obfuscate and intimidate, stifling emerging technologies until they (MSFT) can move into the space. Every time it is successful at this, it gains even more power to throw around the next time.

Take a closer look at Go. They chose to build a new platform in part because they judged that they could create a more effective pen-based experience by starting from scratch around a new design center. Rather than tolerate an emerging new platform, Microsoft intimidated potential partners and, according to the emerging evidence, made and violated agreements with Go to take their ideas for Pen Windows. Now, years later, people will point to pen computing as one of the many things Microsoft supposedly did "to advance us."

Microsoft created nothing here; they just bullied and destroyed.

The big fakers

[Udo Schmitz]

From Article:

Two years later, Marlin Eller, a former Microsoft programmer who was part of the PenWindows project, wrote in "Barbarians Led by Bill Gates" (Owl Books) that the intent of the PenWindows project had been primarily to undermine Go.

In the same book he describes how they put together a presentation for their PenWindows for a computer fair (Comdex?) to show that they could do the same stuff as Go. When in fact they had absolutely nothing. It was all smoke and mirrors.

I always remember that story when watching another cool Longhorn presentation. And I wish others would too, especially journalists ...

This is business

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Yes, this is business. Not to be confused with highway robbery.

Business: Microsoft was supposed to build their own competing product, follow all legal and ethical guidelines, and fairly compete with Go. Hopefully if they both have good business plans and a good product, they both make a profit. The good natured rivalry between the two causes each to put for their best effort to make their product better. Their customers have a choice of who to give their money to, and high quality products from which to choose from. Everyone benefits.

Highway-robbery: Microsoft violated a non-disclosure agreement (a contract). They took Go's technology and used it to compete with Go. They used their monopoly and bullying tactics to try to frighten investors away from Go. Regardless of the fate of the Newton, this was breach of contract, and potentially a violation of antitrust laws (IANAL). In short, Microsoft's actions were unethical, and possibly illegal.

Btw, Apple canceled the Newton in order to streamline their product line so they could concentrate on OS X (and staying afloat). The Newton still has users today.

"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)