Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bartle Addresses Pitfalls Of Virtual Property

Posted by simoniker on from the that-darn-property-market dept.

Thanks to GameSpot for its 'Spot On' feature discussing some of the problems inherent in today's MMORPG property-owning systems. It references a paper [PDF link] written by original MUD co-creator Richard Bartle, which "addresses some of the trickier, if not darker, sides of virtual-property ownership." The basic premise of the argument is that "increase in commodification, gamers and the industry... are fast moving toward a breaking point that will likely involve the real-world legal system to sort out the conflicts", citing recent Chinese lawsuits about the loss of virtual items. Bartle concludes, gloomily: "Professors at Yale and Harvard looking into cyber-law, as they call it, are prepared. Unfortunately, they aren't the people who will be approached. The people who will be approached will be the judge... someplace that's never heard of virtual worlds. Working with the unknown, while perhaps exciting for those who enjoy gambling, is nevertheless on the whole bad for business."

32 comments

  1. IANAL , but I would believe .... by Pengo · · Score: 1


    By clicking the eula they just need to disclaim yourself as the 'owner' of the virtual property and indemnify anyone from suing, etc. that they hold all rights, etc.

    1. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by Romothecus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is an incredibly over-simplified analysis of the situation. The fact is that the basic premise of property ownership rights (which are supposed endowed by the Creator according to American legal thought, or, in other words, inalienable) is that you are entitled to that which you acquire or create throw your own effort ("sweat of the brow," or, in this case, the mouse finger.) Some would argue that you are merely manipulating 1's and 0's on the server, which the game company clearly owns or pays for. However, it seems equally clear that you are responsible for the unique configuration of 1's and 0's which you arranged through your gameplay. You can no more "disclaim" your right to own property than you can "disclaim" your right to be alive. Of course the EULA is an all-encompasing document, since it's akin to the corporation's opening position on the issue - their opening position in any kind of legal negotiation. They will, of course, take the strongest position possible. This does not mean that it is air-tight.

    2. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by DeadboltX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Joe Schmoe works at Pizza Hut, he makes pizzas. Joe Schmoe does not own the pizzas he makes, Pizza Hut does, until someone pays for it, transfering ownership.

      If you expend your own efforts and make something with SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY then the end product does not magically become yours.

      If you "make" something in an online world out of "online world property" (read: a bunch of 1's and 0's on the server the company owns) Then you don't own shit unless the company transfers ownership to you.

    3. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent down. This is an incredibly oversimplified set of assumptions. If you change a copyrighted work, you have created a derivative work, but it does not necessarily belong to the original copyright owner, or to you.

    4. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by servognome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can no more "disclaim" your right to own property than you can "disclaim" your right to be alive
      There is precidence to signing away your rights to intellectual property that you create.
      When you work for a company in an engineering/scientist capacity, you typically sign paperwork stating that all inventions, ideas, derived from your work is the property of the company. Also, work for hire situations typically have you sign away rights to the property before you have created it.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    5. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      The difference- Joe Shmoe is an AGENT of pizza hut. He's an employee. An MMO comnpany is not paying me to play the game, in fact its the opposite. SO my character and all its gear should be mine

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    6. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by RexxFiend · · Score: 1

      >Mod parent down.
      >This is an incredibly oversimplified set of assumptions.
      >If you change a copyrighted work, you have created a derivative work, but it does not necessarily belong to the original copyright owner, or to you.

      I'm risking an offtopic here but I just had to respond to this.
      This is an abuse of the mod system and if I ever see anyone doing this in M2 I mark it as unfair. If you don't agree, respond, don't just mod the comment out of existence, tell us why it is wrong!

      Add to the discussion, don't just censor the things you don't like!

      Back on topic, as other people have pointed out, the difference is that pizza hut are paying someone for their labour. In a game you are paying someone to use their resources to build something - I think we all agree that you own what you have created, the question is whether you can transfer that ownership.

      --

      A crash reduces
      Your expensive computer
      to a simple stone.
    7. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by Allaran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think I have to disagree here. It seems that the ownership has to remain with the company in the case of MMO's. They make this clear in their EULA's.

      If the user 'owns' the item, that means the company would be liable for the 'cost' thereof if the item were lost due to a system crash, terrorist attack, whatever. Granted they should have backups of everything, but they should not legally be required to make backups.

      If it comes to a legal battle, then the game should never officially go out of beta. Clearly, if I were a 'paying tester' (and don't tell me people wouldn't be willing to pay to be a beta tester...see World of Warcraft), the company could do a system reset (oops! Everyone's back at level one!). Response: "Sorry people, we're still in the testing phase you know." Might lose a lot of players that way, but at least they won't be sued if someone loses their Hackmaster +12 which EBay bidders had decided was worth US$200.

      As for the fact that you are paying to play rather than the company paying you, that's exactly the point. You are paying to 'PLAY', not to earn a living. If you decide to try to earn a living, that's your call and your risk. In the meantime, you are paying the company for the privilege to PLAY the game, and keep your stuff around so you can continue to play in the future, but they don't keep it around because they are obligated to by law. They keep it around because otherwise they would quickly lose their player base.

      Now, for the real discussion, consider 'Second Life', where their whole system is built around the agreement that the users DO own what they create. Now, there's potential for legal disaster!

    8. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by mutewinter · · Score: 1

      Second Life is more like a webhost, where as a MMORPG is like going to the carnival. The pricing structure for Second Life is totally different, you pay by the amount of space you have to build on.

      The law could easily play on both sides here. EULA says you can't sell on eBay, you did, now you get fined for braking the EULA. Or the law could toss out the EULA and say you do own the stuff. Quite frankly I don't think this is an issue worth using the court system or tax paying money on. We all know how the internet works. There is always a loophole. Let these for profit game businesses run the game how they like. If they screw it up -- people leave. They can choose to ban people who sell on ebay, or just ignore it. They can go after emulated servers, or they can leave them.

      The system is certainly far from perfect. I remember the first days and months UO was released. All the bugs scared me away until several years later. Lineage currently has a huge problem with harvesting from what I understand. It looks like a great MMORPG, but I'll be staying away from that too for a while.

      MMORPG are around to make money. If someone spends 40 hours a week playing Everquest, they've got issues. I don't believe that the law should either hinder or allow selling virtual items.

      When I run a business I make damn sure that I'm not signing away my rights to a partner or to another company. Webhost wants to own the copyright to my work? Sorry. Maybe they pull some B.S. like certain companys have in switching the EULA without giving me proper notification. If it happens to negatively affect my businesses in a way which I find is worth the legal fees -- then I can sue them. If you want to sue Sony because they deleted you level 50 whatever, then so be it. Maybe you'll win, maybe you'll loose, but your pocket is going to feel quite a bit emptier.

      And as I said before, we know there are loopholes -- especially with the internet. Gambling sites banned in the U.S., then they flourish on some tropical island along with their owner. Too much of a pain to host a MMORPG in the U.S., then they are going to move to another country.

      For reference I have mirrored this post here

    9. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      The problem is customers are co-creators of their character, due to the time they put in, and the money they pay.

      A better licencese is needed, where both parties can agree to what is "fair"

      Peace
      --
      "Ideas are dime a dozen. Good ones are a little rarer.
      But the Great ones are ones that were acted upon, proving them Great.
      Don't worry about the guy who never makes any mistakes, he's never done anything."
      - Michaelangelo

    10. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      And as I said before, we know there are loopholes -- especially with the internet. Gambling sites banned in the U.S., then they flourish on some tropical island along with their owner. Too much of a pain to host a MMORPG in the U.S., then they are going to move to another country.

      I wonder what percentage of MMORPGS played are sold via retail stores or mail-order (as opposed to just being downloaded)? (I would guess that it's a pretty high number.)

      Because if a game that runs afoul of U.S. laws is hosted offshore, anyone who manufactures or sells the game package within the U.S. may still be liable to legal challenges. How much business would they lose by having to switch to a download-only distribution model?

    11. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by mutewinter · · Score: 1

      The purpose of being based outside of the US is not to avoid US laws but not to be under their jurisdiction. Major US corporations do this to avoid taxes. Sometimes they lean to far on the edge of the grey area and get in trouble.

    12. Re:IANAL , but I would believe .... by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      The purpose of being based outside of the US is not to avoid US laws but not to be under their jurisdiction.

      I fail to see the difference between these two terms. Can you please enlighten me? Being unders someone's jurisdiction means Being subject to their laws. Gambling web sites go off-shore, precisely because U.S. law makes running such sites illegal.

      If such a company were located in the Grand Caymans, but running off a web hosting service in Texas, you can bet that the Texas webmaster would be in serious hot water.

  2. It's all about the vigilante justice by nadadogg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A friend of mine had played EQ for several years, when his account got hacked. He found out that it was a real-life "friend" who did it, and he tracked him down and beat his ass, the way it should be. I know if I ever got a bug up my ass and blew $500 on virtual equipment and got scammed, I'd be making a road trip to beat some dweebs down

    --
    i use linux and windows oh god how can i have an opinion
    1. Re:It's all about the vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is this modded troll? it has bearing on the subject matter.

  3. Assumptions re: judges by mbstone · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't assume your local judge has never heard of MMORPGs. Why do you think they have laptops on the bench? Answer: Most trials are really boring.

  4. I wonder by PktLoss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder why the MMO's don't spin off a virtual items divison, or at least an escrow. If the MMO was in charge of selling items revoked payments could have the affected items nullified. They could take the same % as paypal, and make a decent profit since they have most of the infastructure already. Users who wish to take part end up with a far more secure system.

    Getting your ass kicked by some guy who just paid for a level whatever kickass barbarian may suck. But getting your ass kicked by someone who just didn't pay for a level whatever kickass barbarian sucks even more.

    --
    paul reinheimer
    1. Re:I wonder by servognome · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its a dangerous legal road for the game company to involve itself directly with exchanging real money for virtual items.
      What happens when somebody claims their "uber sword of chopping" disappeared due to a bug? Does the game company have the manpower to investigate all the lost or claimed lost possessions for 200,000 subscribers? Right now the game company can say tough luck, but once they admit there is real value its a much tougher legal arguement.
      You can also have situations where people sue due to devaluation of their property. Imagine they nerf your "uber axe," or make it easier to acquire and now people will only pay $5 instead of $200. You now open yourself up to legal action.
      There a number of other situations like server crashes, hacked characters, or duping, that would have much more legal implications once the company releases their complete ownership over all properties and enters into "contracts" by selling or supporting the sale of the property.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  5. Just Say No by vga_init · · Score: 3, Interesting
    No matter how tempting it is, I think that it would be in the best interests of everyone involved to denounce the mere notion of enforced "virtual property" rights.

    The significance that virtual objects hold are purely social, and, due to the fact that they do not actually exist, they serve no other function than be a drain on the economy. Without any physical form or function, a virtual object--some thing purely imaginary--cannot be made useful for directly (ie in a non-social way) aiding means and satisfying ends that might result in real human productivity and sustenance.

    It is easy to get caught up in materialism, and, while anyone can admit the evils of materialism while not necessarily being inclined to forgo it, one can see clearly that whatever functional benefits that materialism might also provide are completely removed when the attitude is applied towards an object that is inherently immaterial.

    In the case of games (which this post mainly refers to), we can agree that games serve no purpose other than to entertain us. Entertainment is only good for the moment; a game is entertaining while you are playing it, and it is therefore counterintuitive to place value on objects "held" in the game that would lose value outside of play (unless you are experiencing loss of sanity). While one might argue that the objects might enhance gameplay and pleasure derived from it, this can only be carried so far; being an experienced gamer myself, it is a long-proven fact that having more goodies in the game does not truly make it more fun to play. If these objects give the player a competetitive edge, they even decrease the value of gameplay (unless one is willing to derive pleasure solely from dominating social interaction--ie "owning" other people).

    In summary, "so what"? You wasted time and money engaging in an activity designed to motivate others to waste more of their time and money in order to show you up in a market-stimulated contest to waste more time and money than anyone else (and therefore be the king of wasting time and money). Wasting on what? Oh--nothing. But it was fun, wasn't it? Wasn't it?

    No, this behavior doesn't need to be insured, rewarded, or compensated in any way by the state. Am I saying that it's wrong or counterproductive? Not necessarily--I would not be so quick to deny that there are no possible real benefits, but in the end the affair is so trifling that it does not warrant the expenditure of more resources in order to be actively preserved by authoritative social institutions (ie the government). That would be counterproductive.

    The best policy a government can adopt is no policy; the whole issue needs to be ignored. It is no place for the government to manage this sort of thing (and, being a bit of a leftist, I have a more liberal opinion on what government ought to manage). Whoever provides the virtual world makes the laws in it, and the management of virtual objects falls under their jurisdiction. If you get screwed, so be it--go cry. Just don't ask for society to make any adjustments on your behalf because you lost what meager virtual reward you got from expending resources engaging in virtual activity in a virtual world.

    Yes, I know what it's like to lose something that I devoted a lot of time and effort to. It hurts a lot, but we have to be more discerning about what we devote ourselves to.

    1. Re:Just Say No by Anonymous+Daredevil · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "The significance that virtual objects hold are purely social, and, due to the fact that they do not actually exist, they serve no other function than be a drain on the economy."


      The very same could be said of digital photography, or website design, or 3D computer models, or anything digital. Does a digital photograph have any significance other than social? Well you can make a living from photography, but not from games you might be thinking ... but you'd be wrong.

      In games like Second Life you are allowed to create your own items, houses, clothes, vehicles, etc... These creations are no different than the models created by a 3D artist in 3D Studio Max save for the level of detail. You can, and are encouraged to, sell these for either real world cash or in game cash. This is no different than a freelance artist creating art assets and selling them to game companies for use in their games.

      The line is not so clear cut between games and reality. And the line will get blurred further as games allow you more freedom to create and express.
    2. Re:Just Say No by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      However, a normal person needs time to acquire those items and under law time is valuable. If you ruin ANYTHING that another person spent time on you cause damage equal to the time the person spent. If you crash a server you cause at least as much damage as it costs to send the techie over there and reboot it, probably more (loss of customers, loss of data, etc). That's the whole basis of anti-hacking laws.
      On the other hand I too think it's pointless to involve the court system (and cause damage to the state equal to the time used) to resolve a dispute in a game. That's the job of the referee.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Just Say No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter how tempting it is, I think that it would be in the best interests of everyone involved to denounce the mere notion of enforced "virtual property" rights.

      When I first encountered this virtual property idea on the mud-dev list I spoke against it but didn't go on too long thinking it would go away. But perhaps you're right and denouncing the idea more vigorously is required.

      I think the entire concept comes from an ignorance of Contract Law, which is quite sufficient to deal with the perceived problems. Everything a player can do in a game is governed by the terms of the EULA. Just because you put time and effort into 'improving' something the EULA controls doesn't give you any rights. All you did was play the game as designed with the licensor's stuff.

      If I let you in my sand box and you create the Taj Mahal, its still my Taj Mahal and I can destroy it, change it, sell it, remove it, or sell tickets.

      IAAL.

  6. I lease a plot from a landlord... by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    ... and grow some veggies on that. I pay the landlord either a percentage of my crop or a fixed sum and the resulting crop is all mine, my property, for sale or consumption.

    Work for hire is one thing (Joe Schmoe was hired by the pizza place to make pizzas), renting some other's property for your production is entirely different.

    I believe the real question is if the game server space/cycles is "rented" or not, most probably the EULA contains some language to say that "We are free to dissolve this relationship at any time".

    But, again, IANAL. ;-)

    Paul B.

  7. Not that I disagree with your position, BUT: by PaulBu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The significance that virtual objects hold are purely social...

    One can make the same argument about art, fancy clothing and diamonds, to name a few. Taken to the limit, everything which can not be bartered for the consumable necessities is "purely social".

    Paul B.

    P.S. No, I've never played MMORPGs (maybe I should start? ;-) ) but I've never traded for cash anything but the ones and zeroes drawn by my mouse/clicked by my fingers either. Just felt like participating in a good innocent argument here, after a couple of Gunesses! ;-)

    1. Re:Not that I disagree with your position, BUT: by vga_init · · Score: 1
      That is a good question! I shall try to answer i to the best of my ability.

      Diamonds actually do have practical uses; you can cut other diamonds with them. ;) In all seriousness, though, the things have interesting properties. However, you are right in that we put high value on them initially because we just liked them; they are pretty, shiny, and amusing to look at. Diamonds, however, are difficult to come by; a lot of labor is expended in finding and extracting them, among other things, and that labor needs to be compensated in some way. We cannot simply wave our hands and magically fabricate diamonds--such is the nature of virtual objects. Anyone with administrative power could theoretically go into the system and change whatever he or she likes. Unfortunately, we are not Gods in this universe (not be default).

      Fancy clothing might help protect us from the elements or save us from acting on baser instincts, but the "fancy" stuff serves less of a purpose. More labor is wasted here than is necessary, and I don't particularly care for that market. To some extent, the "fancy" factor may be considered "purely social."

      Art is another thing--true enough, it's significance only exists in our minds. I can be more easily reproducable at times, though art must be treated differently because I pesonally believe that it serves to activate a broader range of response than mere entertainment, and it surely plays a productive role in society.

      To make my evaluation of the situation more easily understood, I will draw up an anology: suppose two children with good imaginations have their own role-playing game in the yard. After a long, devoted, and comically strict game of make-believe, the two children come upon an event where one steals the other's "magic staff". There is no real staff, however, but, due to the rigidity of the game, the boy is unable to fabricate a new one for himself, and is crushed after having to go through a lengthy process to have attained it in the first place. Running to his mother in tears, the little boy begs her to make the other child give him his "magic staff" back. The mother, however, is in the middle of engaging in an important activity that will ultimately determine the financial status of her family, and, regretfully, she chooses not to aide her son. Had she even attempted to coerce the other boy into bending the rules, he might refuse, causing her to really be wasting her time should she choose to engage in an imaginary power struggle regarding parameters of a child's game.

      While this drama is playing out, it is easy to see how silly and melodramatic the boy's behavior to us. The mother means well, and wishes to comfort him, but it is shameful of him to put this issue upon her, placing aditional strain on a mechanism that is working to support him in other, more important ways.

    2. Re:Not that I disagree with your position, BUT: by PaulBu · · Score: 1

      Well, you sure do like long postings! ;-)

      let me answer just some points though...

      Diamonds actually do have practical uses; you can cut other diamonds with them. ;) No, you can not, but you can cut glass ;-), which brings us to the next point.

      We cannot simply wave our hands and magically fabricate diamonds Sure we can! Especially those which can cut glass and other substances, but also ones which decorate a nice girl, see, e.g., here
      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0 4/02/1 4/2040207&mode=thread&tid=134
      and here http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/1 2/2112237&mode=thread&tid=126

      And one can argue that someone who plays the game for the living hoping to sell his hard-earned "goods" for real cash can be working hard as well! ;-)

      Anyone with administrative power could theoretically go into the system and change whatever he or she likes. Federal Reserve and The Mint, maybe?

      Fancy clothing might help protect us from the elements or save us from acting on baser instincts, but the "fancy" stuff serves less of a purpose. Here, "clothing" protects, but the "fancy" part serves more to actually provoke us to acting on our instincts!

      And speaking of your "children", the situation might be a bit different in the virtual good's exchange situation: the real money (which could be used to buy food/clothing/shelter, etc.) have changed hands. If the agreement between the kids was that "You give me $1.50 for the magic stuff (so that I can go get myself an icecream)" and another kid take the "stuff" and does not give $1.50 back, one might argue that morally it is the same as robbing the first one and deserves some intervention by the parents.

      Anyway, somehow I feel that I am feeding a (admittedly, nice and long) troll, but anyway! ;-)

      Paul B.

  8. Time = Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that virtual property should not have the same status as real property, but I believe that people should have the right to contract out their time and/or skills in playing the game. As much as I hate eBayerz, people should be able to sell their time to "powerlevel" somebody, or to help acquire an item, and even sell accounts.
    Lets say I am going out of town, and I offer my buddy a case of beer to play my character so I don't miss any raids. I am exchanging something in the real world to compensate my friend for spending his real world time in a virtual world. That isn't much different than buying items off of ebay, your virtual character was enhanced (got xp, items, etc) because you purchased a service. There was no property purchased, only a service provided.
    Selling characters on ebay is nothing more than a transfer of license. When I purchase software at the store and pay my monthly fee, I am granted a license to play a game. IANAL, but I should be able when I'm tired of the game to sell that license to somebody else, just like all the other software that's out there. Since the software is unusable without an account, and to setup the account you link it to the CDs through the copy protection number (so no other accounts can use the same CDs), the unfortunate side effect is that account has to be transferred as well.
    I hate ebayers same as everybody, but I do not want to give ammunition to the companies to be able to keep erroding my licensing rights, and possibly use that to attack the used video games market.

  9. Terranova Blog by LondonLawyer · · Score: 1

    In case you are not already aware of it, there is a dedicated collaborative blog on Virtual Worlds to which Bartle is a regular contributor:

    http://terranova.blogs.com

    Very interesting reading!

  10. They do far worse than playing MMOG's ! by LordPixie · · Score: 1

    If only this guy had a laptop. EQ would have been a minor infraction compared to his chosen alternative.

    Long live the US Justice system !


    --LordPixie

  11. How justice works by iridium_ionizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The people who will be approached will be the judge... someplace that's never heard of virtual worlds." Even if the judge doesn't know much about virtual worlds. There are these people called ...um, lawyers who present the case. They explain their arguments and present evidence. Yeah, judges don't generally issue opinions based on whim anymore.

  12. Roofley rolloffle that's really funny ha ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GNAA / Google confirms: Linux is dying.
    By GNAA Staff

    Here you have it: it's official; Google confirms: Desktop Linux is dying.

    Now, you might be thinking this is just another cut & paste troll based on the typical *BSD is dying bullshit.
    It isn't.
    As you might have know, your favorite search engine, Google, has been running a little statistics service, called "Zeitgeist".
    Since about a year ago, they started providing statistics of the operating systems used to access their search engine worldwide.
    I will let the numbers speak for themselves:

    Operating Systems Accessing Google in January 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in March 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in April 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in May 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in June 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in July 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in August 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in September 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in November 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in December 2002
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in January 2003
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in February 2003
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in April 2003
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in May 2003
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in June 2003
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in July 2003
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in August 2003
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in September 2003
    Operating Systems Accessing Google in November 2003

    If you've looked at even a few of these links, you don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Desktop Linux's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Desktop Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Linux on Desktop because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Linux on Desktop. As many of us are already aware, Linux on Desktop continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    According to Google Zeitgeist, there are about 80% of Internet Explorer 6 users. The only platform supporting Internet Explorer 6 is, of course, Microsoft Windows. These statistics are consistent with the earlier presented graphs of the operating systems used to access Google, with the Windows family consistently taking the top 3 ranks. Out of remaining 20%, the split is even between MSIE 5.5, MSIE 5.0, both Windows-only browsers. Netscape 5.x