Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
Check out this "revolution" from Iowa
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
LOAD ".SIG"
PRESS PLAY ON TAPE
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.
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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"
My computer will still run. My O/S will not be broken.
If I determine that IE is a security risk, I can
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
Now
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
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.
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).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.