Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Chided Over Exclusive Music Idea
grumpyman writes "The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement."
Possible responses from the judge:
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
There's nothing Microsoft could have done. Those low level interns practically run the company.
Somewhere deep in the heart of Redmond.... "Damn those new MBA graduate students! Don't know there head from their @#$hole. Looks like we need to re-evaluate our initial MS obscure wording 101 course"
Civilization, the death of dreams.
Can't get any lower than scapegoat, right?
Read: business woman.
the proposal ever was sent to music-player manufacturers..." Wow, they let the new coffee getter conference call with Sony by himself? Huh.
The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."
Fayo Sung, director of antitrust compliance at Microsoft, was not available for comment.
Must be Billy or Ballmer. You can't get any lower than a snake in the grass
It turns out the proposal was made by Bill the Janitor.
Nothing to see, move along, false alarm.
Why not:
Anti-Virus
Anti-Spyware
Firewall
The typical statements are:
1) Anti-spware; there is just no clear leader in the market
2) Firewall; its not full fledge product
3) A/V not sure what the rational is here. There are market leaders and its going to be a full fledge product.
How in the world can they blame the low level worker when it would have to be a management decision. Now are they saying their new management has been stuck under a rock for 5 years? How many people don't know about Microsoft and the monopoly case against them?
I miss the good old days at Microsoft. When we used to just do whatever the hell we wanted, and would write a cheque for the consequences later. :)
My girlfriend got an iRiver for her birthday. She's been happily ripping her 2000+ CD collection (all original, bought and paid for) and putting the songs on it. I asked her the other day if she had to install any special drivers or if the Mp3 player was just a normal USB storage device. Apparently it is "kinda" standard. You can drag an Mp3 off the iRiver onto a machine that has not had special iRiver drivers installed and you'll be able to play it.. but you can't drag any old Mp3 file off the computer and onto the iRiver and expect it to play. You can transport Mp3s like that but you need the iRiver drivers to update the index file. Sigh. Why can't the iRiver extract the song name and artist from the ID3 tags in the Mp3? Why can't it just use the freakin' filesystem instead of using its own index? At least it's better than an iPod.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It was one of those lower level, chair throwing, teeth grinding employees!!
I swear, you can't make this shit up. Show of hands: who here believes a single thing MS says anymore?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Steve Ballmer?
Microsoft = Proprietary Apple = Proprietary Indirectly, Microsoft = Apple, they share the same common goal even, MONEY $$$$.
NO~, I read Slashdot because I think it's stupid.....
Isn't this precisely what Apple is doing with iPod + iTunes? If Apple can open an online music store and restrict competing hardware and software products then why can Microsoft not compete in exactly the same way? What about the tethering of music purchased on iTunes to the computer which purchased the music and the FairPlay system? It seems to me that Microsoft cannot be faulted for taking a few pages from Apple's playbook in this case.
This is not a moral judgement anymore... on a technical basis, do they have something I want? yes.
BTW, I reboot my Windows boxes every month or so, whether they need it or not. Just Because.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Shock horror! A company trying to make money. Well I never heard such a far-out thing. Regardless of the tactics used, I'm sure it really isn't going to hurt their market share. I think it's more a case of, lets try it and if we get caught 'bummer' otherwise profit!
lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement...and apparently been living the past 5 years without a tv.....or a newspaper.....or interpersonal contact.......in a box....wearing earmuffs......buried in a 12 foot crater on the other side of mars.
Good thing you went anonymous with that post, otherwise you would have been modded down for dissing Apple (in spite of the fact it's true).
I don't care if I get modded down, so feel free.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
Do hotfixes count?
They are "testing the water" to see how far they can go expanding their grasp without anyone reacting. Next time they will go a little less far and nobody will react etc...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Pretty much.
NO~, I read Slashdot because I think it's stupid.....
Meh - teach 'em a lesson. Force manufacturers to tether iPods to Microsoft's own music player software :p
Ok, ok - I know it's not fair, not going to happen, and just plain not nice, but imagine the look on Bill's face when that little beauty came zinging his way...The Mothership
The deal is this: if you had 2000+ albums on your hard drive, it'd take you forever to index them so you had a cool interface with which to access your music.
Now.
Take your desktop computer, with all its resources, and scrunch it down into a device that'll fit into your pocket.
The deal is, it's easier to "cache" the ID3 tags into a "database" (sorry if I'm using technical terms here) and have a small "embedded device" use the database for song information. And, since you need a computer to move those songs over to the embedded device, it's much easier to move the db workload off to the big computer than the small computer.
It really does make sense. It's just a pain the ass for the citizen using the device.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The "lower-level" employee was also accused of throwing chairs across the room while threatening to "fucking bury these antitrust guys", according to a Microsoft statement. His identity has not been released, but Microsoft has promised that "appropriate action" will be taken.
"We've decided that Mr. Bal-erm-this low-level goon is only allowed to have beanbag chairs in his office from now on. And if he throws any more furniture he's paying for his own wall." said Jack Priceup, a low-level marketing goon for Microsoft. Asked if low-level people within the organization were allowed to make large-scale decisions with competitors, he said "No way, they don't even let us take a piss without askin..." After checking his pager, which started furiously going off at that time, he then stated that time for comments was up.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement.
Let's say that for a new hire, the guy knows a lot about Microsoft tactics already... he only failed one test: never get caught!
> All Steve understands is how to jump around the stage leaping and whooping
> like a primate. However, apparently that's enough to run Microsoft.
However, apparently that's enough to run the USA.
Fantastic ... Would same judge please slap Microsoft silly for the BS it is currently pulling in regards to the OpenDocument format?
FTA: "Microsoft abandoned the idea after a competitor protested."
How many questionable actions have slipped through because the competitors have been strong-armed (due to business relations with MS) or bought off?
This happens to be an area where MS has valid competition who have a large interest in making sure MS doesn't leverage their OS dominance... what happens in areas where the competition doesn't have the legal resources to monitor MS & to file complaints?
Not to bash MS, but really now... Gates & co are making a good case for the idea that they need to be monitored past 2007, and that perhaps the previous settlement wasn't enough.
The fact of the matter is that whether it was Gates or Ballmer or some new lackey, they were acting in official capacity as an employee of MS. It is the responsibility of those in charge to make sure no one in the organization could take illegal action. And should the court take action (which the judge said she won't), the execs at MS should be held liable by their shareholders.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Well, they would say that, woudn't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies
That's it, Microsoft! You have worn out my patience. Time to go over my knee to have your bare bottom spanked! No more excuses for you, Microsoft!
Now how is *that* for chiding Microsoft over its exclusive song plan?
(with apologies to The Simpsons")
Homer: Now Bill if you get in trouble, just blame the guy who can't speak English. Ah Tibor, how many times have you saved my butt?
The only difference between MS and apple is that MS handed apple their asses to them on a plate with MS-DOS (of all things). Other than that they have exactly the same business practices. The only thing apple has going for them is the iPod/Tunes - which makes apple primarily a music appliance company/RIAA shill (who also make mediocre niche computers), NOT a computer company.
I am a service tech with Siemens on the Redmond Microsoft campus. We do all of their desktop support so I see A LOT of the normal day to day happenings that go on around this place. Ever since I've been here, all I've seen are people doing everything they can to make the most feature-filled, least buggy, most compatible software they can. I know for certain that the team working on Microsoft Operations Manager has in the last week broken several barriers that they were working on.
My point is that Microsoft is not the immense evil company that they are made out to be. The people that work here are not trying to rip you off. They are not sabotaging their software. They take pride in thier work. We have copies of different linux builds lying around and some people even use Macs here. Seeing the way things work here, when Balmer says he has not thrown a chair, I believe him. Every last employee and most vendors here have IMMENSE amounts of freedom in their jobs. Microsoft hires people that present an air of trustworthyness. They want to be able to hire people, assign them a task, and be confident that the person they hired will be able to complete the task in the most efficient and responsible way possible.
In reference to this article that obviously did not happen. Somebody was entrusted with a certain amount of authority and they misused it. Please realize that Microsoft as a company is not some huge evil organization out to rape your wallets. They are regular people who want to, like anyone else, do the best job they can.
It was a stupid post. I don't agree that it was worthy of moderation, but it was still a stupid post.
If anything, it should have been moderated, "-1 irrelevant", but since that's not an option, perhaps "-1 overrated".
White House pressures Congress to reject torture amendment.
Mod parent +1 Funny
I used to work at Microsoft. I started out as a temp and was eventually hired full time. I have worked in PSS, and apprenticed in other departments such as testing. I as also deeply involved in many competitive discussions regarding Linux, etc. Indeed, over two years after I quit, I am still seeing the effects of suggestions I made to high-level competitive managers while I worked there.
Pretty much every thing you say is true. To a point. It is true that Microsoft is a place where one can generally have a lot of freedom on how you do your job and you only find out once a year that the management thinks several of your most important contributions were wastes of time (a more common complaint than you might think), and that in general, it was a fairly satisfying place to work. It is true that people take a lot of pride in their work, and that most of the people there, especially those in product development, are primarily interested in making quality software, though whether they succeed or not is another question.
The problem, however, is that there is also an odd sense of mean-spiritedness which exists as a hidden undercurrent at the company. It does not come out in every employee, and I think that the GM of my department through most of the time I was there was probably the least mean-spirited guy I have enver seen in any company, but it is a part of the corporate culture. You would not believe how many Microsoft employees might ordinarily vode democrat but voted to elect Sen. Gordon simply because Cantwell was coming from a competing company (Real Networks). Never mind the fact that she might actually understand the industry. One guy even told me that he could not in good conscience vote to elect an executive from a competitor to public office. And you would not beleive the flack I got because before I was hired, I had migrated my parents to a Linux desktop and did not want to bring them back into the fold of Microsoft software (yes they still run Linux, and no they are not nerds or techies).
Similarly, the level of mean-spiritedness I watched seemed to go up as one ascended the management chain though there were plenty of exceptions. I knew several people who ended up in GM positions who really were great people to work for and with, and were entirely procompetitive. Sadly I also saw many more people who were fundamentally meanspirited (even if they did not at first appear this way) who were promoted as well.
Now, I was not ill-informed as to the nature of this aspect of Microsoft corporate culture when I was hired. I had read essentially all of the court documents both regarding Caldera v. Microsoft and USDoJ v. Microsoft. And I largely accepted the employement at first due to the fact that I did not have another job lined up when my term came to an end. In other words, it was clear to me that a large percentage of senior execs (including Gates and Ballmer) were of this category of employees, and that this was a large part of what catylized this attitude in the company.
During my time at Microsoft, I worked tirelessly to improve Microsoft software and business practices. My contributions were nearly all procompetitive. Among ideas first floated by me:
1) One has to stop thinking of Exchange and Sendmail as competitors (as a result of this email, a POP3 server was added to Windows Server 2003).
2) If you are going to Linuxworld, at least take the one product (SFU) that Linux guys might find interesting.
3) SFU should ship with the operating system.
4) If you can't provide SSH, at least provide a telnet server which uses Kerberos to encrypt the session (don't know the status on this one, but I believe it may be forthcoming)
I don't know where my other suggestions so I will not mention them here. However, I will say that I had suggested a very aggressive competitive approach aimed at materially reducing the number of safe markets for Linux and FreeBSD. I would not be surprised if Microsoft continues to impliment other suggestions I made.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Judge Koltar Kelly, MS was found guilty of preadatory monopolistic practices. That was upheld in a court of appeals. only the solution, the breakup of MS, was challenged. You, judge Koltar-Kelly, forced the DOJ to settle with MS in the name of 911, a settlement which essentially let MS get off scott free. WTF did you think would happen?
Excellent. Very interesting and very well written.
Obligatory Homer Wisdom:
"Just blame it on the guy who doesn't speak English. Ahh, teebore, how many times you've saved my butt."
The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."
Well, now we know the ethnicity of the low-level intern.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
That's a pretty lame ass defense they put forward. The could have, at the very least, tried some version of the Chewbacca Defense
... you count 'slithering out from under a rock'.
Gee... I guess it must really suck to have your OS pre-installed on nearly every computer ever sold - and if those computer manufacturers don't preinstall your OS they still pay you for it. It must really suck that as a result of that 95% pre-installed OS base you have yet another leg up on anyone that gets in the way. Must really suck that the Feds still allowed you to be a monopoly while you suffered a tiny wrist slap. Probably also sucks to be able to buy nearly every competitor that gets in your way and simply integrate their software into your pre-installed OS. Yeah, it also probably really sucks to be the richest software company in the world, able to bully nearly anyone... and it also must suck to be able to use hidden API's that nobody else can. Must really suck to use proprietary file formats making it difficult for everyone else while at the same time slamming everyone else who want open file formats. Yeah, "Sucks to be Microsoft."
I still haven't seen anyone with an iPod, but I've had a Neuros and I know someone with an Archos. Unless you're being paid to publicize that one company's antiquated product (fuckin' A, it can't even play modern codecs like Vorbis), then there's no reason to shill for it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It even enforces DRM practices on non-DRM music.
In what way?
Take for example the difficulty in getting Linux to run on Mac hardware,
Ever heard of YDL, the official supplier of Linux on Apple hardware? There are a few different versions of Linux on PPC (ie Apple hardware).
Then they *actively* discouraged other vendors and companies from interfacing with their software and seemingly refused to grant licenses at a reasonable rate - they would probably be taken to court. As it is, there are a variety of WMV capable players out there and a number of music services that utilize the format for content delivery.
This is interesting behaviour, and I believe it's been prompted by the experiences of Steve Jobs in the past, at Apple and at Next, seeing better technology crushed by the MS juggernaut and forced out of the market by any means necessary (legal or not). If Apple had opened the iPod to WMA, that would be the default format now and MS would rule online music. If they had opened Fairplay and allowed others to use it, MS would have co-opted it with their own 'good enough' free software player and extended it (thus becoming the default implementation of Fairplay). Look at what happened to Sun, who licensed Java to MS only to see it knifed.
So now Apple are playing the same kind of hard game back, and choosing the moment to open the service. I imagine eventually they'll open it up to other players, once they are assured that MS can not try to co-opt the standard. If Apple don't and they end up with a monopoly of online music and try to force other players out of the market, I hope they get sued.
My point in all of this is that Mac users have to put up with this, and Apple has no market force to correct it. The reason? Apple has a monopoly on the Mac.
If Mac users don't like their software they can always change to Linux or Windows (on another machine). Most people change OS when they change machines, and at no other time. And yeah, market forces have done a lot to correct the problems with Windows and Office haven't they? Things are so much better on that side of the fence (cough). Our model of capitalism doesn't remotely approximate a free and rational market, why talk as if it does? Will a free and rational market ever exist? Lastly, a monopoly in itself is not evil or illegal, the abuse of a monopoly to dictate conditions in other markets is illegal and evil.
i wonder if microsoft is technically owned by a canary.
in case the reference is lost on you:
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/news/news.php?id=393
Asok works at Microsoft? I wasn't aware of that...
Georg
So if the anti-trust suit had never happend this would have been perfectly acceptable to "higher-level business persons"?
The quote says more than I think they intended.
-Coach
"Never upset a goalie, getting hit with a blocker is an unpleasent experience - facemask or not." -Me
"By making the Judicial Branch a part of Microsoft, we hope to offer our customers unsurpassed customer service. This is a good thing," says Bill Gates.
The Admin and the Engineer
I'll collect my winnings later.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Wow, how ridiculous...
We all know only Apple can do things like this, and get praise for doing it at the same time...
iTunes anyone?
MS's credibility = 0. eom.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Actually it's also in his URL (so TWICE in his header!). No, it's not very charming.
Bill Gates privately commended his new padawan.
"I do want to know how this happened," the judge said. "It seems to me at this late date, we should not have this occur." She did not indicate she plans to punish Microsoft, but her comments were remarkable because she generally praises efforts by the company and government under the settlement."
I hope they get the book thrown at them and not just a lecturing. They need some kind of punishment.
If what they say is true then they should not have low level people doing this work, but I doubt it is true. this is typical microsoft and it is a pattern and they are just playing with the court system because they are a cash cow for the government.
> The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business
> practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal
> to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to
> Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed
> the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person"
> who did not understand the company's obligations under
> the antitrust settlement.
This points out well why Microsoft can't be trusted in these anti-trust settlements. Microsoft's view is that proposals like this are only a problem in that they violate the anti-trust settlement terms. In reality, they are a problem in that they violate the intent of the anti-trust laws.
MS expects its employees to work tirelessly to skirt the edge of the anti-trust laws, and build up its defacto monopoly. They can't accept into the corporate culture that attempting to force use of MS software through restrictive licensing agreements is not an acceptable business practice, -even if- you can do it without contravening the strict letter of the law.
Frm the referenced article: 'The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."'
I would not describe it as a "chink"; I would describe it as a gap in which Microsoft is unwilling to comply with any settlement agreement to any greater degree than they can be compelled to by threat of force.
'"This is an issue that Microsoft is concerned showed up," Rule said. He added that Microsoft regrets the proposal ever was sent to music-player manufacturers and that the company was "looking at it to make sure this is a lesson learned."'
Unfortunately, from Microsoft's point of view, the lesson they seem to want to impress on the employees is, "thou shalt not get caught", where the court wants them to learn to alter their business practices to prohibit these kinds of restrictive agreements.
"lower-level business person"
So this person's higher level supervisior didn't know what this guy was doing? Shouldn't he be reported to someone?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
For one thing, Apple is not a convicted monopolist. For another, Apple is not trying to use it's market position to force anybody to do anything. If you don't like buying a closed system, then don't buy an iPod. For the record, I won't buy Apple products because of their closed nature, the only Apple product that I have ever purchased was an Apple //e.
So what if Apple has a monopoly on the Mac? Sun has a monopoly on Sparc servers and GMC has a monopoly on Cadillacs. Apple, Sun, and GMC can't use their market position to try to force anybody to use a Mac, Sparc, or Cadillac because people are free to use other computers or to use other cars.
If Apple produces a product that has a problem, such as the iPod Nano scratching problem, there are consumer laws in place that can be used to seek remedy. Also, why are people still buying iPod Nanos when it is pretty well known that the Nano's have a problem with the window scratching?
This is exactly what apple is doing with the iPod and iTunes, and no one seems to care about that. Microsoft just took Apples idea and decided to see if they could go one step further with it and make it more universal. Even if the judge hadnt said something, I dont think it would have gone anywhere, thats just asking to much really to have every manufacturer give up their own dreams of "iTunes like programs".
However, I do think it would be smart of them to make it an OPTION to be able to connect to whatever Microsoft is cooking up in the iTunes like program department... Apple needs a little competition, keep them from getting lazy.
WTH black and blue on black for headers?!
Were that I say, pancakes?
the judge is a TRUE BLONDE?
You suck at the Internet!
Well, if the Justice Department had done it's job, this criminal monopoly would not be in existence to perpetrate such acts. Oh, and by the way and while you're at it Judge K-K, would you mind pokin' yer nose into the Massachussets legislature and ask a few questions about why there's a sudden surge of political unrest regarding the MA State IT department adopting OpenDoc Format over Monopoly Office Suite product formats, even though this is "an administrative matter that's not subject to legislative proceedings?" Maybe a little behind the scenes political brib... ahem, er.. manip... no, lobbying is taking place on behalf of said criminal monopoly?
Thanks.
"Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly FIRED, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement.""
You know, when you're new to it all and shy about asking and you kind of hedge your bets.
"Ha ha ha. No, I'm just kidding."
"...unless you think it's a good idea, that is."
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Then at what point can neglect or inaction be called sabotage, if the result is the same? MS products still have ongoing problems with their support of protocols like TCP/IP, HTTP, and Kerberos. And with releasing documentation for their APIs, or even with the implementation of the API itself, such as with ODBC. These are problems that just happen to hinder or block competitors. No. It must be a coincidence.
MS has worked hard to earn the poor reputation it has in the tech community. For years it has engaged in anti-competitive, predatory practices and chronically made shoddy software that usually underperforms the nearest competitor by a long shot.
Pardon us for learning from experience.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The little RCA MP3 player seems to have handled all of that just fine with none of the negatives you list with a cheaper device , iRiver shouldn't be cut any slack on that regard.
Sorry, it doesn't work for me.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I'm constantly amazed that in graduate level management classes it is still taught that low-level employees should be thrown away like a used tissue. I never occurs to them that a 'disposable' employee is a rare asset to the company.
This is because the company can use the disposable employee to take charge of special projects that have the potential of bringing the company a lot of money if successful but can be safely fired and covered up if the project doesn't work out. Usually the disposable employee is young, unmarried, and without children and other dependents. They are often bored, smart, well-trained, under-utilized, and restlessly willing to do something out-of-the-box or even extreme.
Traditionally taught management dictates that these people be just tossed away. But this is crazy because these employees give you the ability to reinvigorate your company with special risky projects with the minimum amount of exposure to bad consequences. If it doesn't work out, you can blame it all on a 'low-level new employee unaware of legal agreements invoked before their hire', as Microsoft has done in this case. If it does work, cover the illegal aspects and promote the 'low-level employee' who took the risk and made it work. In other words, give them health insurance and job security.
This is quite Machiavellian. Nevertheless, all large corporations are Machiavellian and these strategies should be taught in graduate-level business school.
Shock horror! A company trying to make money.
That's the excuse Mafia guys use, shill. Where are the moderators today?
It would obviously benefit the consumers as well as us who work in this industry if everyone small- and medium-sized wasn't afraid to go near the 900lb. gorilla in the room for fear it will sneeze out a legal document. Microsoft has successfully established itself as the "safe" choice both for corporations as well as uninformed consumers. Microsoft is after all the new IBM, and they are seemingly too big for even a coalition of competitors to gang up against.
Did something go wrong along the way?
Part of the problem is you guys. Yes, you. YOU have not fought management enough on their mindless devotion to Microsoft BizTalk, Outlook and Exchange Server. YOU have not spent enough weekends building a kickass app using open-source tools that you could use to prove your faith to management or the client or both. YOU have failed to convince your Windows-using friends to try anything else, even though they still go to you for Windows assistance. YOU know how hard it is for them to get past that mental block, so go ahead and put your money where your mouth (and heart) is and lend them a used or rebuilt machine for a while. YOU, the army of independent thinkers, of underdog fans, of any thought or decision that looks too lemming-like, you PHB despisers and abhorrers of the status quo... need to not only hold your ground, but advance! (Disclaimer: I'm not just all talk- I just quit my decent-paying, Microsoft-technology-focused and totally-time-consuming salaried-worker-abusing Big 4 consulting job so I could focus on mastering some open-source technologies that the corporate world has not gotten a whiff of yet, and to try my hand at building great stuff with it... and I already have a paying project...)
Microsoft initially drafted a marketing agreement with language indicating that manufacturers that signed on would be barred from supplying software other than the Windows product.
An attorney for Microsoft, Charles Rule, said Microsoft regretted the mistake and that "a low-level business person" who was not fully aware of Microsoft's mandate was responsible.
Since when does any agreement get sent out of Microsoft without thirty different lawyers/PR Reps. looking it over. I hope the Judge calls them out on this.
A) They are either lying. -OR- B) Anti-trust measures are not working because Microsoft is to incompetent to police itself.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I think the thing that most people seem to forget is that business is war and some people do dispicable things in war. Some are willing to sell their soul to the devil, whilst others are humane. It is pretty obvious that Microsoft has no respect for the spirit of the law, and is always pushing their luck similar to Hitler and his stunts regarding Austria and the Sudetenland (???). Some soldiers actually were welcomes by the people of Europe others were hated because of the cruel things they did. I dont think theres any need to point who is whom.
Its a growing shame that Microsoft cant change their ways and be human for once instead of mindless robots bent on ruining everything for their own gain. Another anology is that of the pathetic drug dealer who will sell drugs and ruin countless lives just so he can make a $.
Tonight, we dive into the diseased human mind. Join me, the grey matter is warm. Within each of us are several personalities. For example, are any of us the same person when we talk to our parents as we are when we say, "I go with a prostitute?" J-just an example.
You see, in the normal mind these personalities are integrated. However, in the freakish...unnormal mind, these personalities splinter, forming separate and distinct people, living within a single brain, like this one!! (shows brain, drops it)
Now, in the tradition of 3 Faces of Eve, yet less ambitious than Cybill, join me in welcoming the multiple personalities of my brimstone baby, Manservant Hecubus. (Hecubus rises)
Dave: Good evening, master.
Kevin: Good evening. And now for the sleep of ages. Leba! Seba! Kootie! (Hecubus falls asleep) Hecubus, can you hear me?
Dave: Yes, master.
Kevin: Is there anyone else in you brain I can speak to?
Dave: Hold the phone, master. (changes) Hello. How ya doing, pally?
Kevin: And who am I talking to?
Dave: Ed. Ed's the name.
Kevin: And what do you do, Ed?
Dave: Uh, nothin'.
Kevin: Really, then how do you know when you're done? (Laughs, become serious) EVIL! Now, is there anyone else I can speak to?
Dave: Sure, just a sec. (changes) Hello.
Kevin: And who am I talking to now?
Dave: Ted. Ed said you wanted to talk to me.
Kevin: Gee, Ted. You sound an awful lot like Ed.
Dave: Yeah? Never heard that before.
Kevin: May I speak to Ed again?
Dave: Sure. (changes) Hello.
Kevin: Hello, is this Ed?
Dave: No, this is Fred. Ted musta heard you wrong. Ed, phone for you. (changes) Hello.
Kevin: Now Ed?
Dave: Yeah. (laughs)
Kevin: What's so funny?
Dave: It's still Fred. I fooled ya!
Kevin: Evil. May I please speak to Ed?
Dave: Sure. (changes) Hello, Ed here. (laughs)
Kevin: Okay, who is this?
Dave: Oh, it's Ed. I just think what Fred did was pretty damn funny. (changes)
Kevin: Oh, let me guess who this is. Jed?
Dave: No. My name Julio! Julio the bus driver!! Ay, ay!
Kevin: Now we're cooking with evil gas. Tell me, Julio, how long have you been around?
Dave: No, it's still Fred. God, you're gullible.
Kevin: Enough of this farce. Hecubus, awaken. (slaps him)
Dave: Master, where have I been?
Kevin: Oh, shut up. I hope this evening's performance has taught you to value your flimsy grasp on sanity. At any given moment, any one of you can snap! (snaps)
Dave: Hello, Ed here. Geez, you know , these tights really bind at the crotch.
Kevin: So from all of us at the snake pit, goodnight. And please remember to floss. (to Dave) Where did you go to acting school?
The ______ Agenda
Is to be told that you have an illegally maintained monopoly and then just get a very minor slap on the wrist. This means that the floodgates of litigation are opened, and that a huge amount of pent-up frustration over business practices gets released on the company. This means that everyone who now has a valid antitrust case can pursue it with far less expense *and* that Microsoft has to be very careful about letting these go to trial.
For example, suppose Novell wins Novell v. Microsoft and Microsoft is found to have illegally maintained their MS Office monopoly. Not only does Novell have an easier case to make but Microsoft is much more vulnerable to a guilty verdict in this case because it would be an established matter of legal fact that Microsoft not only has market power in Windows but also in Office, and that both these monopolies had been obtained or maintained by illegally anticompetitive ways.
I have no sympathy of Microsoft. Indeed I am happy to see them be given a small cut and thrown into shark infested waters, as this case has done. But don't forget the role of the small cut.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP