Slashdot Mirror
States and DoJ Divided On Microsoft Antitrust Success
Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that the US Department of Justice and five States
have declared themselves satisfied with the antitrust enforcement efforts taken against
Microsoft despite a further seven States maintaining they have had 'little or no
discernible impact in the marketplace.' While the US DoJ and five States — New York,
Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio, and Wisconsin (The New York Group) — reported that the final
judgments have succeeded in increasing competition to the benefit of consumers, seven
States making up the California
Group are not convinced."
Are you more able today to buy a computer without a Microsoft OS than you were 4 years ago?
Well, now we know which states Microsoft has the most paid lobbyists in.
Seriously, I don't see how the antitrust suit has had much bearing on Microsoft's behavior. They continue to act like a monopolist. Prices for Microsoft operating systems have actually gone UP, not down (despite prices for virtually everything else in their industry dropping) and their market share hasn't changed significantly in anyway -- when it has changed, it's been due to superior and/or cheaper products, such as all-in-one file servers with embedded OS, Linux, or improvements in Apple's Mac OS X.
My blog
For Microsoft it's just a business decision. If the fines for not complying are smaller than the loss they would face by complying, then they won't change anything and just pay the fine. This has happened in Europe, where they had to pay hundreds of million of dollars and elsewhere.
This is just another example how much power they wield and how _corrupt_ some states in the US (and ofc elsewhere) are.
The nature of our current government makes a mockery of the FTC and anti-trust regulations. How can we reasonably expect anti-trust regulation from a federal government which is almost entirely composed of corporate henchmen?
Caveat Utilitor
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Microsoft's continued abuse of its monopoly for operating systems is clearly apparent in its failure to implement web standards in IE.
Smaller browser vendors with vastly less funding have made giant strides in their implementations of CSS, SVG, mathml and DOM. Microsoft has done as little as possible to implement those standards, but somehow has found the resources and the rationalization to implement SilVerliGht, which is a stolen, bastardized clone of SVG.
Unlike 10 years ago, the world has moved past its reliance on Microsoft to embrace other vendors products willingly. No wonder IE's market share continues to fall precipitously.
Well then you could provide us a list of wrongdoing from the past, let's say, a year?
You don't know what you don't know.
Really the Department of Justice deliberately bungled the law suit, and now they have no choice but to claim it's a success till the bitter end. The last thing they want is yet another investigation into official mismanagement and White House interference in a anti-trust case. Immediately after Bush was elected they pulled all senior DoJ staff off of the case and left only a few inexperienced lawyers (from that Bible School they're so fond of hiring from) on the case.
They had Microsoft up against a wall, and then suddenly they were best buddies with Microsoft and nothing had ever really been wrong in the first place. It was sickening and another black eye for the United States, but if at any point the DoJ admits that it's unsastisfied with the results, it opens up an old can worms for the house or the senate to investigate.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Would you count tampering with ISO approval process for OOXML to standardize something only they can implement as furthering their monopoly? Suddenly they can keep locking in documents from government bodies that require an ISO standard file format
/. all week
Seriously, this has been on
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
I'll start.
- Claiming Linux violates 235 patents.
- Introduce OOXML to spike ODF, and stacking ISO
- Subverting Massachusetts to prevent adoption of ODF there.
- Novell-Microsoft agreement
- Preventing alternative desktop search engines.
- Introducing Silverlight to spike Flash
- Introducing XPS to spike PDF
- Refusing to open APIs and protocols despite EU decision.
- Breaking all of their own "12 tenets' before they even got started.
There's more, but that's a good start."I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Apart for 2b and 8 ( which are debatable at best), the rest seem to be normal business activites which any other for-profit organisation would undertake.
Who do you turn to when the courts and states themselves are playing corporate favoritism? Can you sue the state, or is it time to bring out the soap box/ballot box/ammo box?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
> Apart for 2b and 8 ( which are debatable at best), the rest seem to be normal
> business activites which any other for-profit organisation would undertake.
Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, individuals and corporations which have been tried and convicted for criminal behavior don't enjoy the same freedom of action as those who have not.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Whenever I read a story about MS I'd always feel something change within me. It was a sort of nervous tremor, a rush of energy over me. However, it would be gone as quickly as it came. Normally, I don't think too much about it. But after reading this list, I was thrown into a blind fury, consumed by unadulterated rage the likes of which I have never unleashed from my mother's basement. Raising my fist high, I stabbed in the general direction of Redmond with a force of approximately 4.76lb of sheer brutality. The resulting shockwave from my outburst surely disrupted the evil Redmond campus, if but momentarily.
Brothers, we must join together. Let us never forget the list of endless sins that this company has perpetuated. Egregious, dastardly sins that would make their grandmothers cry when they heard them. We must continue to fight this war! Our main offensive shall be the posting of vehement rants on community-driven websites, such as Slashdot. The sheer number of these pointed essays shall bowl over our enemies in no time! This is a battle of numbers: do not feel the need to invoke mighty weapons of logic at every turn! And, also remember, your own stories of woe relating to Microsoft are worth as much, if not more, than logical arguments.
I trust you will not let me down.
I think extreme situations require extreme measures, and it is clear that the anti-trust control measures are not only ineffective; they are actually a suit of armour for Microsoft to further abuse their monopoly power. The world has close to a billion PCs now; that's a huge number given there's about 6 billion people. If the US will not act, and the EU will not be allowed to act... bodies like the ECMA and ISO will be subverted; then someone else has to take up the fight to bring justice.
More worrying than the monopoly is the fact that the PC burns much more power and is inferior as a platform compared to even small devices like cellphones, game devices and appliances. The failure of the OOXML fast track process shows that there is still hope, if only the whole world can act in concert. I suggest some measures to bring speedy correction in the PC industry:
1. Any component of the PC that does not conform to published, patent unencumbered standards must be taxed - this includes processors, video cards, winprinters, winmodems, audio devices, DRM chips, TCPA engines, kernels, hypervisors, operating systems, word processors etc. etc. The tax must be high enough to deter unscrupulous mfrs. to dictate their 'default' standards and abuse their positions to the detriment of the platform, the consumer and the market. A 30% tax should be levied for starters, and the corpus must be used to fund devleopment of 'free' alternatives in each segment above.
The recent network 'penalty' while playing system sounds in Vista is a case in point. Could Microsoft have got away with a 'published' audio device and driver architecture under a transparent benchmarking system? Who will compensate for the 'defective' protected media path architecture? Will the h/w mfrs freely replace their buggy cards with better performing ones? Countries other than the US must force them to do so.
2. Patents must be abolished in the PC industry - it is clear from the unholy MS - Novell alliance that even the biggest firms cannot enforce their patents, and they actually hinder innovation; and encourage cartels. The EU and several other nations do not still recognise s/w patents; the 15 year lifespan for a patent is absurd even in the h/w industry where monopolies can be built up in undre 5 years.
3. International standards need to be evolved that govern the use of the internet - it is too big and valuable to be subject to the machincations of a toothless US commerce agency. Companies that actively or passively contribute to the abuse of the internet must be punished and / or taxed. For instance, is a particular OS is the platform of choice for botnets, then the mfr. of the OS must fix the problem within a reasonable timeframe, or else open the source so the community will fix it themselves.
The proceedings in some of the standards bodies on the OOXML vote shows that they can govern the IT industry better than the anti-trust agencies. I tihnk they must be allowed to have a say, now that the US bodies have failed.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
1) Microsoft has kept on supplying Windows to computer makers who offer a non-Windows option.
2) Microsoft has allowed hardware vendors to live who offer non-Windows drivers for their hardware.
3) Microsoft has not forced hardware and software vendors to exclusively use Microsoft protocols and standards.
4) Microsoft lets the user install software on their Windows sytems such as Open Office and Firefox that competes with Microsoft software.
5) Windows users don't have to pay a 'per minute' charge to use their system, just a one-time license fee when they buy it.
Of course, once the antitrust judicial oversight ends, so will all of this kindness by Microsoft. On day 1, Microsoft will pick up the phone to Intel and tell them to implement some Windows-only stuff on the next gen of 'Core Quadro' processors that will make their use by Apple...how shall we say it?...challenging.
Is it possible that the reason that Dell, HP, and Lenovo are now offering desktop PCs with Linux has little to do with Linux and it's merits and more to do with the fact that the antitrust enforcement against Microsoft is about to expire and is up for review/renewal. OEM bullying to lockout competitors was one of the biggest complaints against Microsoft. But since the big 3 desktop PC vendors are selling Linux, the measures slapped on Microsoft have obviously worked and are no longer needed.
What annoys me is how most organizations focus on the inclusion of Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer in Windows despite the bigger antitrust violations that Microsoft has been commiting for years. Probably the worst antitrust offense Microsoft is commiting lies in its OEM license terms for Windows. Companies large and small rely on the huge discount that comes from selling OEM versions of Windows on their hardware, but the license terms prevent those vendors from selling PC's with no operating systems installed on them as well as PC's set up to dual boot Windows along with any other operating system. Yes, I know that FreeDOS has been used to work around the former of those problems, but regardless of the effectiveness of these tactics is the fact that Microsoft attempts to use such anti-competitive practices and the fact that they are always overlooked.
And on a slightly different note, could the fact that Windows is the only operating system that doesn't have a boot loader with the capability to load other operating systems be considered anti-competitive? Linux has had this feature for many years and even OS X supports dual-booting Windows, but Windows simply overwrites the MBR and renders all other installed operating systems to be unbootable until a recovery disk is used to repair the boot loader.
And finally, my biggest complaint about the EU and the US DOJ is that they fined Microsoft for including WMP and IE in Windows, but they have made little to no effort to "vote with their wallets" and use other operating systems. If they really found Microsoft's tactics to be anti-competitive, they could back up their statements by at least considering the use one of the many viable alternatives to Windows. Instead, they issue a fine while continuing to use Windows (hypocrites?) and make themselves look like a bunch of greedy grab-asses out to get a piece of the Microsoft pie. EU and US DOJ: actions speak louder than cheap (relative to Microsoft) fines.
4. Vista is a buggy, expensive POS. It will become the OS of 90% of personal computers within five years anyway.
Actualy I don't hold that against them as an anti-trust point. The projection of 90% is maybe a little optomistic. Vista is driving Apple, Ubuntu, and even XP as alternatives to the OS with bugs.
My dad bought a Mac. I upgraded 4 older machines of mine to Ubuntu. My wife got a Vista Laptop for her Masters classes. I found out the hard way in the first day some of the bugs. It started simply. "Honey, please transfer my documents from the old machine and set up printing to use our LAN printers."
The Vista machine was unable to log into any SMB share requiring a password... 3 hours of internet searching later and one regestry edit later, that was fixed. Files transferred. My printers on the LAN use stand alone hardware printservers providing IPP printing. Everything from Windows 95-XP and all the Linux and Mac's connect fine. (older windows needed IPP drivers) Linux uses IPP with CUPS by default. Vista mangles the printer set up pages so bad renaming everything it took another 2 hours to properly configure printing. (It's called network printing. The port name on the print server has to be entered elsewhere and it's called printer name, not port.) IPP://192.168.1.101/lp1 becomes address 192.168.1.101 and on another page the port lp1 is entered in a field marked Printer Name. Very intuitive. My first attempt at setting up my first Linux box on the Windows only LAN back then took a total of 30 minutes instead of the 5 hours Vista took.
The truth shall set you free!
Yeah, I know that's not a full year, in fact I got sick of searching /. just back to july, if you want to find the rest of the disgusting B$ behaviour coming out of redmond for the nine months prior to that look for yourself ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"Unlike 10 years ago, the world has moved past its reliance on Microsoft to embrace other vendors products willingly. No wonder IE's market share continues to fall precipitously."
So then you agree with the DoJ and the 5 states that the thing they did vis-a-vis Microsoft worked? Good, glad to have that settled.
All of you whiney fan-bois and grrls should take a step back and realize what it is you are admitting when you say the stupid things that you say. If the things MS makes are 'defectivebydesign', then monopoly or not, some other system will win. If MS can't innovate, can't implement standards, can't make stable systems, then some other system will win. If closed source is such a bad model, then some other system will win.
It's hard to make a case that MS should continue to be hobbled when it's "The Year of Widespread Linux Adoption".
most normal business activities undertaken by for-profit organizations are illegal for monopolies.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Ahahaha. Seriously, dude, you should be embarassed. As I read this, one phrase came to mind "...and get to the bad part?".
Microsoft's monopoly is perhaps the best exemplar of the evil of antitrust.
It is the result of the US DoJ's antitrust persecution of IBM. http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/1980.htm
Think about it. Why did the mountain come to Mohamed? Why did IBM go shopping for a floppy DOS?
A floppy DOS is a weekend project for IBM. They could have made a better PC-DOS than Microsoft ever has, at a lower price for themselves and their customers.
There is only one entity that could have forced IBM to make such a stupid decision, and that was the US Government.
I am of split mind regarding antitrust prosecution of Microsoft. I admit to enjoying the schadenfreude, "he who lives by antitrust dies by antitrust," yet I understand at some point the madness of antitrust must stop.
Because lawyers are lousy system architects! They are rarely learned in discrete logic; they are only taught pretzel logic.
"corporations which have been tried and convicted for criminal behavior don't enjoy the same freedom of action as those who have not."
You've managed to gloss over anti-trust's largest problem: defining criminal behavior. Actions that are perfectly legal below a certain threshold (size, market share, popularity) run the risk of being arbitrarily declared illegal after the fact.
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
.... they are hoisting the "Mission Accomplished" banner as we speak (post).
Have gnu, will travel.
Microsoft has locked out Linux from Retailer Shelves
Yes, the proliferation of broadband and WiFi hot spots that allow laptop users to download a CD-ROM in 30 minutes has made it easier for end users to install non-microsoft applications, by Microsoft still maintains total monopoly control over the OEM and retailer channel. When I shop at K-Mart, I can look at the games available for Sony PlayStation, Nintendo, and even X-Box, even test drive them, even see if the kids will like them. When I buy software for a PC there is NO facility to take a "Test Drive". On the other hand, Microsoft makes sure that their middleware, "applets" (bundled applications), and other anticompetitive products are fully loaded and ready to demonstrate.
Applications Barrier to Entry Still Exists
Remember, the whole premise of the Antitrust case was that Microsoft had created an "Applications Barrier to Entry", preventing the widespread marketing and adoption of applications capable of running on competitive platforms. Furthermore, it was ruled that Microsoft was illegally using it's existing monopoly to exclude competitors from the marketplace (IE Distribution Channels).
Monopoly or Collusion
There are two possibilities. One is that Microsoft has been arm-twisting and coercing the OEMs, through fraud (vaporware) extortion (buy more than you need or we will give you NO licenses), blackmail (if you sell machines without Windows, we will claim you are promoting piracy), and sabotage (want a patch that permanently damages your hardware - similar to the way we fried IBM's Cyrix chips with Windows NT 4.0 service pack 2?).
The other possibility is that the OEMs were willing co-conspirators in a collusion scheme designed to exclude competitors like Novell, Sun, and Apple from the marketplace. Could it be that the OEMs openly conspired to exclude Linux distributors, and other distributors of PC compatible operating systems such as Linux, Solaris, BSD, and OS/X from the marketplace, by refusing to allow them into the OEM distribution channel?
The evidence and actions of the OEMs indicate quite the opposite. Hewlett Packard designed all of their AMD-64 based laptop and desktop PCs to be fully compatible with Linux. They even announced that they would offer their PCs with Linux - for about 3 days. Then what happened? Did Microsoft "crack down"? Dell and Toshiba have also attempted similar "Linux PC" announcements - only to withdraw the offerings within 3-4 days. IBM's Sam Palmisano had publicly announced that IBM would be converting to Linux and OSS by the end of 2007. It seems that Microsoft made it so unpleasant for IBM, that IBM scuttled the PC division, and sold it to Lenovo. The only Desktops they still sell - are available with Linux as well as Windows.
Yet with all these attempts to announce and promote Linux based PCs, not a single Linux PC has made it to the shelves of a major national or international retail franchise. Wal-Mart has offered Linux PCs for almost 10 years now, but only on their web site, and only as pretty much a seasonal offering.
Desktop Virtualization has been thwarted
The technology is available to enable Linux and Windows to run on the same machine. Dual-boot, Desktop Virtualization, and multicore processors have made it possible to run both Linux and Windows on the same desk
IBM Certified IT Architect http://www.open4success.org
Yes, I agree. Corproations that have been tried and convicted of criminal behavior shouldn't enjoy the same freedom of action as those who have not.
Now, what does that have to do with Microsoft? They have not been tried or convicted of any criminal activities. Perhaps you're confusing civil actions, ie a lawsuit, with a criminal trial. The former is two private parties (or the government acting as a private party) asking a court to rule over a dispute using laws to determine the 'winner'. The only outcome of a civil action is injunctive or monetary damages. (ie you owe $x or you must stop doing y). In rare cases, structural remedies may also occur.
Criminal trials, on the other hand, are about punishment for wrongdoing.
As an example, OJ Simpson was aquited of criminal charges in the murder of his wife. However, was found guilty in civil court and was required to pay damages to the plaintiffs. That's why his civil rights were not reduced at all, and he is not a convicted felon.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I agree. And, that's why the majority of anti-trust remedies call for behavior changes. However, after a company, like Microsoft, has been under the anti-trust microsope for 15 years or so, they should have a good idea of what does and doesn't constitue anti-trust violations. There are, however, always going to be new issues (like suddenly, claiming Media Players are anti-trust issues).
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Since when does Microsoft have a monopoly in video game consoles? And since when is lying about defect rates even illegal? Perhaps something related to Sarbanes-Oxley or the SEC, but not anti-trust wise.
Further, Microsoft is merely backing HD-DVD, they don't own it. And HD-DVD certainly isn't a monopoly either.
By the way, Microsoft did the right thing with the Blue-Jay thing. They invalidated their own patent. But, since you ahve an axe to grind, I suppose you'll use anything you can get. Valid, or not.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
How much could California really care about a Microsoft monopoly if they force all state employees to use Windows? So much for the theory about the state going after MS because Apple's headquarters are in Cupertino.
As I understand it, it isn't that they PREVENT or BLOCK alternative desktop search. You can still install Google Desktop Search or Yahoo! Search or whatever search you want. You can use it at will, even. But what they don't let you do is REPLACE the desktop search built into Vista. Their claim (and I have no reason to doubt them) is that there are other pieces of the system which depend on services provided by desktop search. Additionally they did make concessions to Google re: desktop search even tho those were not required by the terms of the settlement.
Microsoft has done enough to earn a good skewering, but desktop search is not one of them. So install & use the one you want. And let this issue go.
Save the Music; Save the World at http://www.TuneTriever.com (Our latest Android game)
No discernible impact on the market place. So why aren't they satisfied? Wasn't that the point?
The feds are sorry they ever bothered Microsoft.
The states are sorry they stopped.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Some businesses, historically speaking, have been here to do more than that. Look at Hearst's little war as a good example or Krupp's actually fostering wars for profit AND political advantage as another. There are many, many other examples.
The way to control a population is not by military force, but by controlling what the population thinks. By controlling the media and the methods by which information is stored, disseminated, displayed and processed, one can, without firing a shot, take over the world because, by doing so, one will be able to control what the public sees and, more importantly, what the public does NOT see and therefore one can control what the public will BELIEVE and THINK (when the public bothers to think at all, that is!).
This was one of the key premeses of Henlein's "Revolt in 2100."
Microsoft, if you look not all that closely, seems to be striving to gain control of the way media is processed, stored, transmitted and displayed.
Connect the dots.
It would be not a very great leap to go from where they are to a full-on assault to take over the world's media processing and programming infrastrusture.
Of course, "Revolt in 2100" was science fiction. But so were cell phones, personal computers, motorcycles, magnetic scanning technology, lasers, microwave cookers, palm-sized computers, television, radar, television and space stations...!
Paranoid fantasy? Quite possibly.
If nothing else, it might make a pretty good novel...! And that's NOVEL, not NOVELL!
Convicted monopolists are not "any other for-profit organisation".
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Just because I get tired of all the constant anti-microsoft rhetoric doesn't make me a shill. Yes, if you went back further than the last 2 dozen comments, you'd see a lot more.
Whether or not Microsoft "stacked" the ISO deck doesn't have any real bearance on anti-trust either. Having OOXML as an ISO standard is not anti-competitive. It may break other rules or laws, but anti-competitive? How? It's not like OOXML being an ISO standard forces anyone to use office.
Also, no. The Findings of fact do not declare Microsoft to be an illegal monopoly. Perhaps you shoul read it. It actually declares Microsoft to be a *LEGAL* one, ie having gained their monopoly legally. Further, Findings of fact don't draw any conclusions.
Now, the Conclusions of Law claimed that Microsoft had abused it's monopoly power illegally, but that doesn't mean Microsoft is an illegal monopoly. So no, it's not "well established" that they're an illegal monopoly, since that is not the case. The opposite is, in fact, the case.
It's not splitting hairs either. Do you consider it splitting hairs to say that someone who committed civil copyright infringement is guilty of felonious theft? It's a *HUGE* difference between civil proceedings and criminal ones. It's a *HUGE* difference betwee claiming someone is a felon, and someone merely being sued in a civil lawsuit.
Or are you going to start calling all those people sued by the MPAA and RIAA felons because they agreed to a settlement?
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
It makes no practical difference that MS was found to have violated antitrust laws in a civil suit rather than a criminal suit. Either way, they are not legally "the same as any other company", once they've been found to be a monopoly by the courts.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Just get over it, most people define themselves by their morals, not juvenile what is illegal or legal, or when the penalties do not exceed the profits or when wont get caught, or they wont bother prosecuting us, or we will retract only once the go through the expense of initiating a class action law suit. M$ and it's marketing team are really just full of it, and it smells, and is the remainder of what was once edible, and has had most of the useful nutrients removed from it and only attracts blueys (for you non-Australians a particularly large noisy and annoying fly with a bright blue butt) ;).
See no axe to grind, M$ are boringly predictable, their opinion has no value and their facts are just marketing illusions and paid for biased consulting reports, but they are still fun to mock, and it is enjoyable experience to poke holes in their advertising, and it's always a laugh to dismantle the public statements made by their management. Damn, where are the usual billy goat rants and the monkey boy dances, developers, developers, developers, developers, it's been all rather quite over they last couple months, c'mon guys let ballmer out of his cage.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I said nothing about the value of the concept whatsoever. I was responding to the assertion that businesses are here to help people. They're not. They're here to make money. That was a value-free statement. To understand it, think of the "reading" or "sanity" free post that you just made, in response to a nonexistent utterance.
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
"The fact that middleware and operating system competition is taking place today is encouraging and an indication that the final judgments are enabling the competition that they are designed to protect," noted the DoJ and New York Group in their filing."
Aside from backend server OS's and middleware on systems that are already free of Window, where is the competition? I haven't seen much...
I'm not so sure about that. The burden of proof in a civil case is far less than that of a criminal case.
Should a persons be put on a "sex offenders" list if he is aquited in a criminal case, but liable in a civil one? I don't know the answer to that.
Now, Microsoft has signed an consent decree, which is them voluntarily giving up certain behaviors. And for that, they have to honor, or risk criminal charges.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I didn't say lying was acceptable. I didn't say doing any of the things you mention are acceptable. They are not, however, anti-trust violations.
Making arguments based on invalid pretexts is annoying, and doesn't give your argument any merit. What's worse, it makes the entire argument against Microsoft to seem childish, and inanane. Good job.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
it doesn't matter, because the finding that they are a legal monopoly is a finding of fact, not of criminal or civil guilt. The fact that they are legally a monopoly is what makes them different from other companies, not the finding that they were guilty or in violation of the particular accusations in that suit.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Righto wolf boy ;D.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen