Opening Statements Begin in Microsoft - Iowa Case

cc writes "The Des Moines Register is reporting that opening statements have begun in the Microsoft-Iowa antitrust case. The Register reports that the Plaintiffs have shaped their case around nine stories involving competitors from IBM to Linux. Microsoft attorneys say Gates is expected to testify in January, and company CEO Steve Ballmer will likely appear in February. Both men are expected to be on the stand for about four days. Unlike previous antitrust cases against the software giant, the Iowa case is seeking additional damages for security vulnerabilities. Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows caused harm to consumers by increasing the consumer's susceptibility to security breaches and bugs. The case is one of the largest antitrust cases in history, encompassing millions of documents and Microsoft's business practices during the last 20 years."

Comments

and..,.?

[User 956]

Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows caused harm to consumers by increasing the consumer's susceptibility to security breaches and bugs.

Apple does the same thing with Safari. Or does that not count? If bundling is bad, hold everybody to the same standard.

Re:and..,.?

[Atlantis-Rising]

Sssh! This is slashdot! We'll have none of your rational thinking here!

Re:and..,.?

[irtza]

How much harm has come from Apple bundling Safari? How much harm has come from Microsoft bundling IE? In court, damages play a significant role in deciding whether or not to prosecute. It is up to the state to see if significant harm has come of an action. Also, there are different standards for monopolies and non-monopolies. Is this fair? Yes, especially when corporations are nothing more than legal entities that obtain their monopoly status through government protection. There is nothing wrong with the government undermining large corporations for the greater good. The notion of corporations exist to serve the public good and must be regulated to that end. Apple has done little to damage the market place, so even if they do participate in bad practices, it may not be worth the effort from the standpoint of politicians to persue a case against them. I see nothing wrong with their decision to go after microsoft.... mainly because I have no stock in the company

Re:and..,.?

[User 956]

How much harm has come from Microsoft bundling IE?

Good question. Why don't you tell us?

And while you're pondering that, I posit that Microsoft's decision to bundle IE is what ultimately gave us the development of Firefox. There's a silver lining in every cloud, chief.

Re:and..,.?

[undeaf]

As was already menioned, different rules apply to monopolies, but if the same rules did apply, would you prefer it if apple was the one charged first, and if that was used as a precedent to limit microsoft's opportunity to fight the charge?

Re:and..,.?

[alshithead]

The issue might be better viewed as bundling two products that are riddled with security holes together. Two bads = bad squared! You certainly can't claim the same of Apple.

Re:and..,.?

[J.Dev.06]

Fool. If windows didn't come bundled with IE, netscape probably would have never of been bought by AOL. Firefox would have still developed in one form or another, since the motions were started long before IE gained foothold.

Re:and..,.?

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOA there, not so fast cowboy! Safari (like Firefox and unlike mickeysofts internet exploder) can be R-E-M-O-V-E-D from the system. Internet exploder cannot be removed (Old Billy Gates swore on a stack of bibles himself) that there was no way, no possible way in hell that anyone on this green earth could possibly in any way remove internet exploder from windows. The microsoft people are cheerful to remind people not to remove internet exploder (not that there is any possible way to do it), and replace it with firefox. Don't look behind the curtain, don't look at the wizard that is controlling this land, this Oz. So that's the difference. As a software engineer, I know better, but the judge didn't, so bundling is what microsoft did, not apple, nor the linux distros (because the latter two are easily removed). Microsoft swore to their eternal damnation that its not possible.

Re:and..,.?

[J.Dev.06]

so you're saying, they should have sued apple (for no real damages), so that they would have a better case against ms? Do the world a favour, don't become a lawyer. We don't need anymore jackass logic like that in the court system.

Re:and..,.?

[paxswill]

Key difference: You can delete Safari, and Mac OS X doesn't break.

Re:and..,.?

[thestuckmud]

Apple's practice of bundling of Safari with OS X is very different from Microsoft's IE policy.

First, as I recall, Apple provided IE when I bought my old PowerBook. Safari had to be downloaded separately. Microsoft dropped IE support for OS X in 2003, leaving Apple unable to offer an up to date IE.

Second, Safari is an application like any other. I could uninstall it like any other app, but it happens to be useful and reliable (though Firefox is my browser of choice). Conversely, IE holds a privileged position in Windows and cannot be removed easily.

Third, Apple has not used Safari to crush competitors.

Does that cover it?

Re:and..,.?

[spisska]

Apple does the same thing with Safari. Or does that not count? If bundling is bad, hold everybody to the same standard.

Not quite. Apple ships an OS that has a browers already installed. However, Apple has never claimed that Safari is an integral part of the OS, that it cannot be removed, that the web browser and file browser are the same thing, or that allowing competing products equal access to system resources will somehow prevent innovation.

Microsoft claimed all of this things, which is partly why they were charged with and convicted for antitrust violations.

Re:and..,.?

[chromatic]

I posit that Microsoft's decision to bundle IE is what ultimately gave us the development of Firefox.

There'd be fewer members of MADD if drunk drivers hadn't killed their loved ones too, but I'm not sure you ought to defend vehicular manslaughter.

Re:and..,.?

[pilgrim23]

Yes it is. when you consider that Apple has caused countless crashes, untold data loss and unmeassured pain with the numberless invasions of the main operating system via the unmitigated horror they call their bundled browser. Adding the theft of network bandwidth caused by the leigons of zombied machines out there attributable to the unclosed ports, and other such security circumstances that to any marginally trained security professional would seem are trivial to address issues it is horrible what they have put their customers through. -Now if that statement were true, yes, I would treat Apple with the disgust I reserve for the company who really DO knowingly do that thing..

Re:and..,.?

[Millenniumman]

How much harm has come from Apple bundling Safari? How much harm has come from Microsoft bundling IE? In court, damages play a significant role in deciding whether or not to prosecute. Sure, but there has to be a crime in the first place. Configuring your software in a way that displeases some people is not a crime in any sense, even if it is insecure (warranties/guarantees/etc. aside, but Microsoft has never guaranteed Windows is impervious anyway). In the end, "harm" has only come to those who bought the product and used it (generally without proper precaution, I might add). Should I sue a pen maker if I poke myself in the eye?

Also, there are different standards for monopolies and non-monopolies. Is this fair? Yes, especially when corporations are nothing more than legal entities that obtain their monopoly status through government protection. Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist.

Also, Microsoft did not obtain a monopoly through government protection. It got an overwhelming market presence (which you incorrectly call a monopoly) by selling it's product in a (generally) free market.

There is nothing wrong with the government undermining large corporations for the greater good. The notion of corporations exist to serve the public good and must be regulated to that end. Corporations would exist, in some form or another, regardless of laws (except, possibly, in a totalitarian region where such organization was not allowed). The notion of corporations exists so that the law can be applied to such groups in a manner that fits with their situation rather than that of a person.

"The greater good" can mean a lot of things, and is not a sufficient reason to begin messing with people, whether they choose to act independently or as a group.

I see nothing wrong with their decision to go after microsoft.... mainly because I have no stock in the company So anything you don't have a direct financial interest in is perfectly okay for the government to rob?

Re:and..,.?

[undeaf]

No, all I'm saying is that it's a nice courtesy to let whoever has the most at stake battle it out first.

What's so shocking about such a scenario anyway? It comes to mind very easily since it's roughly what microsoft is trying to do to the ipod with the zune.

Re:and..,.?

[TeflonTB]

The notion of corporations exist to serve the public good and must be regulated to that end Hmmph, I always thought corporations existed to seperate the individual from the business...thus to serve the good of the people in charge of the business.

Re:and..,.?

[drsmithy]

Apple does the same thing with Safari. Or does that not count?

No. Because if there is one thing the "geeks" of Slashdot have demonstrated time and time again, it is that they do not understand the software engineering behind "IE" and the way it is the same as the equivalents on other platforms (Safari/WebCore in OS X, khtml in KDE, whatever-it-is in GNOME).

Therefore, the fact that every platform has since gone down the same path Microsoft did with IE, doesn't make them the same because anything Microsoft does is bad, but anything !Microsoft does is ok.

Re:and..,.?

[AKAImBatman]

Apple does the same thing with Safari. Or does that not count? If bundling is bad, hold everybody to the same standard.

The real question is, would Apple be bundling a web browser if their biggest competitor hadn't? After all, Apple must stay competitive. If a company like Microsoft is gaining business by illegally bundling extra products, there is nothing that can be done but to follow suit. Thus Microsoft could be help accountable for Apple's bundling.

Something to ponder: What browser was bundled with Mac OS before Safari?
Hint: It wasn't Netscape.

Futhermore, let's consider what would have happened once web browsers were so ubiquitous that they'd be bundled with new computers anyway. Who would that web browser software have come from? Would it have been Microsoft and Apple, or would it have been third party competitors like Netscape, SpyGlass, and Opera? Would Microsoft and Apple have swallowed the cost of bundling third party software, or would the PC manufacturers have paid to bundle the software to improve sales? If the PC manufacturers had bundled a web browser, wouldn't that mean that different PC manufacturers could have bundled different browsers? If they bundled different browsers in an attempt to stay competitive with each other, then we would have something much closer to a perfect market than what Microsoft foisted on us, now wouldn't we?

Re:and..,.?

[drsmithy]

Key difference: You can delete Safari, and Mac OS X doesn't break.

No difference. You can do the same in Windows. Deleting iexplore.exe is trivial and harmless.

Re:and..,.?

[Anonymous Coward]

When does a company cease to be a convicted monopolist and get to compete again? when they close up shop? when they lose 5% market share? thats a major unknown. some people would like it to mean when the company is a smoking crater.

Re:and..,.?

[bassgoonist]

Since when is safari susceptible to security breaches? Last I checked, none on the level of IE

Re:and..,.?

[rm69990]

If you want to hold Apple to that standard, you'd better be damn rich so you can buy a hell of a lot of Macs, because Apple will need more than 3 or 4% of the Desktop market before they can be charged under Antitrust laws. You know, the ones that apply to Monopolies, as in, companies that have more than 3 or 4% of a market. Seems like a simple concept to me personally....

Re:and..,.?

[rm69990]

Good points, but I got one more.

Fourth, Apple is not a monopoly in the desktop market, and has a small share of the market, so it would be absurd to sue them under antitrust laws anyways.

Re:and..,.?

[rm69990]

Read my other comments in this thread (Ctrl+F and then type in my name) and you'll realize why there is a difference. Primarily, you can uninstall Safari quite easily and Apple isn't a monopoly in the desktop market. In-fact, Apple promotes competing browsers on their very own website.

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/internet_uti lities/ (scroll down)

Re:and..,.?

[undeaf]

Stop being so defensive of microsoft, how are they being kept from competing?

Just why are you crying like this about microsoft not being forgiven? Is not being liked by some people some sort of draconian punishment? Nothing significant has been done about them so far, if a typical criminal evaded the law for a very long time, would you tell people that because it was so long ago they should all just forget about it?

Re:and..,.?

[Psykosys]

There's be fewer posts to Slashdot if it wasn't so easy to write a far-stretching analogy.

Re:and..,.?

[Coryoth]

Futhermore, let's consider what would have happened once web browsers were so ubiquitous that they'd be bundled with new computers anyway. Who would that web browser software have come from? Would it have been Microsoft and Apple, or would it have been third party competitors like Netscape, SpyGlass, and Opera? Would Microsoft and Apple have swallowed the cost of bundling third party software, or would the PC manufacturers have paid to bundle the software to improve sales?

In fact it is not inconceivable, given such a scenario, that there could have arisen software distributions that offered to gather together into a bundle a variety of different software from different vendors; Windows for a basic OS and GUI, Opera or Netscape for a browser, a media player from someone else again, etc. You would then have found competition between competing distributions as to who provided the best cohesive software collection and provided suitable installation and integration of all the components. Such a software ecosystem never did develop unfortunately, except in the Free software community.

Re:and..,.?

[Overly Critical Guy]

And every article on this subject has ignorant posts like yours that purposely ignore what Microsoft told us all years ago, which was that Internet Explorer was attached to Explorer because it was fundamental to the operating system and that it couldn't be removed without crippling Windows, and that tying it to the shell was absolutely necessary for some reason.

Apple actually shipped Internet Explorer for years until Microsoft discontinued support and forced them to provide their own browser and rendering libraries. Other platforms have not gone down the same path as Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. In fact, even Microsoft has abandoned its older path and decoupled Internet Explorer from the shell.

Re:and..,.?

[Arker]

No difference. You can do the same in Windows. Deleting iexplore.exe is trivial and harmless.

That's because iexplore.exe is NOT Internet Explorer. It's just a shell. You cannot remove the actual code, and the many security breaches it contains, without causing serious problems.

Re:and..,.?

[kjart]

Conversely, IE holds a privileged position in Windows and cannot be removed easily.

It's my understanding that IE has a privileged role because it is used to render HTML in other places in the OS - help files and whatnot if I'm not completely mistaken. This seems like a fairly logical reuse of existing code, and I recall that it was due to engineering reasons that IE was bundled in the first place.

I do think it was a mistake, but it's harder to remember why now. All operating systems include browsers now - offering any kind of OS without some sort of web browser would be fairly ridiculous now (aside from server OS I suppose).

Third, Apple has not used Safari to crush competitors.

True. However, I would like to point out that the Netscape vs IE thing was at least partially Netscape's fault. I didn't stop using Netscape way back when because IE was included with windows - I stopped using it because IE was better. I know it's hard to believe, but IE was actually the best browser at one point. Heck, IE being bundled with windows certainly isn't stopping me from using Firefox now, and I will continue to use Firefox until something better comes around, which will surely happen at some point.

Re:and..,.?

[sumdumass]

It really isn't the same thing. With apple you can remove safari. With microsoft you cannot (well not with a lot of things breaking). There isn't really any third party vendors of apple computers but if there are/were, I havn't heard of any of them being forbiden to install competing browsers before resale of the OS. Apple themselves may have not installed anything but what they wanted but we don't buy computers from microsoft either.

The comparisons are so far off base it is almost funny when you hear them. It is like the bush supporters who are quick to point out clinton lied and everyone thought it was ok as a responce to the "were's the WMDs" questions(you know "bush lied and people died"verses clinton lied and nobody died"). Bush has a multinational army looking for a terrorist but Clinton let him go. The point is that these situations are so different on the surface and in detail that it is rediculous to even think about comparing them.

But more importantly, This either shows our zealotry or almost a fanatical support for our causes or how shallow our thought proccess has become. I can understand some one not knowing about microsoft's IE details or thinking it is the same based on the last two years instead of the 20 that brought us here. This is slashdot and I would expect people to at minimum, have a clue. Maybe there is too much stuff going on in life today and this is just too distracting to worry about. It just seems that if someoen was going to make a comparison, they would at least have simular situations to start with. The anti trust suite is from the 90's not the last two years!

Oops' I just realized that some people here might not have even been born back then (or old enough to not care about much more then bubbles and butterflies). I guess that would make them an authority on it then.

Re:and..,.?

[unapersson]

"Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist."

What about the high street consumer PC market? As far as those shops go alternate operating systems may as well not exist, you'd struggle to buy even a "naked" PC because of the monopoly control Microsoft have in the market. You have an easier time finding a high street food outlet not selling Coke.

Re:and..,.?

[hazah]

and I recall that it was due to engineering reasons that IE was bundled in the first place.

Are you kidding? Have you conveniently forgotten that the only reason the antitrust lawsuit was dropped because of a change in governemnt "policy"?

Well, here's a reminder, they are being sued again, for the same thing.

And as an programmer and a (really innexperienced) administrator, I am frustrated with your attitude. You don't know what you are talking about, yet you are convinced that you understand what an OS should or shouldn't be, and what should come with it. To give you a bit of a clue... if you don't know the difference between a library and an application, you shouldn't even know that there is an OS at all. In this particular case, what you are using is a computer, and you use it to go to the "internet" and you "get" your email. On all other computer related subjects, such as suggesting how to implement code, please, I humbly ask of you, shut the fuck up.

Re:and..,.?

[l3v1]

No difference. You can do the same in Windows. Deleting iexplore.exe is trivial and harmless.

Hopefully the judge - and/or the investigators - will have a bit more knowledge about that.

Re:and..,.?

[unapersson]

You should also remember Netscape used to be a commercial product that people paid for. When MS bundled IE for free it seriously dented their income. More importantly, by bundling it free they seriously damaged their ability to grow. They may have had 90% of the market at one time, but that was long before the surge in use of the internet. It was that surge MS took advantage of, rather than converting existing users.

Re:and..,.?

[sumdumass]

Sure, but there has to be a crime in the first place. Configuring your software in a way that displeases some people is not a crime in any sense, even if it is insecure (warranties/guarantees/etc. aside, but Microsoft has never guaranteed Windows is impervious anyway). In the end, "harm" has only come to those who bought the product and used it (generally without proper precaution, I might add). Should I sue a pen maker if I poke myself in the eye?

The crime would be leveraging a position in a specific market to force other products onto customers and/or denying access to competitors simular products. see standard oil and the legal troubles they got into before a law was even passed.

Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist.

Your looking at the wrong defninition. the defninition you want to view would be a legal definition wich could change as the laws governing it does. But legally speaking, Microsoft was declared a monopoly but a compitent court. So they are considerd a monopoly even though it doesn't fit the Oxford definition.

Corporations would exist, in some form or another, regardless of laws (except, possibly, in a totalitarian region where such organization was not allowed). The notion of corporations exists so that the law can be applied to such groups in a manner that fits with their situation rather than that of a person.

"The greater good" can mean a lot of things, and is not a sufficient reason to begin messing with people, whether they choose to act independently or as a group.

I'm totaly in agreement with you. Unless the people/corperations are acting are in some way (legally or not) being destructive to others. Dropping industrial waist in the towns water supply just because there is no law preventing it is only asking for some laws to be made.

So anything you don't have a direct financial interest in is perfectly okay for the government to rob?

haha.. I like the way you translated that for him. But sadley it is how most people think, If it doesn't directly effect them, they just don't care enough about it. In the one hand, microsoft has already done what it is being accused of doing so it has already effected him. In the other hand, there is no seeable direct relationship between the actions going on and his way of life so he could care less. MAny people are this way now and I have to wonder if there is something wrong with them or us?

Re:and..,.?

[kjart]

Holy sandy vagina batman - far be it for me to tell anyone how to implement code (I was?). I was regurgitating information I've read somewhere, which I think I made pretty clear, especially with the caveat of "unless I'm completely mistaken".

You're frustrated with my attitude? Wow, just wow.

Re:and..,.?

[kjart]

You should also remember Netscape used to be a commercial product that people paid for. When MS bundled IE for free it seriously dented their income. More importantly, by bundling it free they seriously damaged their ability to grow. They may have had 90% of the market at one time, but that was long before the surge in use of the internet. It was that surge MS took advantage of, rather than converting existing users.

Yes, and I agree with you completely on this point - this is obviously what MS got in trouble from. I was just pointing out (anecdotally) that I started using IE instead of Netscape way back then since it was superior and not because it was free/bundled and, as a corollary, that I no longer use it despite that same status. If there is a compelling reason to switch, people will do so.

Re:and..,.?

[sumdumass]

there is a statute of limitations on most laws that says if they don't find who they are looking for after a certain amount of time, they cannot do anything about it when they do find them. Of course you cannot be running form the law at the same time to get away with it. But if You hit a parked car and after two years the limitations ran out then you admited to it, they coldn't arest you anymore (maybe sued though, I dunno)

But really the answer should be that microsoft can compete right now. What they cannot do is unfair business practices and use thier position to push products onto people. Imagine Microsoft including the Zune media player or Xbox 360 free of charge with every new windows license. Thats what happened with IE and the browser wars. Now imagine Microsoft says the OEM cannot distribute any other media player or game console if they want to continue recieving their OEM product from microsoft at the current discounted prices. Thats what happened with IE and the browser wars. Imagine after years of this behavior and several product going under, Microsoft starts modeling their products after the failed ones from before because all the sudden it is a good idea now. Makes you wonder what some operating systems could have been(OS2 anyone).

When microsoft can compete again should be as soon as they can make it without underhanded tactics that destroy the competition only to implement thier ideas later. When that happens they are competing fairly. when it doen't happen, they are abusing thier position of power. Personaly, I think they should stop giving discounts to students and teachers for their office products too. Everything should be retail price and not discounted because they can recoup the cost in another division. but that just my opinion.

Re:and..,.?

[sumdumass]

Well lets add another point. Apple didn't always give the browser away with their OS installs when everyone else was charging for it in an attempt to gain control of the market.

This was the prime reasoning for IE integration. And the claims thay IE was always free are false, You used to have to buy the plus pack to get it.

Re:and..,.?

[goonerw]

Microsoft is not a monopoly.
The DOJ's Findings of Fact in its Anti-Trust case against Microsoft at the turn of the century says otherwise:

33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Re:and..,.?

[chromatic]

I didn't say it was a good hobby, but it's mine and I like it.

Re:and..,.?

[jellie]

Sure, IE may have been better than Netscape at some point, but Microsoft's dealings had a lot to deal with that. In U.S. v. Microsoft, Judge Jackson's Court's Findings of Fact document many instances of Microsoft deliberately using their power and influence to gain marketshare (e.g., withholding APIs, tying IE to the OS, etc.).

The document can be found here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Re:and..,.?

[aussie_a]

I'd say Hitler's prosecution of the Jews and other minorities led to greater acceptance of minorities. Does that mean Nazi war criminals shouldn't be prosecuted when found?

Re:and..,.?

[penix1]

It's my understanding that IE has a privileged role because it is used to render HTML in other places in the OS - help files and whatnot if I'm not completely mistaken. This seems like a fairly logical reuse of existing code, and I recall that it was due to engineering reasons that IE was bundled in the first place.
I do think it was a mistake, but it's harder to remember why now. All operating systems include browsers now - offering any kind of OS without some sort of web browser would be fairly ridiculous now (aside from server OS I suppose).

Although it has bitten them in the ass, IE wasn't incorporated for its rendering engine. There were several reasons to include it into the OS one being to win the browser wars (more on this later).

First, browser integration into the OS is a necessary first step to their "OS as a service" business model they have been trying to push. If you could make the OS indistinguishable from the Internet, people are more likely to accept this model.

Second, it provides a "common interface" for both local and remote operations supposedly making development easier. Whether this is true or not I can't say but it is often given as a reason.

Lastly, they were late to the Internet party and had competitors to deal with (namely Netscape). Microsoft executives go into convulsions if something technical becomes successful and they don't have a hand in the pie.

True. However, I would like to point out that the Netscape vs IE thing was at least partially Netscape's fault. I didn't stop using Netscape way back when because IE was included with windows - I stopped using it because IE was better. I know it's hard to believe, but IE was actually the best browser at one point. Heck, IE being bundled with windows certainly isn't stopping me from using Firefox now, and I will continue to use Firefox until something better comes around, which will surely happen at some point.

Part of the reason Netscape had problems on the Windows platform was because of the browser wars. Microsoft routinely hides API calls from competitors that they are using to make the appearance that competing software is inferior. Netscape wasn't the only competitor in the browser wars but they were the biggest. There was also Mozilla that is still fighting the fight although their Firefox (as you point out) is gaining huge ground.

Although you may not use IE, it still leaves you with a huge security risk that you can't get rid of. The integration into the OS makes it a hiding tiger waiting to bite you in the backside when you aren't looking.

B.

Re:and..,.?

[Serious Callers Only]

Safari.app is also just a shell, it does not contain the WebKit.framework (used by the help system, and mail, among other things) which does all the actual rendering. So in this sense the two browsers are similar, save that OS X Finder doesn't use the webkit framework for normal browsing. It makes sense to put the rendering in a library as nowadays a lot of apps want to do it. The result is that removing WebKit.framework from OS X would similarly break the system.

I think the real problem here, and the things which got MS into hot water in court, was the predatory behaviour toward partners (everyone was a competitor and to be killed off, even clients like IBM) and despicable OEM licences which prohibited installing another browser or another OS on any machines. That's why they were convicted, not for technical reasons to do with the implementation of the browser.

Re:and..,.?

[Arker]

I removed mail.app long ago because I couldn't convince it to quit parsing html. I can remove webkit and my system still works fine. Contrast this to a windows machine and there's a world of difference. Even on Windows 98, where it was, despite the manufacturers testimony under oath to the contrary, possible to remove IE completely, this required patching several system binaries and breaks many applications. Later versions, to the best of my knowledge, will refuse to function at all without IE.

I agree that the predatory behaviour was what got them in "trouble" (I use the word advisedly, as it doesn't seem to have caused them any real repurcussions so far - the suits have been mostly settled by giving away coupons for more of their bugware which costs them nothing) - and a large part of that predatory behaviour was locking IE into systems and doing everything possible to prevent its removal, so as to force a non-standard 'standard' on the web - the imposition of innumerable bugs and security holes on their customers was simply a side effect. But there are definitely very significant technical differences in the implementation of IE on Windows versus Safari on Mac.

Re:and..,.?

[Gorshkov]

A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.

I'm just going to make this one point, and not bother with the rest of your post - because it all falls apart when I correct your mistaken assumption.

What the dictionary says has exactly the square root of fuck all to do with anything. The Dictionary definition is not necessarily the LEGAL definition of the word. And that is exactly the case here.

Re:and..,.?

[xoyoyo]

"Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist."

The US government does not use the Oxford Dictionary as a basis for law (I presume you mean the concise, the OED contains all the flavours of the word) and the US government says Microsoft is a monopoly. Why they even got a judge to agree with them: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

I refer you to paragraph 33. "Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."

Re:and..,.?

[xoyoyo]

If I don't want to use the current WebKit, I can compile another one
If I don't want to use the current KHTML implementation I can compile another one
If I don't like what GtkHTML does I can install a different RPM
If I don't like what MSIE.DLL does I can...er...um...use Firefox!

Most people here understand the software engineering, it's the level of control the user has over the integration thats the issue.

Re:and..,.?

[Gorshkov]

No. Because if there is one thing the "geeks" of Slashdot have demonstrated time and time again, it is that they do not understand the software engineering behind "IE" and the way it is the same as the equivalents on other platforms (Safari/WebCore in OS X, khtml in KDE, whatever-it-is in GNOME).

You do realise, I hope, that being one of the "geeks" on Slashdot, that this also applies to you?

Let me try to explain the differences to you.

The different browsers on the other platforms use different engines.
If I determine that khtml contains so many security risks that I don't want it on my system, I can remove it - and use Firefox, Mozilla, or whatever.
If I determin the same about Firefox, I can remove it and install khtml instead.

Or, if I'm REALLY anal, I can say "web sucks" ... and delete ALL rendering programmes & systems from my machine entirely.

My computer will still run. My O/S will not be broken.

If I determine that IE is a security risk, I can .... ummmm ...... not use it? But it's still there.

Now, let's go to the software engineering aspects, shall we?

khtml links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities.
Firefox links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities
BrowserDeJour(TM) links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities.

I hope you're seeing a trend here. Now - this is where the software engineering comes in.

I think the rendering engine that BrowserDeJour (TM) uses is buggy as hell. No problem. If I'm anal enough, BECAUSE IT USES A WELL-DEFINED, DOCUMENTED, STABLE API ..... I can re-write the damned thing to my satisfaction and replace it. Or, or I am anal AND charismatic enough, I can start an open source project and have the peons do it for me :-)

Now .... back to IE

You can't remove it. You can't replace the rendering engine, even if you wanted to. Why not? Because Microsoft has gone out of it's way to make that impossible.

OK - so I'll rewrite the damned thing myself (or go back to the peons) and write a replacement.

Oh, wait - that won't work, either. They keep changing the API. It's not documented. It's not stable.

Hmmmmm ...... I guess I'm stuck with it then.

You see, some of us "geeks" are neither arrogant nor ignorant enough to assume that our opinion is The Final Word on anything - but sometimes, just sometimes, one or two of us DOES know what they're talking about.

You saying that there is no real difference between the the way the Microsoft HTML rendering engine and the various open source engines are architected, implemented & installed is just about as silly as saying that the difference between a round wheel and a square one is a minor implementation detail.

Re:and..,.?

[MemoryDragon]

Speaking of finanical harm, web development usually is like that 50% of the time is spent to bring the application up to the requested specificatoon the rest of the 50% is spent on bending the html code to make it work on ie as well. I am not talking about the harm done by the security leaks and that Microsoft simply stopped development for six years after gaining enough market share to have a monopoly, I am talking about the financial harm done to pretty much everyone paying for web development because IE has to be supported!

Re:and..,.?

[dwandy]

I posit that Microsoft's decision to bundle IE is what ultimately gave us the development of Firefox.

Since FF is based on mozilla I posit that we would have had FF (in everything but name) several years earlier if MS hasn't crushed Netscape.

Re:and..,.?

[BZ]

Actually, there are a few issues with Safari on OSX. For example, the only UI OSX has for setting your default browser is ... in the Safari preferences. Before they started shipping Safari there was an item for this in System Preferences.

Combine this with the various software that Apple installs that uses WebKit to function, and while you can uninstall the Safari UI you can't really very well uninstall the actual renderer. Pretty similar to the way IE works on Windows, actually.

Re:and..,.?

[jejones]

The summary is poorly phrased, and I certainly hope that the lawyers for Iowa haven't stated it that way.

The problem is that, for political rather than technical reasons, MS tightly coupled IE to Windows, at least trying to make them inseparable. That coupling makes IE security holes, which are notorious for their number and severity, that much more of a threat. Simply bundling them, while evil from the point of view of leveraging a monopoly, isn't a security issue, as you point out.

Re:and..,.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon my ignorance, is Safari so tied to the operating system that it can't be erased? Microsoft has so intermingled IE in various .dll files that are required by the rest of the system that it can't be gotten rid of.

Nail them to the wall!!!

Re:and..,.?

[swillden]

The DOJ's Findings of Fact in its Anti-Trust case against Microsoft

Just one clarification, because I see this error being made frequently on slashdot of late. The above should read "The Court's Findings of Fact in the DOJ's Anti-Trust case against Microsoft".

The DOJ is part of the executive branch of the Federal government. It does not include the court system and the judges, it includes the FBI, US Attorneys, etc. You may know this and have been simplifying, but I've seen many posts that clearly assume the judges work for Ashcroft (and in some cases they act like they do, but they really don't, or aren't supposed to).

Re:and..,.?

[man_of_mr_e]

Netscape was never, in reality, a commercial product. Yes, you could buy it in stores, but you could do the same for IE at one point. Netscape was free for the first year of its existence, and then we "effectively" free after that, since anyone could download an unexpiring copy and use it. Technically, you were only supposed to do that to "try" it, or for educational use, but there was no enforcement. And, if you wanted to be legal about it, they always had a freely downloadable beta version available.

This "commercial" product argument is a strawman.

Re:and..,.?

[man_of_mr_e]

You have a pretty warped sense of history. Microsoft supported IE on Mac until last year. Safari has been the default browser on OSX for years. This "Oh waaaaaaahhhh.. microsoft dropped support for IE so apple had to create it's own browser" argument is fictitious. Apple created their own browser years before.

Also, I don't recall Microsoft ever saying, anywhere, that tying IE to the shell was necessary. In fact, in Vista, they've removed this tie. Being integrated in the shell had little to do with removing IE. The problem was that all kinds of stuff in the OS and in third party apps would break if you did, because apps had been written to assume that the rendering libraries were a part of the OS and would be available. Microsoft's position was that they didn't consider the OS usable if these things were broken, thus removing IE made the OS unusable, a position the judge agreed with when Microsoft removed IE and proved it's point.

Re:and..,.?

[bendodge]

Microsoft can do whatever it wants with it's product, and as long as it isn't causing intentional damages or physically harming people. They are not a paid for by the government, so aren't required to make good products.

I can make bubbling green scum drink and sell it on the streets, but nobody has to buy it, and if it isn't poisonous, they can't sue me for making it. I can make a really good drink with a few problems and they still can't sue me.

There are Microsoft alternatives. The difference: Microsoft has money. That is the only reason to sure them. People are just greedy and jealous because Gates made a really good product and got rich through hard work.

Re:and..,.?

[man_of_mr_e]

If I determine that khtml contains so many security risks that I don't want it on my system, I can remove it - and use Firefox, Mozilla, or whatever.

Not if you want to use Konqueror as a file manager. Not if you want to read the KDE help system.

If I determin the same about Firefox, I can remove it and install khtml instead.

Firefox is just a browser, it's not componentized like KHTML or MSHTML is.

Or, if I'm REALLY anal, I can say "web sucks" ... and delete ALL rendering programmes & systems from my machine entirely.

At the cost of many kinds of apps that depend on it from working. You realize that HTML rendering is more than just web browsing, right?

My computer will still run. My O/S will not be broken.

Depends entirely on what you define "broken" as. I'd say that if *ANY* functionality other than the web browser itself is broken by doing so, then the OS is broken.

Re:and..,.?

[WilliamSChips]

Godwin's law, so quickly. *golf clap*

Re:and..,.?

[WilliamSChips]

You have an easier time finding a high street food outlet not selling Coke.

I've seen quite a few that sell Pepsi. However, I have seen exactly zero that don't sell either Coke or Pepsi.

Re:and..,.?

[SCHecklerX]

I think you need to go educate yourself before you make these claims. Microsoft was found to not only be a monopoly, but to use that power to manipulate the market, creating high barriers to entry, etc. etc. If you are doing business with microsoft, you are doing business with a criminal organization.

Re:and..,.?

[TrilateralRegression]

It doesn't because Apple is 3-something percent of the total market (how many hyperconglomerates run on Macs?), no matter how cultish some of them are. They still don't matter very much.

Re:and..,.?

[Anonymous Coward]

That might be so in a case where there are real damages involved. However, this is an anti-trust case.

Showing that every single other OS does the same thing just shows that they're acting normally. Not to mention this screams double jeopardy to me. You can see it's a frivalous lawsuit by looking at some of the 15 points against Microsoft, one of which is "buying out the competition," which anyone that works in the real world knows that happens on a very regular basis in every business.

I hope that Microsoft's lawyer gets up and just tells the jury that Iowa's lawyer is an idiot, then sits back down.

I also find it amusing that between the federal case and the Iowa case, not much has really changed in terms of the OS market. There's still the major players, Microsoft, Apple (growing even), Linux, and BSD (and of course other UNIX variations). So what justifies the antitrust case? If anything, having computer illiterate people will help Iowa's case and only serve to hurt Microsoft, which I am sure the Iowa attorney understood while she was picking the jury with Microsoft.

Not to mention, there is no "greater good" here except that Iowa wants $330+ million dollars from Microsoft to spend in their already bloated government budget. Does anyone really believe they want to change Microsoft rather than get a bigger chunk of their profits than they already do from taxes?

Re:and..,.?

[Anonymous Coward]

While you have that dictionary out look up barrier to entry.

Re:and..,.?

[CHacker]

Microsoft is getting sued not because they make a good product and money but because they use their market position to ensure that competitors cannot compete with them in the marketplace.

Go to your average brick and mortar store to buy a x86 based computer and you must buy the bundled Operating System, even if you want to use an alternative. In most cases they will not even let you choose which version of Windows you get. This isn't because Windows makes the product everyone wants, this is because of OEM contracts with the manufacturer of PCs. If the market was truly competitive then all computers would be sold without a pre-installed Operating System or at the very least available without one installed. As it stands now if I go and buy a pre built system I am buy a Windows license weather I use it or not. While I personally just build my own systems and make my decision on licensing on my own most people do not have that choice.

Look at IE or Outlook Express both of these are tools that are bundled with the operating system. While I have no problem with them bundling this software with their OS you should be able to remove it and never have to deal with it again.

If you choose to use other tools that do the same job you still need to keep IE installed on the system because Microsoft refuses to allow their competitors browsers to download Windows Updates. If you are in a corporate environment and are using Active Directory you cannot remove Outlook Express from your domain controllers as doing so will break AD. That is Microsoft using their operating system to force people to use their software, either through incompetence or malfeasance they are still forcing people to at the very least keep their bundled software installed. They have integrated these tools into their operating system in such a manner that you cannot remove them in many cases. T

This is why they are getting sued, not because people are jealous that Bill Gates is making too much money.

Re:and..,.?

[jZnat]

Apple is not a monopoly. They do not have a monopoly on desktop computers like Microsoft does. Different rules apply to monopolies.

Re:and..,.?

[hazah]

Look...

Yes I am frustrated. Perhaps it was a little dumb of me to make it personal, but what you say hits a nerve. It doesn't just hit it, it stays there and grinds against it, and I'm at the point where I'm just plain pissed. For the love of god stop regurgitating that, it is false, and it is because of this mentality software is shit. It is because of this mentality I have to write shit software, reinvent the wheel, and use other shit software.

So I appologize to you as a person, but I stand by what I said in my previous post as a response to what was said.

Re:and..,.?

[monomania]

Webkit is an Open Source component included with, and utilized by, the shipping version of Mac OS, which can be removed and replaced, or rewritten or remodeled in whatever manner the user requires (whether that user is the IT manager of a large installed base or a one-man developer's shop like myself who loves to tweak for whatever arcane performance enhancements can be had). The IE rendering engine and related code is (according to MS) an integral, interwoven thread of code vital to the operation of a monolithic, proprietary operating system it is illegal to tamper with under the terms of the EULA and, according to MS testimony under oath, this relevant code is to be considered in substance as identical to the operating system itself, the removal or revision of which would cause irreparable harm to the product in question (MS Windows).

Very different.

Re:and..,.?

[Gorshkov]

Not if you want to use Konqueror as a file manager. Not if you want to read the KDE help system.

But that is my choice to make - and I can make it

Firefox is just a browser, it's not componentized like KHTML or MSHTML is.

You miss the point - and I'm guessing deliberately. The important thing is that removing it doesn't affect the O/S. Removing KHTML doesn't affect the O/S. Removing MSHTML (assuming you could) DOES affect the O/S.

At the cost of many kinds of apps that depend on it from working. You realize that HTML rendering is more than just web browsing, right?

You just totally destroyed your own argument with that one statement. The keyword here is APPS. It may break APPS, but the OPERATING SYSTEM will still work and run fine, thank you very much.

Depends entirely on what you define "broken" as. I'd say that if *ANY* functionality other than the web browser itself is broken by doing so, then the OS is broken.

So if I screw up an upgrade to my word processor, my OS is broken? If I accidentally bugger up my installed copy of minesweeper my OS is broken?

That is one of the silliest things I've heard here in a long time - you're just proving that you yourself are one of the geeks you were referring to earlier.

Applications are NOT the OS.

I also find it very interesting that you didn't even address the comments I made regarding the differences between the libraries used for the Linux programmes and how MSHTML is embedded into the OS core on windows.

Maybe you realized that square wheels suck after all.

Re:and..,.?

[man_of_mr_e]

So if I screw up an upgrade to my word processor, my OS is broken?

No. I'm saying, if you remove a part of the OS, and it doing so will break a bunch of other apps besides what you removed, then you've basically broken the OS in some way. Like it or not, HTML rendering is a part of the OS that is depended upon by several parts of the OS and third party apps, removing it breaks things.

Let's say you remove glibc from your Linux distro. Sure, the kernel may boot, and you could probably get to a shell, and even many apps that are statically linked will continue to work, but I'd call that a broken OS.

Re:and..,.?

[Gorshkov]

No. I'm saying, if you remove a part of the OS, and it doing so will break a bunch of other apps besides what you removed, then you've basically broken the OS in some way. Like it or not, HTML rendering is a part of the OS that is depended upon by several parts of the OS and third party apps, removing it breaks things. And that is exactly the problem. In Windows, HTML rendering IS part of the OS ... AND IT SHOULD NOT BE.

That is one of the things that makes windows such a virus vector. It's one ot the reasons why it's so inherently insecure. AND YOU CAN'T REMOVE IT. HTML rendering is an application task, not an OS task. And now, after we've had this little discussion, you've come full circle and in your own words have perfectly illustrated the problem.

It IS a problem with software engineering .... because the decision to make that part of the OS, where it does NOT belong, by ANY design principle, shows an incredible LACK of software engineering ability on the part of Microsoft.

They're still breaking of design principles that have been well known in the OS design field for well over 30 years.

Don't blame slashdotters. We didn't design it - Microsoft did. And it's broken. Badly.

Re:and..,.?

[aussie_a]

Simply saying "Godwin's law" is such an easy way to ignore any points someone was making. Bravo *golf clap*

Re:and..,.?

[GuyverDH]

And how many components of Apple's OS are actually performed using Safari's code?

Or is it Safari, running via Apple's OS code?

With Windows, there are a lot of components of the OS that use the browser's code to function, as opposed to the browser running in a layer on TOP of the OS.
I think that's the key difference.
Microsoft couldn't get their GUI to perform, so they embedded it into the kernel. Then they couldn't get their browser to function, so they embedded code for it into the lower layers of the OS.

Instead of spending time modifying the OS to do these functions properly, and seperately, they've entangled the code to a point where a bad chunk of code in one place, emperils the entire system. Nice going MS.

Re:and..,.?

[man_of_mr_e]

It IS a problem with software engineering .... because the decision to make that part of the OS

A decision that Apple and KDE both made. A decision that BeOS made. Providing functionality for end user applications is what an OS does, and HTML rendering is just another function.

You keep getting hung up on the phrase "part of the OS". We're not talking about the kernel here. We're talking about the OS as a complete usable distribution of software. The only reason you can't say the same about "Linux" is because "Linux" is just a kernel.

Even Richard Stallman argues that an OS is more than just the kernel.

Re:and..,.?

[Gorshkov]

Providing functionality for end user applications is what an OS does, and HTML rendering is just another function.

Providing libraries that are available for applications to use is one thing. Requiring that those libraries be present in all circumstances, and NOT BEING ABLE TO FUNCTION WITHOUT THEM, is quite another.

You keep getting hung up on the phrase "part of the OS". We're not talking about the kernel here. We're talking about the OS as a complete usable distribution of software. The only reason you can't say the same about "Linux" is because "Linux" is just a kernel.

Actually, I'm not talking about the kernel at all, nor have I implied it. You're assuming that because I don't agree with you, that I must be only thinking about the kernel. You're still missing the point. But now I will talk specifically about Linux, as an example - and as a "complete usable distribution", not just as a kernel

You can replace entire subsections of a "Linux" system, and still have a fully functional system. You can make a Linux system svelte as you want, or bloated as hell. And unless you interfere with the core functionality of the kernel itself, your system will still run. HTML rendering is not, by ANY definition of an operating system I have ever seen or heard of (Note I said OPERATING SYSTEM, not kernel), a core OS function.

Linux distributions all come with ssl libraries .... but you can remove them without breaking the OS. It's not "core" functionality
Linux distributions all come with various CD burning libraries and programmes .... but you can remove them without breaking the OS. It's not "core" functionality
Linux distributions all come with various HTML rendering libraries ... and you can remove all, none, or one of them without breaking the OS. It's not "core" functionality.

Except in windows. And that, my friend, is the whole, entire problem.

And that is exactly the point that the "geeks" on slashdot are trying to make.

Even Richard Stallman argues that an OS is more than just the kernel.

And nowhere, in anything I've written, have I ever said otherwise.

Do me a favor. If you're going to disagree with me, please disagree with the points that I DO make, and stop trying to argue with me about things I have neither said nor implied.

Re:and..,.?

[drsmithy]

I removed mail.app long ago because I couldn't convince it to quit parsing html. I can remove webkit and my system still works fine.

Except for all the things that rely on it and break.

Contrast this to a windows machine and there's a world of difference. Even on Windows 98, where it was, despite the manufacturers testimony under oath to the contrary, possible to remove IE completely, this required patching several system binaries and breaks many applications.

Right. So apart from all the stuff it breaks - that requires patching to fix - it "works fine".

That doesn't mean it "works fine". When you have to go in and fix things after removing IE, that means removing IE broke them.

But there are definitely very significant technical differences in the implementation of IE on Windows versus Safari on Mac.

No, there's not.

Re:and..,.?

[drsmithy]

That's because iexplore.exe is NOT Internet Explorer.

Correct. And Safari is not the equivalent of "Internet Explorer".

It's just a shell. You cannot remove the actual code, and the many security breaches it contains, without causing serious problems.

Just like the Internet Explorer equivalent in OS X. Which was, incidentally, my point.

Re:and..,.?

[drsmithy]

And every article on this subject has ignorant posts like yours that purposely ignore what Microsoft told us all years ago, which was that Internet Explorer was attached to Explorer because it was fundamental to the operating system and that it couldn't be removed without crippling Windows, and that tying it to the shell was absolutely necessary for some reason.

IE was used in various areas (including Explorer, although you could disable those parts) to improve the UI and remove redundant code (eg: the help system).

Subsequently, third party applications started depending on its functionality, again so they could reduce their development effort.

"IE" is as fundamental to Windows as any widely-used shared component is on any other platform. For example, ripping glibc out of a Linux distro will pretty much render it useless.

Apple actually shipped Internet Explorer for years until Microsoft discontinued support and forced them to provide their own browser and rendering libraries.

Apple started doing that before IE for Mac was discontinued.

Other platforms have not gone down the same path as Microsoft did with Internet Explorer.

Yes, they have. OS X, GNOME, KDE - all of these have implemented a browser shared component which other applications can (and do) re-use.

In fact, even Microsoft has abandoned its older path and decoupled Internet Explorer from the shell.

That Explorer now launches the IE shell rather than loading the component internally, does not change the architecture of IE. It's a minor change.

Re:and..,.?

[drsmithy]

You do realise, I hope, that being one of the "geeks" on Slashdot, that this also applies to you?

I used "geeks" in ""s because the real geeks have researched the situation and know about IE. Hence they don't make the stupid comments about IE that are rife on Slashdot like "IE is in the Windows kernel" or "IE runs with special privileges".

If I determine that khtml contains so many security risks that I don't want it on my system, I can remove it - and use Firefox, Mozilla, or whatever.

And break everything that depends on KHTML. Just like Windows.

My computer will still run. My O/S will not be broken.

It will if that functionality was part of it to start with. Which is the point. Microsoft (and Apple) don't pander to people who want a patchwork quilt for an Operating System, the people who want to keep their OS up on blocks in the back shed, the people who want to compile their own kernels. They target people who want something that works out of the box with a minimum of fuss and headaches (end users) and that has a large array of consistent, built-in functionality to leverage (developers).

If you *want* that kind of environment, then that's fine - there's Linux and various other alternatives that are more suitable for you. But attacking Microsoft for not having features a market they're not even targeting wants is about as dumb as a monster truck racer criticising Ferrari for not building vehicles for him.

Oh, wait - that won't work, either. They keep changing the API. It's not documented. It's not stable.

If it's not documented, how do third parties manage to write software that uses it ?

You saying that there is no real difference between the the way the Microsoft HTML rendering engine and the various open source engines are architected, implemented & installed is just about as silly as saying that the difference between a round wheel and a square one is a minor implementation detail.

The only meaningful difference is the presence of the source code. Which, from an architectural perspective, *IS* a minor detail.

Re:and..,.?

[man_of_mr_e]

You can replace entire subsections of a "Linux" system, and still have a fully functional system.

The key word here is "replace". You can replace anything you like in Windows as well, but you have to replace it, that is, put another piece of code that provides the same function with the same interface in place. With few exceptions, it's nearly impossible not to be able to do this with any software.

In fact, many years ago there was a project to replace IE's rendering engine with a shim to use the Gecko engine, and it worked... but nobody apparently had any use for it, and it faded away.

The thing is, Microsoft does not have to support such a configuration.

Re:and..,.?

[beemishboy]

Well Safari is not tied to the operating system, especially the kernel, the way that IE is. Safari is very modular and separate. Besides that, there's nothing like Active X on the Mac to exploit. So as a security concern, it is lightyears away from Internet Explorer.
That's not to say that a Mac is immune, but just that Safari is much more detached from the OS than IE is.

Re:and..,.?

[frdmfghtr]

Apple does the same thing with Safari. Or does that not count? If bundling is bad, hold everybody to the same standard.

I don't think it's that bundling in and of itself is bad; as you stated, Safari is bundled with OS X. Konqueror/Mozilla/other browsers are bundled with various Linux distros.

It's the manner in which the bundling is done; IE cannot be easily, completely removed from a Windows installation. I can easily, completely remove Safari from OS X and replace it with Firefox and feel no ill effects in my day-to-day OS X use. How can I remove IE from Windows easily and not feel ill effects in day-to-day use of Windows? Maybe there is a way; I have little need to go hunting it down because I don't use Windows much.

If MS want to bundle IE with Windows, let them do so. However, make sure there is an easy, safe way to completely remove it and replace it with the browser of the user's choice (or even no browser if that's what the user wants to do.)

Re:and..,.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is still ignorant.

Still deliberately ignoring what Microsoft told us all years ago, which was that Internet Explorer was attached to Explorer.

Do you know more about MS's source code & interfaces than Bill Gates? You contradict his statements in court.

Re:and..,.?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

You forgot the part of Godwin's law that states that if you explicitly invoke Godwin's law, the thread isn't over.

Re:and..,.?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.

That may be true, but the Oxford dictionary isn't US law. US antitrust law doesn't require exclusive control in order to be declared a monopoly. It merely requires substantial control over market prices.

Re:and..,.?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Excellent troll, however.

Re:and..,.?

[Gorshkov]

The key word here is "replace". You can replace anything you like in Windows as well, but you have to replace it, that is, put another piece of code that provides the same function with the same interface in place.

IF you have a stable API.
IF you have a documented API.
Neither is the case with windows

With few exceptions, it's nearly impossible not to be able to do this with any software.

And microsoft has gone out of it's way to make it much more than just "nearly impossible"

The thing is, Microsoft does not have to support such a configuration.

In this, you're absolutely right. But they also don't have to go out of their way to make it IMPOSSIBLE, either .... do they?

Re:and..,.?

[WilliamSChips]

Your posts were already made, but using something less intended to create an emotional reaction than Hitler and the Nazis.

Re:and..,.?

[man_of_mr_e]

IF you have a stable API. IF you have a documented API. Neither is the case with windows

Not true at all, Microsoft *HAS* to document the API, otherwise nobody can use it in their applications. Further, COM interfaces, which is the API that's used are self-documenting, in that the very specification requires IDL which defines that API to be present or else the whole subsystem can't work.

And microsoft has gone out of it's way to make it much more than just "nearly impossible"

I think you've been listening to too much urban legend.

In this, you're absolutely right. But they also don't have to go out of their way to make it IMPOSSIBLE, either .... do they?

If it was impossible, why was it already done once?

Re:and..,.?

[bendodge]

If the market was truly competitive then all computers would be sold without a pre-installed Operating System or at the very least available without one installed.

They earned that position through plain hard work, and the government shouldn't take it away from them just because. If someone makes a better product, they won't be a monopoly anymore, but no one has.

If you choose to use other tools that do the same job you still need to keep IE installed on the system because Microsoft refuses to allow their competitors browsers to download Windows Updates.

What's wrong with that? They can update their own product however they choose. IE has the updater built-in, and other browsers don't, but I think MS is talking about opening it up, so just sit tight on that one.

If you are in a corporate environment and are using Active Directory you cannot remove Outlook Express from your domain controllers as doing so will break AD. That is Microsoft using their operating system to force people to use their software, either through incompetence or malfeasance they are still forcing people to at the very least keep their bundled software installed. They have integrated these tools into their operating system in such a manner that you cannot remove them in many cases.

Let me repeat: they can make their product however they want! The maker gets to decide how it is done, not the government! If you don't like it, make a better OS.

They made a really good OS, and people like it. There is nothing wrong with an earned monopoly, as long as it wasn't achieved through dishonest tactics. MS has done some wrong things, but over all they have been a decent company. You can't sue them for that. Allowing these kinds of lawsuits is an invitation to socialism, as promotes heavy government involvement in economics. The lawsuits are just plain greed.

Dupe!

[Toveling]

When will the editors learn? I about read this on ./ years ago...

Re:Dupe!

[Durrok]

This would be an update to the case, letting us know it started and when Gates and Ballmar would have to take the stand.

We had an article about Global Warming on here years back, does that make every article about Global Warming after it a dupe?

Re:Dupe!

[eMbry00s]

Nice try, but your comment is a dupe. We've had many comments about dupes before.

Re:Dupe!

[sumdumass]

I wonder if ballmer will claim linux uses his IP as a defence?

Re:Dupe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that before or after his 'Developers' speech? I know that comes before he throws a chair at the judge whilst shouting that he'll kill the prosecutor, as he's killed them before and he will kill them again.

Alright! Car anology time!

[Durrok]

Is Ford responsible for every accident on the road? Ford and Microsoft just filled a need... not their fault if you can't watch were you are going.

OK - I'll use my next set of mod points to whoever can get a decent comparison that has to do with aquatic animals. GO!

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[zappepcs]

So you go to Red Lobster (or your restaurant of choice) and order crabs... Its not the restaurant's responsibility to ensure that you are not allergic to them when they serve them to you.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[Durrok]

Nice, but Lobsters are more like bugs then animals. (even though they are in the kingdom Animalia)

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[Khabok]

But is it their responsibility if their waitress (a helpful service bundled with Red Lobster) misunderstands what you meant by "crabs"? Are they liable for compromising your systems and causing an infection?

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, uh, which definition of animal are you using, exactly?

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[seriesrover]

No, no waitress (to use the analogy) is perfect. The manager is continuely updating the IQ of the waitress to counteract the lack of IQ by the customer to prevent themselves from infection.

But ultimately the customer can go to plenty of other restaurants in town you can use. But dont forget that you have to bring your own waitress.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[Firehed]

A Ford vehicle doesn't come bundled with your license. Every off-the-shelf PC comes with Windows (unless your shelves happen to be in an Apple store).

Though in both cases, less stupidity could prevent most of the problems.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[z0mbiejesus]

So by this rationale, Steve Irwin is responsible for the death of every person who perishes in a freak accident involving a stingray. The stingray (read IE), a normally docile and vulnerable creature by nature, has a bad day (gets exploited) and stabs a guy in the chest that results in his untimely death (loss of data).

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[kimvette]

Apparently he uses the definition which includes vegetables such as himself. ;)

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[Meatloaf Surprise]

I think the better analogy would be this:

Ford (Microsoft) sells all of their vehicles with their proprietary radio system (Internet Explorer). Any customer can install their own after market radio (Firefox, etc) after purchasing a Ford vehicle, but let's face it, most of them won't and will use the one included in the car. Let's say these radios have several defects that compromise the entire car (this radio is wired to different sensors and components in the car to display useful feedback on the LCD screen). Now, anyone with a transmitter, can decide to send certain signals over the airwaves that, when picked up by this Ford radio, will set fire to the car and require the car to be fixed or replaced.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[Guppy06]

"Is Ford responsible for every accident on the road?"

Is Ford responsible for every accident on the road caused by the driver's side rear tire on a Ford Explorer inexplicably exploding?

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[aussie_a]

Is Ford responsible for every accident on the road? Funny, I thought cars had to meet a minimum amount of safety requirements that the government has drawn up before they can be used. If Microsoft wants to submit to a similar requirement I'm sure Iowa will be willing to drop the antitrust case. Although they will have to cease distributing all versions of Windows that have an unapproved version of Internet Explorer.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[aussie_a]

They can't easily go to other restaurants if the one of them has a monopoly.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[Loco Moped]

Is Ford responsible for every accident on the road?

Well, yes, in a very big way.
Ford was the first to make cars affordable to the rabble.
Rabble drive recklessly, as we know. They also do it while blabbing on cell phones. So much safer to leave the driving to professionals, don't you know. Home, James!

Ford and Microsoft just filled a need... not their fault if you can't watch were you are going.

Let's leave the computing to the professionals, as well.
I'm convinced that the world really does only need 12 computers. After all, the rest are just generating spam messages 24/7.

I'm not so sure that this is a good thing...

[zappepcs]

Though I'm always glad to see someone take MS down a peg, I am not sure that it would be a good thing to have them successfully sued for vulnerabilities. If it works out to simply a refund for every valid registered copy of Windows, ok, since that would be a zero sum for F/OSS should it also happen to say Firefox or a version of Linux. There are so many ways to have vulnerabilities, and punitive damages might lead to things worse than the current patent system as far as hindering new technologies and features etc.

Re:I'm not so sure that this is a good thing...

[NineNine]

That also means that OSS projects won't ever be able to sell software because none of them can take the hits from punitive lawsuits like the big boys (MS, IBM, Sun, Oracle) can.

Re:I'm not so sure that this is a good thing...

[Almahtar]

You're right to be concerned, but I think in this case Microsoft is being punished not for the security vulnerabilities but for the security vulnerabilities that were made mandatory by anticompetitive practices. So... any damages you introduce as the result of illegal activity can be prosecuted, but if it wasn't caused by illegal activity, it probably doesn't fall under the precedent of this case.

Re:I'm not so sure that this is a good thing...

[Guppy06]

"Though I'm always glad to see someone take MS down a peg, I am not sure that it would be a good thing to have them successfully sued for vulnerabilities."

Then maybe you should rethink your priorities. If F/OSS projects are unwilling to publish if they are unable to escape liability for security flaws, how is that better than Microsoft's stance and do you really want to rely on such software for security? Trying to limit liability in any field often sounds nice until you end up the victim.

This may or may not be a bad thing for free software, but I'm a user, not a coder, and I want results, regardless of who crafted the code or how. I am not willing to hold free software to a different standard than any other software I might choose to use simply because it's free.

Maybe we'll get lucky and...

[Avillia]

Microsoft will split into 20 different seperate corporations, each for a tiny part of the business that Microsoft does daily, and each of them will sue another other for patent infringement.

What a very merry christmas that would be.

*Attorneys getting millions,
*Patent reform instantly getting gallons of attention,
*The EU being able to smash the pulp of each company for a fraction of the fine, them being too small to withstand intense govermental legal pounding,
*States and Feds quickly getting cold feet about the stability of the Windows platform,
*Tech stocks going into a brief chaos generating freefall and then building up around Open Source, Apple, and Web 2.0,
*Richard Stallman laughing his living ass off,
*The MPAA and the RIAA going "Oh Shit!" when PlaysForSure and WMDRM falls under patent litigation and likely makes them litigants by the same logic that SCO can sue random companies using Linux,
*The State of Iowa becoming a hero in the 21st century, erecting a giant statue of every AG who helped the motion there and spreading out technical industry aside from being centered mostly in the West Coast and, to a lesser extent, the East Coast. (Sure, that's awesome, but it spreading out would benefit the national economy, even if Silicon Valley isn't the hottest place to say you live in anymore.)

Ah... One can dream...

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky and...

[JoshJ]

Iowa smashing Microsoft to become a hero would be the best thing to happen to Iowa since... uh... whatever the most recent "revolution" on farming was. Probably wouldn't have any real economic benefit- I can't imagine anyone would move to Iowa because they smashed Microsoft.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky and...

[TykeClone]

Iowa has a "wonderful" attorney general, and in this case I believe a former attorney general, who excel at ambulance chasing. As much as I'd hate to see Microsoft win, I'd love to see these lawyers lose - it would be better for everyone if they did.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky and...

[Lars83]

Iowa smashing Microsoft to become a hero would be the best thing to happen to Iowa since... uh... whatever the most recent "revolution" on farming was. Probably wouldn't have any real economic benefit- I can't imagine anyone would move to Iowa because they smashed Microsoft. Yes, because Iowa is farming only. Nice stereotype.

Check out this "revolution" from Iowa ...the invention of the electronic digital computer.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky and...

[intheshelter]

YEAH! TESTIFY MY BROTHER! (sister, whatever . . . . )

Born and raised here (not proud of it, just a fact of life). Yes, you miss out on some things that other parts of the country have, but then again we don't have cross dressing gender confused animal rights activists who get married for only a month at a time and name their kids Scout or Apple.

I understand the stupid stereotypes to a degree, but that would be like me saying only criminals come from New York. We're not envious of people from other states, but we usually are surprised at how narrow minded they can be at times.

This is insane

[insomniac8400]

All OSes have a web browser. How can Microsoft be punished for something everyone does? Not to mention the fact that Windows is the most secure OS out there. No other OS has been tested so much.

Re:This is insane

[mrbcs]

Hmmm, maybe because of their monopolistic practices which almost killed off all other competitiors? Since they had no real competition unitl firefox ( and arguably still doesn't) they should be held accountable for the shitty software they release. Since they can "force" people through their automatic updates to install IE7, (they should also therefore be able to fix their browser)so I would think that they should be held accountable for the pain and suffering the internet has had to put up with for the last 5 or so years. Botnet anyone?

I can't count the amount of machines I've fixed that just had Internet Exploder on it. I would put on another browser and they'd never have another problem. Internet Explorer and outlook express are the two biggest problems on the web.

I use MS products every day. I like my win2k box.. but I absolutly despise their shitty business practices. I'd love to see these arrogant pricks knocked down a few pegs.

Re:This is insane

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry I didn't realise they had internet access in asylums these days.

Re:This is insane

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not to mention the fact that Windows is the most secure OS out there."

You spelled vulnerable wrong. I've never seen it spelled "S E C U R E" before.

Re:This is insane

[Watson Ladd]

And failed. Windows is not secure. Orange book level 7 OS is secure, with a full formal proof of correctness. And on hardware with additional correctness proof. The reason is because Microsoft eliminated better competitors by tightly integrating with the OS. If Windows is so secure, what's with all the DCOM/RPC vulnerabilities? That's a core part of the OS that is filled with holes.

Re:This is insane

[Almahtar]

Windows is the most secure OS out there. No other OS has been tested so much. Testing only helps if bugs are fixed. I'm quite confident that Windows's DRM will be the best out there by your logic, but I'm far (far (far)) from convinced that the same applies to security: they've made their priorities quite clear.

Re:This is insane

[Anonymous Coward]

DCOM is not part of the OS. DCOM is a set of libraries that run on Windows. It is entirely user-mode.

For comparison: DCOM is a competitor to CORBA. Is CORBA part of an OS?

Also, I think there are far fewer DCOM/RPC vulnerabilities than you imply (and this being Slashdot, you cite none). Most bugs lie in individual applications. Most Windows instabilities lie in proprietary drivers.

Re:This is insane

[Overly Critical Guy]

"Everyone" does not tie their browser to their operating system shell, Windows is not the most secure browser, and the fact it's used so extensively doesn't mean it's been "tested so much."

Shouldn't you be out buying a brown Zune? :P

Re:This is insane

[heybo]

No OS has been broken into as much!

Right case-wrong reason

[EvilRyry]

OK, its fairly obvious microsoft abuses its monopoly status but theres really nothing wrong with bundling a browser with the OS, except that they make it unremovable. Even then, not too terrible IMO.

Why can't we get into some real abuses? Like leveraging their monopoly on the desktop market to try to get into other markets (servers, portable media devices and formats, office suites, etc, etc) and their lack of compliance with standards in preference to their own undocumented formats. This is the real problem and is strengthening their stranglehold on the market. They really need to be sat down and told to play nicely with the rest of the software world.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[NineNine]

They really need to be sat down and told to play nicely with the rest of the software world.

You're not too keen on private property, huh?

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Mantrid42]

Although Internet Explorer is a piece of crap, I can understand why its nearly impossible to remove.

If it could be removed, how many people do you think would accidently delete it, and cut themselves off from the internet. What then? They can't download a new browser.

Or, what if a computer was infected with a trojan which uninstalled IE? Try finding a fix when you can't get online.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[ewl1217]

I'll make this simple...

Because of Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop OS market and because of Microsoft's questionable deals with OEMs, people get Windows shoved down their throats. Because of people being forced to use Windows and because of Microsoft's monopolistic business practices, people get Internet Explorer shoved down their throats. Because of people being forced to use Internet Explorer and because of Microsoft's laziness in patching security vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, people get viruses and spyware shoved down their throats.

Got it?

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[flonker]

Like any other bit of software, if you delete it, stick the CD in and reinstall it.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[BCW2]

It has nothing to do with private property and everything to do with standards recognized by every other company. M$ has always tried to modify accepted standards to thier own propriatary version which isn't compatable with the original. Remember the Java debacle? If governments started enforcing the accepted standards M$ would have to comply, imagine the hit in the wallet if the U. S. government refused to by/license any M$ products until they were compliant? Of course M$ claims what they are doing is inovation which is a crock and most programmers know it. If there were any lawmakers in any country that were geeks this could be fixed quickly, so it might happen in the next 20 years if we are lucky.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, its fairly obvious microsoft abuses its monopoly status but theres really nothing wrong with bundling a browser with the OS, except that they make it unremovable. Even then, not too terrible IMO.

Care to venture a guess how many security vulnerabilities were in the initial bundled version and how many problems those caused over the decade before you so kindly called it 'not too terrible'? It was terrible, it caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to the people who were forced to have it on their boxes in the first place, and even now no one can expose such a box to the internet without firewalling and third party virus protection - and businesses keep an army of people busy just making sure the windows bug-fixes and third party virus protection stays up to date instead of doing something productive.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[NineNine]

"Standards"? According to whom? God? You? The Council of Dorks? Any "Standards" are arbitary, anyway. MS has no reason to submit to anybody else's standards.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Lets at least make the complaints current. I think Iowa should go after microsoft for the Novell Deal. They should not be allowed to intimidate competitors. As a penalty for their previously outlined transgressions, they should lose the right to sue companies for infringing their patents. if the patents were obtained from the profits of an illegal monopoly, they shouldn't be able to further profit from them. They already have such a leg up on the industry in a number of ways, they should be held back in some manner. Revoking the enforcement of patents and maybe restrictions on what they can have in their eula's would be a great start.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[inode_buddha]

""Standards"? According to whom? God? You? The Council of Dorks? Any "Standards" are arbitary, anyway. MS has no reason to submit to anybody else's standards."

According to the ISO, the IEEE, IETF, C99, etc. Of course, they have to inter-operate somehow with the rest of the world. But then if they don't like other's standards so much, then why don't they just create entirely new ones from scratch instead of botching existing ones?

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because of people being forced to use Internet Explorer and because of Microsoft's laziness in patching security vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, people get viruses and spyware shoved down their throats."

No. Viruses and spyware are entirely the fault of those who create them.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Anonymous Coward]

You anti-MS guys have a big imagination about antitrust remedies. The judge has to be guided by law, he can't just act out a Slashdotter's wet dream.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[kripkenstein]

Lets at least make the complaints current. I think Iowa should go after microsoft for the Novell Deal.

Your sentiment is easy to identify with, but in the American legal system, cases can take years before they get underway (look at the SCO cases, for example). So even if you try to make them 'current', the case will always end up being about something (at least) a few years in the past.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Anonymous Coward]

So? There's that outlandish concept of consumer choice and competition, where people will go look for systems that aren't as crappy.

I can't say that Windows got shoved down my throat. I went to apple.com and got my Mac. Oh, eeevil monopoly MS got there, really! And all those Windows users using Firefox, yeah, MS screwed them big time with their monopoly, they totally removed the consumer's option to choose a non-IE browser!

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[aussie_a]

But I don't own a CD, I pirate all of my software.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[dwandy]

Standards are important ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Baltimore_Fire

One reason for the fire's duration was the lack of national standards in fire-fighting equipment. Although fire engines from nearby cities (such as Philadelphia and Washington, as well as units from New York City, Wilmington, and Atlantic City) responded, many were useless because their hose couplings failed to fit Baltimore hydrants. As a result, the fire burned over 30 hours, destroying 1,526 buildings spanning 70 city blocks.

Organisations like http://www.w3.org/ who publish open standards are important because it ensures that we're not stuck with a monoculture. This isn't about 'who sets the standards' so much as once a standard is set that more than one party is allowed to play. So there's two problems:

Microsoft not playing by everyone else's standards hurts interoperability which hurts competition and leaves the computing world open to the problems of a mono-culture that gets basically wiped out by a single virus.

And MS generally has closed standards (word doc anyone?), meaning they are the only ones who can make a product that meets the standard. MS is free to publish/maintain any __open__ standard they wish and some segment of the computing world will follow their lead. In the absence of this, organisations like w3c, asni etc will form standards and people will follow their lead.

MS is all about embrace, extend and extinguish: that's not helping create interoperable products.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Macthorpe]

Calm down baby, have a piece of cheese.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[westlake]

I'll make this simple...

I'll make this even simpler.

The PC began selling in the tens and hundreds of millions of units when the OEM Windows install became the standard. People wanted the package deal. Core functionality out-of-the-box.

Windows wasn't shoved down anyone's throats. Shoppers were kicking down the doors to buy these new machines. Windows drove PC sales to heights no one had even imagined before.

people get viruses and spyware shoved down their throats.

people get viruses shoved down their throats because of the mischief and malice of those who create them.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

The judge has to be guided by law,

What?!!!! the judge has to enforce the law!!! What has become of this fine republic?

Thanks for that insightful comment!!!

As for being called an antiMS guy, I guess that means I'm well balanced. I get called a msfanboy here as well at times. If you look at my profile, I have defended novell in striking the deal with Microsoft. My feelings have developed on the issue. I think its an obvious case of microsoft throwing its weight around to prevent competition. As a monopoly, they shouldn't be able to do it. Maybe perhaps someone more skilled in the legal arts can craft a *legal* way of preventing ms legal scare tactics. I am but a humble observer of events.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Anonymous Coward]

But how many Firefox users on Windows have the ability to actually remove Internet Explorer? If they are not using it then wouldn't it be sensible to remove it from the system? How many have done that?

What do you mean they can't remove it?

I cant believe this - is this actually happening ?

[unity100]

To tell you the truth i always believed microsoft and the like would again get away with what they did, as it happened to be so in the mischief cases done by big companies.

im quite surpised to see even such a lawsuit has been filed and is proceeding indeed !

really, really surprised, and, happy about it !

there might be sensible people and justice in this world, after all ...

*WOOSH*

[r_jensen11]

'nuff said

Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[ZDRuX]

Is it the browser they're going after? Or is it the OS itself? Either of which would make no sense since that would basically make every software company liable for any exploits or holes uncovered in their software that would allow people or viruses to sneak through your computer.

If they are suing because of the "bundling" problem, then isn't/hasn't this been already done (or still ongoing)?

I would say that all these people "chose" to use Windows of their own free will, and I know someone in /. will come and tell how their monopoly basically "forces" people to use their products, but in the end - the choice is up to the end-user.

As much as I don't like some of Microsoft's bussiness practices, I hope this case ammounts to nothing in the end, because it could prove to be costly to everyone, not just MS.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[wellingj]

Wouldn't it be nice if in the end it made people mad and angry
that MS isn't going to do as much as they should about security?
And MS can get away with it because consumers are complacent?
That would push the Linux issue to the boiling point I would think

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Almahtar]

Is it the browser they're going after? Or is it the OS itself? Either of which would make no sense since that would basically make every software company liable for any exploits or holes uncovered in their software that would allow people or viruses to sneak through your computer. Not true. It'd make any software company that introduced security flaws as a direct result anticompetitive practices liable. They should be.

I would say that all these people "chose" to use Windows of their own free will, and I know someone in /. will come and tell how their monopoly basically "forces" people to use their products, but in the end - the choice is up to the end-user. My mom doesn't know that Windows isn't built into the hardware of her computer. She doesn't know Windows isn't a processor type. When she buys "a computer" all she knows is she can get a Mac or a PC. The separation of OS from hardware is, to non-geeks, a totally new idea. They have a machine and it gives them pretty pictures. That's a computer.

I hope this case ammounts to nothing in the end, because it could prove to be costly to everyone, not just MS. That's wrong on more levels than I could even try to specify. Anticompetitive practices hurt innovation and progress by stifling better ideas in favor of the current market leader's power. This hinders progress as long as the market leader isn't forced to improve, which doesn't happen without competitors. As long as any single entity (Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Ford, MA-Bell, anyone) has enough power to choke out competition (and willingness to abuse it) by any means other than superior product/price, it hurts everyone but themselves. It astonishes me that anyone would stand up for them.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[NineNine]

It astonishes me that anyone would stand up for them.

There are some people who belive in the the inherent right to private property, and the importance of maintaining those rights, no matter who the subject is. Private property being inviolate is critical to a civilized society. I do not think that the government has any right, whatsoever, to take private property for completely arbitrary reasons, especially when those reasons are revolve around punishing hugely successful people or organizations out of spite. If I want my private property to be mine: my land, my house, my possessions; without the government interfering, I have to support the same for anybody else or any other orgranizations, else I'd be a hypocrite. You sir, either have no possessions, or a hypocrite.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[ZDRuX]

My mom doesn't know that Windows isn't built into the hardware of her computer. She doesn't know Windows isn't a processor type. When she buys "a computer" all she knows is she can get a Mac or a PC. The separation of OS from hardware is, to non-geeks, a totally new idea. They have a machine and it gives them pretty pictures. That's a computer.

Hmmm, well I must say I will agree with you on the general understanding of what a computer is from the average Joe, or your average family member. But if what you say is true, then I think some bussinesses are simply taking a free ride on this, hoping for some pay out at the end of the line.

From the article:

...
The Iowa case is a complicated class-action lawsuit that was filed in 2000. Included in the class as plaintiffs are all Iowans - individuals, businesses or organizations - who have purchased Microsoft products since 1994. ...

In this case, I think the bussinesses and organizations should not be allowed to have any of this money since they usually have their own IT support personell and have some sort of a plan on how to run, manage, and fix their computer problems. Any of these bussinesses who have a competant IT department and simply say "Ooops, we didn't know Windows is gonna suck" are obviously being ignorant.
 
Although small bussinesses who are being run by some parents from their home, running a web server off their own machine, and suddenly someone sends a trojan and wipes their drive, they could use the help of the courts.
 
So I will agree with you on most of what you said.. althought regardless of who you're voting for, I think it's a tough case and hopefully the decision that comes out of this, does not affect or spawn other law-suits such as these against other smaller software developers.
 
Some Judges are obviously not know-it-alls when it comes to who dominates a certain computer market. For example, would Apache classify as a monopoly in the server market? I`m somewhat ignorant in the details on this, but could something similiar happen to Apache if their software suddenly caused half the internet to go kaboom because someone found an exploit in their software, does it open them up to being sued because they run most of the web servers?

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[bblboy54]

The problem is that companies that become comfortable with the income they get and just accept the fact that their software is full of holes. Are people forced to use Windows? The same can be asked about eBay and Myspace and any other huge website. Sure, I can post my item on Yahoo auctions or the other various auction sites.... but then my item doesnt get seen by a huge number of people. Myspace is a great example of complacency. It's a horrible functioning site that has had no updates since Tom sold out to Newscorp..... BUT, if I want to network with *ALL* of my friends at the same time, what other choice do I have? Sure, I can use Orkut or The Wal Mart Soci... oh yea.... but you get the point.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Almahtar]

Or, heaven forbid, I actually gained all of my possessions honestly. Tell me, if someone gains their "private property" by unjustly taking that which should belong to others, isn't it "a completely arbitrary reason" to say "well crap... they did practically steal this, but they got it before we caught them, so ok!"?

If someone wins a bike race by pedaling fastest I completely agree that nobody has the right to take that medal (that "private property") from them. If they win it by throwing a wrench in everyone else's spokes I can't imagine a fair world that would award them a medal.

The idea that just because someone currently owns something they deserve to is Machiavellian ("the ends justify the means") and is the philosophy of bullies, dictators, and all the people that our government should be protecting us from.

But then I'm either poor or a hypocrite, so what do I know?

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Dunbal]

Either of which would make no sense since that would basically make every software company liable for any exploits or holes

      Why does it make no sense? We doctors are liable for any mistakes we make, if you can prove negligence or incompetence. Why should it be any different for software programmers?

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Almahtar]

if what you say is true, then I think some bussinesses are simply taking a free ride on this, hoping for some pay out at the end of the line. I hadn't thought of that, and I think you're probably right.

I`m somewhat ignorant in the details on this, but could something similiar happen to Apache if their software suddenly caused half the internet to go kaboom because someone found an exploit in their software, does it open them up to being sued because they run most of the web servers? I don't believe so, unless there are some things I don't know about Apache. The thing that draws the distinction in this case is illegal behavior. If someone engages in illegal behavior (such as anticompetitive practices) that directly results in security flaws or damages to the consumer, that's prosecutable. The exact same damage which doesn't result from something illegal isn't. So in Microsoft's case in this situation, they illegally limited people's options to IE. Therefore if IE sucks and their security is forfeit, it's Microsoft's fault for limiting their options to a product that makes them vulnerable.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we can make software builders liable for exploits or holes. But then you can say good bye to F/OSS and a Windows/Mac license will cost $40,000.

Let the litigation stop.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[NineNine]

So who makes up the rules as to what is "Fair"? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. Hell, it seems completely immoral to me, actually: A company becomes so incredibly successful that most of their competitors go under, so that success is attacked by the very government that is supposed to protect private property. Fucking twisted, if you ask me.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[drsmithy]

It astonishes me that anyone would stand up for them.

Are you similarly astonished by the quote "I may disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", as well ?

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Almahtar]

That is, unless that company has been convicted of intentional patent infringements and anticompetitive practices via their own correspondences (which, to ice the cake, they lied about in court). I encourage you to Google the proceedings of the late 90's antitrust proceedings. There is documented evidence of clear-as-day correspondence between MS executives to knife their business "partners" (Sun is an example) in the back, matched with sworn-in-court testimonies otherwise. I'm not trying to undermine you in any way here, but search a bit for that stuff and let me know if anything you find is still questionable in your eyes. I haven't looked up if /. has personal messaging capability, but if it does you're welcome to message me with your findings or just post them in a reply.

If it was just an arbitrary judgement without proof I would also be outraged, but the events in history seemed to line up to the plaintiff's evidence much more than the defendants' testimonies.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Almahtar]

To a limited extent. We have to realize that the words we're saying will affect the opinions and actions of others. Given that we have a responsibility to research our stances before persuading others to adopt them by our endorsements.

I'm all about peoples' right to voice their opinions, but if we encourage everyone to speak up before they've really looked at the facts with an objective (as objective as a person can be, of course) eye, we encourage ignorant, rash decisions.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[NewToNix]

OK, ZDRuX, I guess I'm that 'somebody'.

"their monopoly basically "forces" people to use their products, but in the end - the choice is up to the end-user."

That statement is a classic oxymoron; If it is not a monopoly then the end user has a choice - if it is a monopoly the end user has no choice... this is the very definition of 'monopoly'.

So either argue that Microsoft is NOT a monopoly, or agree that the end user has no choice - those are the only options. You can't have it both ways.

Remember it's just my opinion... but I think it's an accurate one. So try not to take offense, just think about my point, please. Thanks.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[zsau]

FOSS hardly goes bye-bye. There's many solutions, here's a couple: Free software, or maybe software you haven't paid for, nor paid for support for, is exempt. Free software is published anonymously, so it's not possible to track its authors down with enough certainty. Even distributions like Debian could still work using some anonymous P2P style system with trusted keys/hashes you've downloaded from Debian's website. Also, there's the whole issue of other countries.

Wouldn't work because most alternatives are available to almost all software publishers, so the law would be rendered practically irrelevant within a year.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[dodobh]

*Shrug*. You will need to get your software stack certified. As an end user. Doctors don't build humans cell by cell, or even organ by organ.

Now, if there was a human assembly plant, with different organs coming from different places, people adding and removing organs on their own, upgrading organs willy nilly, would the plant operators be liable for bugs introduced by using unsupported third party extensions?

Doctors are mechanics. In computer terminology, helpdesk.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[dwandy]

So who makes up the rules as to what is "Fair"? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. Hell, it seems completely immoral to me, actually: A company becomes so incredibly successful that most of their competitors go under, so that success is attacked by the very government that is supposed to protect private property. Fucking twisted, if you ask me.

well, that's a pretty glossy version of events: MS is a convicted monoplist, guilty of anti-competative behaviour. The guvs job is to ensure a level playing field, because competition is good for the consumer and economy. So any penalty imposed is as both punishment for transgressions as well as a warning to others not to misbehave.

It's especially important for the government to step in and re-introduce competition in an arena where they have mucked-up competition in the first place (copyright grants a legal monopoly!) so when this gets over-leveraged the consumer loses...and the government *must* step in to try and restore competition.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[StormReaver]

"We doctors are liable for any mistakes we make, if you can prove negligence or incompetence."

You doctors are also liable for offenses that are completely imagined by the accuser. When doctors malfunction, people die. When most software malfunctions, people have to retype a few paragraphs. If doctors could issue a bug fix that resolved death and injuries caused by their products, then everything would be fine. Medical mistakes tend to be severe and unfixable. Software mistakes generally are not (in most software fields).

Microsoft is the sole exception to my argument because it has repeatedly and intentionally sought to cause damage in order to gain and maintain its monopoly on desktop operating systems, and to illegally use that monopoly in attempts to gain monopolies in other markets. For that reason, Microsoft should be held uniquely and strictly liable for the damages its software continues to cause.

However, that will never happen. The United States governments have proven themselves to enjoy watching its citizens' sphincters get enlarged and inflamed. All that will happen is that Microsoft will be told to start using a rough stick instead of its own organ.

It's Ford's fault if their cars have faulty breaks

[feranick]

There is a flaw in what you are stating. If Ford makes cars with faulty breaks (or bad tires, as it actually happened), you cannot blame the customer, but only Ford itself. Sure the customer may be idiot enough to make accidents, but still, that holds Ford responsible for not giving the customer the best protection.

I meant "brakes"....

[feranick]

Sorry, I meant "brakes"... I should use that thing called "preview"... Oh well, it's Friday.

Which modpoints?

[Xiph1980]

By posting in this thread you just annihilated any possibility of you using your modpoints here. You can only use it on different articles now ;)

Re:Which modpoints?

[Durrok]

Well yes, I meant on future articles and future mod points as I have none currently.

Re:Which modpoints?

[Xiph1980]

How did I get modded off-topic here? I replied exactly to the content of the parent post. I neither posted it in a trolling matter nor used obcene words...

Ahwell, can only hope I get this moderator to meta-moderate...

Go Iowa!

[bnfmsgeek]

Finally some work done on this case. Go Iowa!!! Sorry, but being an Iowan I've just found it so excited that such a large case is happenning in my own home state. I mean the case is litterly just a few hours away from here. That's just 2 TWIT podcasts away! I think I may go sit in at the trial when Gates is witness. P.S. A couple of months ago I got this email... didn't think it was real at first and was just another phishing scheme until I looked it up. Thought you might like it. http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhgd95hq_3gkvz9n

Sniff...sniff....

[Anonymous Coward]

I smell MS fanboys in here... Lots of 'em.

Two major points

[camperdave]

There are other OSs that do not have web browsers.

Even if other OSs have a web browser, it is NOT part of the actual operating system. On a Windows machine, you can run Firefox if you wish, but you cannot remove IE (at least not entirely).

Damages

[sakusha]

I am infuriated that the plaintiffs are limited to Windows users. The description of the lawsuit says the state is suing on behalf of anyone who purchased Windows during a certain time period. However, the damages go way beyond that limited set of people. I've never purchased or used Windows, but I see the damage from the illegal Windows monopoly every single day. Every time I check my email, I am flooded with spam from compromised Windows zombies. Every time I try to purchase new MacOS X software, I am limited in my selection due to Windows monopolization driving competing developers out of business. I could go on and on.
I'm a resident of Iowa, and I want recompense for MY damages. But it looks like I won't get a dime if they win. I wouldn't care if it was a token, even $10, but I want damages.

On the continuing monopoly issue, note that Bill Gates is plowing his personal fortune into major stock purchases of other monopolies like energy and pharmaceuticals. I would love to see an investigation of Gates' personal financial activities, separate from the MSFT case.

Re:Damages

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're a sue happy moron. It's not Microsoft's fault that you got spammed, and you don't deserve shit.

Re:Damages

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I check my email, I am flooded with spam from compromised Windows zombies

That wouldnt' exist had the underlying protocols have been secure in the first place. Windows stands on the shoulders of some real giants when it comes to flooding the world with insecure software. Bind? SMTP? POP? IRC? NNTP? The list goes on and on.

Quit pretending to be so outraged that insecure software began with Windows.

Re:Damages

[Xuranova]

You're blaming the lack of OSX software on MS?

Mac developers are out of business because MS's monoply of non Mac PCs?

This is the biggest bunch of BS i've seen on /. in a while.

You want to blame someone for lack of OS X software, blame Apple and their unscalable business model.

I love Apple and they're my primary system but I also love a great business model and Apple doesn't have it.

Re:Damages

[Zebra_X]

Please mod parent down.

"Every time I check my email, I am flooded with spam from compromised Windows zombies. Every time I try to purchase new MacOS X software, I am limited in my selection due to Windows monopolization driving competing developers out of business. I could go on and on."

A) If they were not windows zombies, they would be some other platforms zombies. There is of course no way to prove this, but every month vulnerabilities are discovered in every operating system in use. It takes a lazy or ill informed end user to provide a hole to exploit by not patching. There are many, many people out there that fall into this category.

B) "I am limited in my selection" ... Are you referring to an office suite for Mac? Or maybe games such as Halo. That's the only area where MS could directly compete. However, there are a number of alternatives to word and excel available on the Mac. You know you should really be complaining about apple killing off your choice of software providers. Every time Apple chooses to roll in a new feature to their OS they kill off an entire development segment. Take for example the widgets from dashboard, originally implemented on the Mac by Konfabulator now a yahoo company. Apple claims that the implementation is different, however the product is effectively the same. A once paid for product is now free.

C) Bill Gates AND Microsoft are both far more of philanthropists than Apple, or Jobs can ever hope to be. What was the last significant charitable gift from apple to the world? Jobs? http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70072-0.html

Point C I find most aggravating. Hundreds of Millions of dollars are being re-invested in the world to fight important issues that for the large part the developed world doesn't give a crap about. Give credit where credit is due.

Bully? Yes, their lawyer admited to it already!

[twitter]

Even in court, M$'s strategy is not to build something useful but to disrupt and destroy the opposition. If it's going to be decided on "bully" they had better learn how to talk about their strategy. Witness:

Microsoft lawyer Rich Wallis, ... Microsoft can question him when plaintiffs' lawyers are finished with him. The ruling is a strategic win for Microsoft, Wallis said, because it will allow the company to begin presenting its defense before the plaintiffs have finished their case. That could be important in a lengthy trial, because it will disrupt the flow of evidence and testimony against Gates and Microsoft, he said.

More dirty tricks, before they event start.

Check out Microsoft's wrongdoing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its here http://malfy.org/

Chairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope there aren't any chairs in the courtroom!

Re:It's Ford's fault if their cars have faulty bre

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"If Ford makes cars with faulty breaks (or bad tires, as it actually happened), you cannot blame the customer, but only Ford itself."

The main problem with this rationale is that incidents involving bad brakes/tires are described as accidents, not attacks.

Most Secure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why when you install a Windows box, and when install completes with a working network connection, it has a good 30 minute life time before its owned by someone you have never met? (30 minutes is being very generous to the OS).

Apperantly the testers are testing the wrong things...

Re:Bully? Yes, their lawyer admited to it already!

[Hubbell]

Dirty Tricks? Welcome to the real world. Everything isn't fair and nice like some idealists think it should be. Kill or be killed are the two options in this game, and doing everything you are capable of doing to not be killed is the idea.

That's nice...

[rampant mac]

...and company CEO Steve Ballmer will likely appear in February. Both men are expected to be on the stand for about four days.

That will be one sweaty, and very abused chair.

the best part?

[flotson]

BusinessWeek Online reports that

Polk County District Judge Scott Rosenberg dismissed the portion of the class-action lawsuit alleging Microsoft's actions in the 1990s stifled innovation, thereby preventing rival software from reaching consumers and causing them to pay more for Microsoft's products. I dread finding out that this was the best part. . .

Bailiff!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please get the nail gun and secure the witness chair before january. thanks a bunch.

Re:It's Ford's fault if their cars have faulty bre

[feranick]

True, although I don't see much difference. Attacks (ohps, I meant accidents) would not be so common if the software was not so broken.

Re:Yah, WAR is Peace.

[Killall -9 Bash]

double plus ridiculous.

Broken Windows

[Jaxoreth]

This is the Broken Window Fallacy.

I have a question.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a Mac user at all, so maybe this question will be really dumb. Also, this isn't exactly on topic; I am just curious. Does OSX have a default HTML renderer? In Windows, the MSHTML control is available for any application to render HTML content. This is the main entry vector for all this malware shit; it exists in all installations of Windows. Is there an equivalent under OSX? Or does each individual application have to provide its own rendering capability (presumably through popular libraries)?

Re:I have a question.

[penix1]

I can't speak to OS X in particular but I know it depends on the browser you are using. For example, Mozilla uses the Gecko engine while Konqueror uses KHTML. For an incomplete list see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_layout_engine s

B.

Re:I have a question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, WebKit. The last security update addressed a bug in it (CVE-2006-4412).

more anti MS propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Hating MS won't stop them from having 10 times more money then their competitors and in the end money controls everything in todays society.

This idea that you could sue MS for bundling IE with the OS is ridiculous unless you could prove that MS is somehow conspiring to profit off IE security exploits.

Any program you bundle with an OS that offers any for of connectivity make the OS more vulnerable. I don't care if it's Apache or YIM, the OS is less secure anytime it runs a web browser or chat program or server.

Can MS really be held to standards of network security that it itself has little control over. Is it really MS's fault that todays governments have little to no serious measures in place to combet cyber crime?

You could compare MS bundling IE with the OS to Ford making a car without proper seat belts, but the problem with most analogies that people will come up with is that there is no underground resistance to Ford which is constantly trying to undermine their vehicles safety. If Ford makes a defective product that risk peoples well being, sure you can sue them, but when you computer gets infected with a virus are you going to sue Norton ? When you hard drive fails because of less than perfect design will you due them also.

Should we just all sue the US government for creating the internet in the first place and doing little to nothing to keep up with protocol security. TCP/IP is flawed and insecure, so where is the class action law suit against the US military or congress for not taking security measures to updates it's ancient protocol?

Ok and while were at it lets sue phone companies for exposing us to telemarketers and other callers we don't like. Lets sue television stations for corrupting out childrens minds and lets sue video game makers for instilling violence in people.

Suggesting MS should be so scared to relase new products because of exploit fears is stupid and such a ruling wouldn't stop with MS, it will slow innovation across the entire IT industry and beyond. The only ruling you can come up is that perhaps MS should take such features out of their server products, but they've pretty much done that with 2003. Does MS ever claim that their SO is hack proof or exploit free? You buy at your own risk, thats capitalism at it's best. No other OS has anywhere near the level of BS to deal with as MS. All those wannane Windows killers are kidding themselves. They want to be just what they are, alternatives to the mainstream option, because if they really had to be MS they would such.

I don't care what OS you run it only takes one user with admin rights and/or one bad written or malicious program to bring down ANY system. If Linux wasn't a community of programmers and security experts it would fair much worse than it does in security and stability. If Mac or Linux had to support the amount of badly written drivers and idiot programs like super smiley software their systems would be easily compromised also. Thats just the reality of the situation. Linux and Mac are far from mature products (as is Windows). These programs are just the tip of the PC iceberg and the entire industry is still in it's infancy. If you demand that companies be prosecuted because they can't write the perfect code you will slow innovation. You may increase security, but at the same time inovation and exploits drive security technology. Just let the damn markets mature on their own and stop trying to play god with software developers. It's only been 6 years since MS launched it's first REAL os, so i mean what do you expect.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:It's Ford's fault if their cars have faulty bre

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"True, although I don't see much difference. Attacks (ohps, I meant accidents) would not be so common if the software was not so broken."

Perhaps. However FireFox, developed with security in mind, is constantly zigging and zagging over security issues. Writing a browser is pretty f'n hard when it's such a tempting target. I certainly didn't blame Honda when my car was broken into.

Safari's Insecurities

[Kadin2048]

The biggest "insecurities" in Safari, that I've seen recently anyway, all relate to configuration issues and default security policy. There were a few issues surrounding Safari's tendency to helpfully open 'safe' files after downloading -- where 'safe' were files that assumedly couldn't carry executable code, like PDFs and TXT. However, by using a legacy feature of OS X, it was possible to conceal an application as a 'safe' file, and make Safari run it, if you could get a user to download it.

However, because Safari isn't integrated into the OS very deeply, and just runs as a basic user process, anything that you did get a user to run in this way would just be executed with their privileges. Not a laughing matter to be sure (particularly combined with other priv-escalation bugs), but it was nothing on the scale of IE and its ActiveX flaws.

I think Apple updated Safari to have the "open safe files" option off by default, and that eliminated the autorun vulnerability, although it still leaves open lots of more social-engineering-based attacks where you just get the user to double-click on, and then execute, a downloaded file. However you can hardly blame that on the browser -- regardless of manufacturer -- at that point.

Whether Safari is really less prone to attacks because of its and OS X's inherent architecture, or just because of its smaller target profile to potential hackers, I'm not sure, but I haven't ever seen or heard of the kind of "drive by rooting" on OS X that occurs regularly with Windows machines via ActiveX.

Re:Bully? Yes, their lawyer admited to it already!

[Anonymous Coward]

twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

• As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
• Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
• A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
• Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
• Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
• Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
• Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
• Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
• Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
• There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy

Crabs?

[Kadin2048]

But is it their responsibility if their waitress (a helpful service bundled with Red Lobster) misunderstands what you meant by "crabs"? Are they liable for compromising your systems and causing an infection?

I don't think they offer those kind of services at Red Lobster. Out in back of Hooters, maybe.

Re:It's Ford's fault if their cars have faulty bre

[Darth]

I certainly didn't blame Honda when my car was broken into.
sure...but would you blame them if you found out the locks on your doors could be opened with any car key?

Is it Kryptonite's fault that their locks can be opened with a ball point pen?

It wouldn't be good, but it wouldn't be fatal.

[Kadin2048]

It certainly wouldn't be good for software development generally. All corporate development and all free-software development that's funded or backed by companies would stop.

However, if the industry really did get paralyzed by liability and litigation, free software in its purest form (without any corporate support) is basically immune. You set up a SVN or CVS server in some neutral jurisdiction (*cough* Sealand *cough*), and then have the developers work pseudonymously. Since more FOSS development is done without payment, it's a lot harder to track down developers based on a money or paper trail if they're trying to be covert about it.

There are a lot of situations where I could see free software surviving even in extremely adverse or legally hostile environments. It's just that these sort of precautions are inconvenient and ensure that you probably won't be able to take credit or payment for your work, therefore nobody does them unless they have to. (Though I think you'll find anonymous or pseudonymous contributors to controversial or legally questionable projects today -- e.g. anti-DRM or patent-encumbered projects that aren't legal in the U.S., etc.)

Re:It's Ford's fault if their cars have faulty bre

[sumdumass]

MAybe instead of brakes, faulty door and ignition locks as well as faulting parking brakes. Then an attacker could gain access to the car, use it in a lot of different schemes and then let it roll down a hill to it's destruction when it become unusable.

But seriously, Consumer liability is often described as accidents when they could just as well be an attack. There is little difference between someone driving aggresivly being considered just as much of an attack when the resulting accident your involved in is because the falty brakes in your new ford didn't slow you enough to steer around the asshat when he did somethign reckless. Is that a fair enough comparison? Maybe add that the asshat knew your breaks wouldn't slow you and made the accident look as if it was your fault to get the insurance money.

The Oxford dictionary is not a judge.

[jotaeleemeese]

I am sick and tired of people *still* ejaculating such nonsense.

For them it is like the court case that found MS guilty of abusing its monolopic position in the PC OS market never happened.

If you are a MS shrill at least start from a stand that recognizes reality, and not a version you dream about but which is patently false.

Re:The Oxford dictionary is not a judge.

[Mateo_LeFou]

"For them it is like the court case that found MS guilty of abusing its monolopic position in the PC OS market never happened."

That may be because the 2001 settlement took all of the teeth out of the remedy, so MS may as well have been acquitted.

Why do you lie to us?

[jotaeleemeese]

Honestly. What do you win?

The MS people are the ones saying you can't remove it. It is not me, it is not Linus Torvalds, Steve Jobs or Richard Stallman.

Bill fucking Gates himself said so under oath in a court of law.

Show us the supported steps to remove IE from your windows machine. What you suggest is nonsense, since it is not supported.

Re:Why do you lie to us?

[drsmithy]

I don't lie.

Show us the supported steps to remove IE from your windows machine. What you suggest is nonsense, since it is not supported.

Settle down, tiger. I didn't say anything about removing IE, I explained how to delete the shell that wraps around the shared OS components - the equivalent of the original poster's example of deleting Safari.

There are fundamental differences.

[jotaeleemeese]

MS is a monopoly. They can't do whatever they want. Keep that in mind every time you jump to their defense.

In all other OSes we can remove the equivalent components at our leisure (one of the most important points of why MS hasn't run away with the server market is the need to keep a GUI running in a fucking bloody server, adding a layer of complexity and thus bugs, that you don't need).

In MS OSes we can't unless we go to extreme pains and most likley in that moment MS will stop support of the OS.

Re:There are fundamental differences.

[man_of_mr_e]

Keep in mind that Microsoft was called a Monopoly only by excluding all of their competitors. The judge explicitly said the Mac wasn't a competitor because it ran on different hardware (which isn't the case anymore), and the judge ruled that Linux wasn't a viable competitor (also not the case anymore). I really don't know if Microsoft would be considered a monopoly today.

Also, you can't remove the components at your leisure. If you remove KHTML from a KDE system, you break a number of parts of KDE, likewise if you remove Webkit from a Mac, you can't read help files or do a number of other things because they depend on Webkit.

Re:There are fundamental differences.

[drsmithy]

In all other OSes we can remove the equivalent components at our leisure [...]

No, you can't.

Or, rather, you can, but anything that uses them will break - which is exactly the same situation as Windows.

(one of the most important points of why MS hasn't run away with the server market is the need to keep a GUI running in a fucking bloody server, adding a layer of complexity and thus bugs, that you don't need).

An idle GUI makes effectively zero difference.

Look to the pharmaceutical industry

[Melaniek]

There are so many ways to have vulnerabilities, and punitive damages might lead to things worse than the current patent system as far as hindering new technologies and features etc.

You can compare this to the pharmaceutical industry which is rampant with lawsuits. Getting a new drug to the market in the U.S. involves considerable expense and testing. That still doesn't absolve pharmaceutical companies from negligence by not thoroughly testing a drug before it's released to the general population.

Why should software be any different? Shouldn't software companies be responsible for fully testing software before it is released to the public? Are we in that much of a rush to run the final release of Vista? :P

Back to the pharmaceutical industry comparison... what has happened there in the U.S.? Well, as most people here probably know, the U.S. is one of the most expensive countries in the world for drugs. What would happen with a successful verdict against one or more software companies? Probably a combination of 2 things: software companies would do more thorough testing before release and we'd see higher prices. Given the end user cost of security vulnerabilities, is this such a bad thing?

Prove (A)

[Anonymous Coward]

Go on!

Windows is easy to pwn and IE embedded deeply and variously into the internals of windows is one of the major reasons for this.

Without this, there would be no huge spambot nets because the reward for the effort taken would be minimal.

Now, there would still be spam because people will buy machines to relay spam, but no botnets for wide nd hidden distribution and no DDoS to use to threaten people to pay up with.

Apple does the same thing ...

[Udo Schmitz]

If bundling is bad, hold everybody to the same standard.

1.: Apple has less than 5% marketshare.

2.: Webkit is open and used by at least one other commercial project (OmniWeb).

3.: MS bundeled their browser not to be nice to customers, but to squash Netscapes product. (Maybe you're to young to remember, but back in the mid-nineties people thought webbrowsers will obsolete desktop applications and need for a specific OS. And it was a time where peole went to a bricks-and-mortar shop to buy a box of Netscape software.)

4.: 3. was possible because they hold a monopoly on the desktop. And though there's no problem to hold a monopoly it is thought wrong to leverage it to harm other markets.

will they pay the fine in Windows licenses ..

[rs232]

Will they pay the fine in Windows licenses, like they did in a previous case.

Bzzt!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Kill or be killed are the two options in this game

If that were true, a certain stinking company from Redmond would have been dealt with long ago. MSFT only exist because other companies (and the majority) operate within the law and act in good faith.

Re:Bzzt!

[Hubbell]

Wrong. They do what any other smart company would do to become successful in the way that they did. The reason all the other companies are pissed at them is because, get this, Microsoft did it first. The same goes for any other extremely successful business or corporation, they are loathed for their success.

Gates could get real about his philanthropy

[Baldrson]

The game Gates is playing is to somehow make up for his monopolistic practices by disbursing the wealth thereby obtained in fashionable philanthropy. If he is serious about his philanthropy, he should use his wealth to correct the tax system so that it derives its revenue from "economic rent" -- profits arising from monopoly.

The easiest way to approximate a tax on economic rent is to replace taxes on economic activity -- all of them, including income tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, etc. -- with a single tax on the value of unimproved land, or lot, value. Means of establishing land value are quite well understood and used in eminent domain proceedings all the time. The late Milton Friedman, hardly an enemy of the rich, declared this kind of tax to be the "least distorting" of various tax bases.

A more accurate approximation of economic rent taxation than land value only is to tax net assets at the short term Treasury rate, aka the zero risk interest rate used in modern portfolio theory -- with assessment of asset value by the government the same way it would assess asset value for eminent domain compensation, with the owner having the right to demand that the government purchase the asset at the assessed value.

In this scenario antitrust cases evaporate since the proper way for the government to express its perception of monopoly profits is merely to increase its bid for the tax net asset, thereby increasing the economic rent tax on the owner.

Maybe they'll get nailed to the wall this time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the Iowa case includes business practices going back 20 years, the anti-competitive practices that killed DR-DOS will be in that time frame. I was looking foreward for all that information to come out when Novel sued them, but alas, it wasn't so. Novel settled out of court, so all of those documents were sealed. I hope that Iowa doesn't settle, so that ALL of the dirty laundry gets aired. Then, and only then, will the public get to see Microsoft as they are. I hope that they get nailed to the wall, and that the jury gives punative damages that far exceed the monies that Iowa is seeking.

A disgruntled Linux and former DR-DOS and OS/2 user from Iowa.

Re: Dangerous Bundling

[TaoPhoenix]

Perhaps this can shed light on the above semi-asked question. Previous post mentions the following:

"It's my understanding that IE has a privileged role because it is used to render HTML in other places in the OS - help files and whatnot if I'm not completely mistaken. This seems like a fairly logical reuse of existing code, and I recall that it was due to engineering reasons that IE was bundled in the first place.

I do think it was a mistake, but it's harder to remember why now. All operating systems include browsers now - offering any kind of OS without some sort of web browser would be fairly ridiculous now (aside from server OS I suppose). "

Allowing someone else to refine the technics of my language, the bunding went far deeper than providing the limited functions above. (I have not used help files in years). I think the mechanics of the OS shell and MS-IE were co-mingled to use the same organizing abilities for both web pages and local folders & files. The problem arises that it becomes *dangerous* to remove MS-IE, because then it could completely crash the entire system.

"Ignoring" a product is not considered a valid response to the question of marketplace dominance. By its presence, IE shout down any hope of a "regular user" paying cash for a competing brand, such as Netscape. When the hardware OEM deals are considered, then pre-installation of offending Microsoft wares block the exercise of rational choice.

Re: Commercial products

[TaoPhoenix]

Free as in Beer does not mean something is not a commercial product. The 21st century is all about exploring indirect payment models. A "no-cash-price" business model falls in the category of loss-leader to build market share. That market share can then be used to upsell premium materials.

Your post remarks that Netscape was "available" in all those places. Microsoft buried theirs into the OS in a fashion that made it essentially impossible to remove.

The Two-Person sales model ended its heyday at the end of World War II. Starting in earnest with the advent of TV, the direct consumer of value ceased to pay for (at least basic) versions. Advertisers paid the producer for the right to target the consumers drawn by free-beer pricing.

To use a modern slogan, "Dell recommends Windows XP" inhibits my educational opportunity to learn about Linux, and the minute the machine powers up, the icy blue E hindered my educational learning about FireFox. FireFox, which is "even-stronger-free", but it took active effort to bypass the monopolistic mindspace lock of Microsoft to discover that choice was available.

Go Iowa!

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Finally! Something exciting in Dead Moines :P

Re: Embrace, Extend...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the above apply for imaginative values of "shove down throat"?

Re: Hidden Cost approach promising

[TaoPhoenix]

Mod previous post up! (I have mod points, but they vanished somewhere, maybe because I started replying instead of moderating.) P.S. in response to a post elsewhere, in the context of court cases in general, this is still a "moderately new issue" (only 8 years old), and the additional time has been passively put to use to review continued developments in the market.

Can we develop this chain of logic a little? (To the tune of House that Bill Built.)

1. MS bundles a browser which cannot be safely removed.
2. MS uses non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
3. Developers (Developers, Developers, Developers) must spend irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
4. Gaps emerge because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
5. NastyWare invades between the gaps which emerged because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
6. Anti-Nastyware companies make money selling software which purports to block the NastyWare that invaded between the gaps which emerged because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
7. Microsoft is forced by pressure to back down from bundling ( ! ) integrated versions of protection suites which have specific features designed to block the Anti-Nastyware companies make money selling software which purports to block the NastyWare that invaded between the gaps which emerged because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.

Conclusion? Lost market efficiency for the masses, profits for the few, with litigation and regulation for all.

Re: Hidden Cost approach promising

[MemoryDragon]

In other words, if Microsoft had to pay for the harm done by their embrace and extend tactics, they probably would have gone bankrupt by now.

Microsoft empowered the spyware makers

[Zaphod-AVA]

Let's not forget that in addition to the usual virus issues, Microsoft's failures in secuirty and bundling of Internet Explorer empowered the spyware manufacturers. The spyware menace has probably caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to the users of Microsoft's products.

Has anyone ever calculated how much cash people have spent on spyware removal over the last 8 years?

so sue ...

[midgley]

get together some of your fellow citizens, and sue for the damage they feel has been done to all of you.

No they don't

[heybo]

Safari is an application the "comes" with OSX. Much like FireFox or Mozilla "come" with distors of Linux. These are true applications and run only in the user space of the OS. They are NOT PART OF THE OS. To use MS's favorite line "Seamlessly intergrated into the Operating System." You cannot remove IE. IE makes API call DIRECTLY to the OS and the kernel. This and the fact that MS wants you to run as an Administrator is the root cause of over 90% of infection on a Windoze box.

With Mac OSX, Linux and all other UNIX based OSes the system is set up for users to run only in their user space (unless you are a complete idiot and your running as root). All user instructions that come with the OS with Mac or Linux tell you to NEVER run as root where MS automatically sets up a user account as Administrator since XP. (NT never did this) Half of all Windoze program MUST run under a Administrator account or will not work. Call tech support and what do they say? "Change your account to run under Administrator." "With security in mind." (yea my my ass)

There is a big difference between "comes with" and "built into". These are not the same thing. Your still a scum bag if you sell a shitty product and give out FUD and marketspeak to cover up you short commings in you product instead of fixing it!

The sad thing is they could fix their OS to be a decent and secure operating system and worth buying and using, but they would rather spread enough FUD around to keep you scared of trying something new and finding out there are better! products on the market.

Re:more!!!! MS propoganda

[heybo]

Hating MS won't stop them from having 10 times more money then their competitors and in the end money controls everything in todays society.

Couldn't agree with you more.

This idea that you could sue MS for bundling IE with the OS is ridiculous unless you could prove that MS is somehow conspiring to profit off IE security exploits.

Well they will "SELL" you a product to fix their exploits. They also own stock in other companies that profit off of the selling of security software that protects you from a broken system. Seem to me if they have built a broken system it is up to them to fix it for free. When they find a flaw in a car design they have a recall and the car company HAS to fix it for free. They don't sell you the replacement part and the labor to install it.

Any program you bundle with an OS that offers any for of connectivity make the OS more vulnerable. I don't care if it's Apache or YIM, the OS is less secure anytime it runs a web browser or chat program or server.

True any program that connects to the outside world does have a level of threat. Still with Linux or Mac ONLY the user space is at risk NOT the whole operating system. If your so stupid that you are running under an admin account well you needed to get infected. When exploits are found in Linux and Mac systems the problem is fixed not covered up.

Can MS really be held to standards of network security that it itself has little control over. Is it really MS's fault that todays governments have little to no serious measures in place to combet cyber crime?

Yes they should be held to the standards of network security. This is the problem they completely ignore the simplest of network security standards. No they shouldn't have control over these standards. Standards in the engineering world are there for a reason. Would you want a builder that has more intrest in his profits than your safety have control over building standards? Lets see we'll just cahnge the load value standards and we can use cheaper materials and make more money. So what the building caves in.

As far as goverment control NO we don't need any more. If Windoze was more secure then there wouldn't be as big a problem with zombied machines. The root cause IS Microsoft's fault for a faulty product.

You could compare MS bundling IE with the OS to Ford making a car without proper seat belts, but the problem with most analogies that people will come up with is that there is no underground resistance to Ford which is constantly trying to undermine their vehicles safety. If Ford makes a defective product that risk peoples well being, sure you can sue them, but when you computer gets infected with a virus are you going to sue Norton ? When you hard drive fails because of less than perfect design will you due them also.

Well if Ford makes faulty seat belts then they HAVE to replace them at their expense. Ford and other manfactures of phyical products come under a differant set of rules in building thier product. EVERY time you click that OK on the EULA you have just given up your rights to a product without flaws. Ford on the other hand MUST adhere to the safety standards set up by the engineering assocations at set these standards. See Ford is bound by these standards. MS ingores them and can because you clicked the EULA!

Should we just all sue the US government for creating the internet in the first place and doing little to nothing to keep up with protocol security. TCP/IP is flawed and insecure, so where is the class action law suit against the US military or congress for not taking security measures to updates it's ancient protocol?

Don't know.. Should I sue the cops because I was either too lazy or too stupid to keep up with my keys so I removed the locks from my house and car ingition and my house got cleaned out and my car was stolen? By re

Irrational Allegations

[cybereal]

Claiming the inclusion of software like IE or WMP is an antitrust violation is about as logical as claiming the inclusion of back seats and carpet in a car is an antitrust violation. Every modern OS comes with browsers and media players now. And think about this for a moment: If your OS didn't include a browser, how would you get your first browser? What if you didn't have it on a CD or another computer?

The savvy could get it by ftp I suppose, that's how I used to do it back in the day prior to the inclusions. But, for the rest of us? It makes no sense to call this anti-trust for those reasons.

However, I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons :)