Slashdot Mirror
Los Angeles Goes Google Apps With Microsoft Cash
Dan Jones writes "The Los Angeles City Council has approved a US$7.25 million, five-year deal with Google in which the city will adopt Gmail and other Google Apps. Interestingly, just over $1.5 million for the project will come from the payout of a 2006 class action lawsuit between the City and Microsoft (Microsoft paid $70 million three years ago to settle the suit by six California counties and cities who alleged that Microsoft used its monopoly position to overcharge for software). The city will migrate from Novell GroupWise e-mail servers. For security, Google will provide a new separate data environment called 'GovCloud' to store both applications and data in a completely segregated environment that will only be used by public agencies. This GovCloud would be encrypted and 'physically and logically segregated' from Google's standard applications. Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?"
I thought "Microsoft Cash" was a new marvellous Redmond product I hadn't heard of.
Are the government servers more reliable, or more secure than the regular servers? If that's the case, what does that say about the peons who don't have access to it?
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Does this mean I will be losing some of the 7385 MB available for my inbox space? I'm already using a whole 1% of that!
With the advancement of Google and open-source software, can we say that Microsoft has a monopoly on anything except its operating system?
I'm not saying that the court decisions were wrong, but this article goes to show how a few years can change the landscape and just how far Google and open-source software has come.
So they took money they received by being able to say that microsoft had some sort of monopoly and used it to purchase products and services from Microsoft's competitor? Maybe I'm missing something.
Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?
No. Someone's just getting a dedicated data center hosting scalable web apps. Nothing new.
Of all the places on the interwebs, I would hope /. could refrain from the marketing babble.
Developers: We can use your help.
There will be a subset of users who will hate it, mostly serious Excel jockies and the extremely change averse, but on the whole it'll be pretty popular.
The biggest thing is space. In my(admittedly modest; but definitely nonzero) experience, users really, really hate dealing with storage quotas and love doing things(like storing files in the form of email attachments) that bump them into quotas. Unless the LA IT guys were unusually generous, or their deal with Google unusually stingy, most user's quotas will probably go up substantially. Plus, with Google doc's sharing functions, there will hopefully be much less attachment clutter eating email quota space.
Aside from heavy users of particular Office functions, who will almost certainly end up retaining local copies of office one way or another(whether it be official IT department policy, or local departmental budgets, or some other means), most people will probably care more about not bumping into quotas than anything else.
The money the city was paid for being "overcharged" gets used to migrate away from some product never made by Microsoft.
Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?
No.
What it has done is given IT administrators the opportunity to pass the buck when there's a problem with a system. Now when the e-mail system goes down for hours and employees can't access crucial data, the IT admin simply points at Google and says "it's not my fault or my problem".
That's all cloud computing offers. Unless you're a bit paranoid, in which case it also provides a single-point of attack for the government to eavesdrop under the banner of "keeping America safe".
That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books. They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.
Has cloud computing stepped up to prime time?
I hear "cloud computing" discussed and wonder what it really means. It seems like it's just a notion of a server connected to many clients serving data to client applications (which isn't a new concept). However, my impression was that "cloud computing" was many clients connected to each other serving each other content.
Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it
Cloud computing services often provide common business applications online that are accessed from a web browser, while the software and data are stored on the servers.
Okay... cloud computing is "business application accessed from a web browser". Well, in the respect I think the deal might be a good step for cloud computing.
Moving from what is arguably the most secure stable email platform available to "the cloud"
You neglect the effect of the close call that MS experienced that tempered, somewhat its proclivity for using the Mafia business model. Remember even under the W, supposedly MS was under judicial restraint. Those factors had to play a role in allowing competition to reappear*.
* However, if you look at the netbook experience where Linux suddenly vanished (supposedly completely) from its initial dominance one can see hints that MS is probably back to its old game, but the environment has altered in the interim.
In a word, no, Google mail is not ready for primetime. They are not able to meet the SLA's required for a business, especially government work where the email system needs to be readily available. I would assume there is some extent of document management involved here, and if that's the case what happens when gmail goes down? I know government tends to move slowly, but this could seriously interrupt procedures - what if cases weren't tried in due time? Businesses and government use email for more than just simple communication, it could also be a sign-off step in a procedure's workflow, and breaking that is often a big problem.
In 2009 Gmail was down in February and then in September, and I believe there was at least once more occurence this year as well. In 2008 Google was down in July, three times in August, and once in October. If I ran a business and my email was completely down to this extent I would fire my Exchange team.
Sure Google gives you 15 days free when the service is unavailable for a period of time, but that doesn't really help now does it?
I actually don't know the details of the suit or settlement associated with the three California counties suit against Microsoft using its monopoly position to overcharge for software, but I observe that the suit did not result in lower prices. They are pretty much still too expensive.
C'mon, you've never gotten this little gem?
--
THIS TOOK TWO PAGES OF THE TUESDAY USA TODAY - IT IS FOR REAL
Subject: PLEEEEEEASE READ!!!! it was on the news!
To all of my friends, I do not usually forward messages, But this is from my good friend Pearlas Sandborn and she really is an attorney.
If she says that this will work - It will work. After all, What have you got to lose? SORRY EVERYBODY.. JUST HAD TO TAKE THE CHANCE!!! I'm an attorney, And I know the law. This thing is for real. Rest assured AOL and Intel will follow through with their promises for fear of facing a multimillion-dollar class action suit similar to the one filed by PepsiCo against General Electric not too long ago.
Dear Friends; Please do not take this for a junk letter. Bill Gates sharing his fortune. If you ignore this, You will repent later. Microsoft and AOL are now the largest Internet companies and in an effort to make sure that Internet Explorer remains the most widely used program, Microsoft and AOL are running an e-mail beta test.
When you forward this e-mail to friends, Microsoft can and will track it ( If you are a Microsoft Windows user) For a two weeks time period.
For every person that you forward this e-mail to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00 For every person that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third person that receives it, You will be paid $241.00. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check.
I thought this was a scam myself, But two weeks after receiving this e-mail and forwarding it on. Microsoft contacted me for my address and withindays, I receive a check for $24,800.00. You need to respond before the beta testing is over. If anyone can affoard this, Bill gates is the man.
It's all marketing expense to him. Please forward this to as many people as possible. You are bound to get at least $10,000.00. We're not going to help them out with their e-mail beta test without getting a little something for our time. My brother's girlfriend got in on this a few months ago. When i went to visit him for the Baylor/UT game. She showed me her check. It was for the sum of $4,324.44 and was stamped "Paid in full"
Like i said before, I know the law, and this is for real.
Intel and AOL are now discussing a merger which would make them the largest Internet company and in an effort make sure that AOL remains the most widely used program, Intel and AOL are running an e-mail beta test.
When you forward this e-mail to friends, Intel can and will track it (if you are a Microsoft Windows user) for a two week time period.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Obviously he hasn't, you see, he's new here.
Hi, I am Anonymous Coward, and I am here to help.
And so control of data and code goes back where it started, within the huge corporations.
Except now the racks of clusters and virtual machines are called "clouds".
True.
But, IIRC, most of these cases had to do with Microsoft strong-arming OEMS (Dell,HP, etc) by forcing them to only ship Windows and Office on their computers.
No, actually it's nothing like that. Reading a book doesn't require anything proprietary and it doesn't have to work with other software, etc.
But I'm sure you have more knowledge about the case than the judge who made the decision.
The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.
Your JK Rowling analogy is missing the part where JK Rowling buys up every other publishing company, shuts them down, turns the book industry into a harry Potter monoculture, and makes Harry Potter the only book series on the planet aside from a few hold outs that have the creativity to write their own books.
Not the same at all. There are millions of other books to choose from because Rowling's does own all the printing presses. That's free market vs monopoly market economics.
My dad is an LA City firefighter, and I'm happy for him that he won't have to put up with GroupWise anymore (what a piece of crap), but I'm also not sure that he's ready for the switch to all cloud based apps. Hopefully the city isn't so dumb that they pull all the software they've already paid for licenses of and force everyone to move to the Google Apps version, but that's putting a lot of hope in a city that doesn't usually do smart things with technology.
But, IIRC, most of these cases had to do with Microsoft strong-arming OEMS (Dell,HP, etc) by forcing them to only ship Windows and Office on their computers.
"Strong-arming" how? Did they have guns? Automatic or semi-auto?
Ohh, right, you mean Microsoft said that unless Dell agrees to the terms of their contract, they would not sign the contract. *gasp* How horrible of them to not let Dell have their business without agreeing to the terms of their contract!
Dude, that's just it, she does. Or are you able to get Harry Potter books from other authors more cheaply? Or from other publishers at a better price? I don't think so, and if you could you would see how quickly they get sued into oblivion.
Just take a look at the list of people who have 'tried to break the Harry Potter Monopoly'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series
And anyway your analogy doesnt hold in this case. Harry Potter is not Windows, JK Rowling is not a convicted monopolist, it's not the same thing. You should have used a car analogy ;-)
No, actually it's nothing like that. Reading a book doesn't require anything proprietary and it doesn't have to work with other software, etc.
Neither does your OS. It wouldn't be good for business, but there's no requirement that the OS must work with anything else. How is your statement relevant to my analogy, again? It's like arguing that I've made a false analogy because JK Rowling is a woman and Bill Gates is a man - it's true, but irrelevant.
But I'm sure you have more knowledge about the case than the judge who made the decision.
If a judge correctly interprets an immoral law, does that make the law alright? Stop begging the question. I'm arguing what's right, not what's legal.
I run a small 200+ computer operation and had Google Enterprise call yesterday. We use their Postini service for spam and really like it. The sales rep on the line wanted to know if we were interested in their Apps product and had mentioned that Los Angeles recently switched to it. Call me traditional or old-fashioned, but I like having physical access to my data. I also like being responsible for ensuring our services stay up and running. If e-mail is down, I can fix it, instead of calling someone else to check it out for me. Several techs in our state from a recent meeting shared this sentiment as well. What is the general overall feeling from IT on "cloud computing"? I'd be curious the thoughts from the LA IT department...
The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.
How exactly did they "eliminate alternatives" - did they use thugs and tommy guns? Ohh -- you mean they made a superior product, and made contractual obligations with their resellers. *gasp*
Not the same at all. There are millions of other books to choose from because Rowling's does own all the printing presses.
It is the same. Re-read my post. I said a monopoly on Harry Potter, not a monopoly on books.
I love it, we finally will have open government. Just Google your local representatives name, and all the related email, documents, and maybe even web searches, will be there for users to browse. Transparency, accountability, and honesty. No more browsing on craigslist on taxpayers time. No more hiding behind the law.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
"Strong-arming" how? Did they have guns? Automatic or semi-auto?
Both.
http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
OK, Mr. Smart-Ass, when Microsoft comes to you and says "You can't ship Linux on your computers unless you agree that 99% of your computers have Windows installed, regardless of what your customers ask for", and you say "No! I will not agree to that!", how many computers will you sell when you can't sell Windows. That's anti-competitive behavior, and Microsoft is guilty as hell.
Ohh -- you mean they made a superior product,
We're talking about Microsoft Windows here. That never happened.
... and then they built the supercollider.
actually they did not make a superior product, go back and read all the findings. They did in fact use their position to destroy others before they could compete, which is fine, unless you have a monopoly.
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces -- Murphy's Law of Poker
and microsoft had a monopoly in the operating system market, not the windows market, so yet the analogy was ok.
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces -- Murphy's Law of Poker
[citation needed]
once they have unfettered access to all Government documents and email...
Do No Evil - ya right!
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
You're right. Similarly, if Microsoft doesn't want to agree to the terms of doing business in the United States, where we require businesses to not behave in anti-competitive behaviour, they are perfectly free to take their business elsewhere.
Just because you don't like the truth, does not make it false.
"You can't ship Linux on your computers unless you agree that 99% of your computers have Windows installed, regardless of what your customers ask for", and you say "No! I will not agree to that!"
If Dell refused Microsoft's terms, then Microsoft loses Dell's business, which would also be a huge loss for them. They both lose if they can't agree to a deal.
That's anti-competitive behavior
What does "anti-competitive" means? Care to define it in clearly concrete terms? If you believe force was applied - how? in what way? where are the guns?
No rights were violated. Nobody was forced to sign a contract at gun point, by a thug, or otherwise blackmailed. No fraud was committed. This is the free market. In the same way McDonald's demands its beef suppliers do exclusive business with them, and my company demands its resellers do exclusive business with us in order to get our products at a discount, Microsoft did the same. That is the definition of a free market - a market free of force, in which rights are violated. Anti-trust legislation is force, and violates the rights of those at Microsoft to set the terms of their agreements.
They "promised" it. Ya know, Microsoft produces world class vaporware.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You're right. Similarly, if Microsoft doesn't want to agree to the terms of doing business in the United States, where we require businesses to not behave in anti-competitive behaviour, they are perfectly free to take their business elsewhere.
Begging the question. We're arguing what's right, not what's legal. There are immoral laws, and they should be overturned. That's what we're arguing. Or did you confuse this with a legal discussion board?
They did in fact use their position to destroy others before they could compete, which is fine, unless you have a monopoly.
How'd they destroy them? With dynamite? C4? What sort of explosives are we talking about here? Or did they hack into their computers and wipe their hard drives? What destruction occurred, and how did it occur?
Or do you simply mean that Microsoft made contractual obligations with its clients? How is that equivalent to destruction, or even force? It's a requirement for the delivery and sale of a product, and violates no rights.
So it's right for those with power to abuse it? Because that's the point of Antitrust - we as a society have decided that we value a competitive market more than a free market, so we took steps towards that. We have economic evidence that competitive markets are better for both consumers, corporations, and innovation than free markets. You are assuming that free = better, and therefore free = right. I see no evidence you're giving that that is correct.
Just because you don't like the truth, does not make it false.
.....and then they'll be back to Exchange or Domino or GeeWhizz!
So it's right for those with power to abuse it?
Power, how? Political power? Economic power? Power to do what? To force you to buy their product? How do they force you? Do you believe you have a right to their product? What gives you that right?
We have economic evidence that competitive markets are better for both consumers, corporations, and innovation than free markets.
Since when do the ends justify the means? How do you justify the violation of rights in this non-free market.
we as a society have decided that we value a competitive market more than a free market
Who is this "we as a society"? When was this decision made, and where? I must not have gotten the memo about signing my rights away.
Simply put, the fact that the current state exists does not make it moral. The majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority.
You are assuming that free = better, and therefore free = right.
No, what is free is what is moral because no rights are violated, not because of some random study showing that a free society leads to better results. A moral system can't be built on the end result, because in practice you have no way of knowing in advance that the moral choice you make will definitely have that result.
JK Rowling's monopoly position on Harry Potter doesn't mean I have to buy it. I can read another author's books without any trouble, even if I'm the only person who does so. This is fundamentally different to software, where I must have compatibility with my bank, government agencies especially tax departments and other business's. If the government starts requiring I buy Harry Potter books to be able to file my taxes I'll object to that too.
I note that there has been no anti-trust action against MS in my country that I'm aware of and yet the MS stranglehold is in many ways broken. Unlike a few years ago you can access most banks without windows, MS supports odf, OOo compatibility is good enough for many people and pdf is suitable for document sharing. The one area that still requires MS is taxation which is the fault of the government not MS. So I would agree that the solution is the market rather than anti-trust law. If government procurement policies mandated open formats and protocols this would have been a complete non-issue. As far as I'm concerned the government has no right to require the use of a particular companies software, it is legal action against the government that is required here, not action against MS.
Even to the extent that any software company has a monopoly they have it because of copyright which is a government intervention in the market anyway. It can be argued that it is a good intervention but it is a government intervention nonetheless.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Since when do the ends justify the means? How do you justify the violation of rights in this non-free market.
Copyright restrictions in themselves are a government intervention. The pay-per-copy software market is not a free market. Whether you think it's good or not I'll leave you to decide, but it's certainly not a free market as the number of suppliers of copies is restricted by government regulations.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
When did we give them the 'right' to a free market?
Or, to put it another way, when did we give them the right to remove *our* right to a competitive market?
This 'we, as a society' are the people of the United States who decided in the early 1900s to enact anti-trust laws, after seeing what lack of competition did to OUR (not their) economy.
Similarly, you are free to exercise your right to live in a non-competitive market by moving. If you want to enjoy the benefits of living in a competitive market, you have to agree to live with the restrictions that places on you.
Also, if you're saying a free market doesn't have rights violated, you're forgetting that it only protects you from the Government violating your rights. The government does not have a monopoly on that, and so I welcome their restricting the ability of others to violate my rights.
Just because you don't like the truth, does not make it false.
you claim to be "its a free market they can do what they want. However, it is not a free market, the government has messed with the market and done things like patents and copyright and all kinds of stuff that mess with the market. Without the roadblocks the government has put in the market the restrictions on monopolies would be unneeded because it would not be possible for them to do the things they did.
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces -- Murphy's Law of Poker
"If I understood this right, Microsoft was found guilty of using their monopoly in the OS sector to gain monopolies in other sectors"
MS wasn't "found guilty" of anything because it was a civil -- ah forget it.
So, what are these "other sectors" that MS now enjoys a monopoly in?
So netbooks are now considered a different market than PCs?
that the city paid 7 million dollars for software everybody else uses for free.
Neither does your OS.
Sure sign that you've never worked for a large IT firm.
I work for a major retailer and we have multiple systems with multiple OS's that NEED to interact in order for us to properly do our work. The more Microsoft drags their heels on interoperability, the more we're forced to move to Microsoft-guided solutions. That is abuse of a monopoly, plain and simple.
You say it's an immoral law, but it's implementation of that law that stopped the stifling of communications technology as per Ma Bell. It wasn't until their breakup that all kinds of communications technological advances were able to be made. Many would argue that without the breakup of Ma Bell the internet would not have been possible.
So netbooks are now considered a different market than PCs?
I reckon so, in so far as few existing PC users would buy a netbook to replace their PC - but to augment it.
In the early days of the netbook market, most of them came with Linux, the logic being that Windows would add a good 10% to the unit price, and who needs Windows for web browsing and light word processing?
Are you really that big of a shill? You know as well as I do that this is the very definition of a monopoly. Yes, making people agree not to sell competing products a contractual obligation to get volume license pricing is IN FACT a dirty business tactic. At one point, yes, they simply had kick ass software, but regardless of the quality of their software, those business practices are a bunch of unfair horseshit.
Seriously, I don't say this often to people personally here, but you're a fucking idiot.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Dear Microsoft:
Forget the fact that you overcharge
us, we can overlook that. You were
counting on your monopoly to
keep us as customers and that's not right.
Your products, however, are shoddy and
outside the realm of
usability. We will switch to Google.
Love,
California
One way is to buy-and-shelf. There's also flooding the market with a free-but-inferior product ... that didn't quite work with Money against Quicken though
and made contractual obligations with their resellers. *gasp*
Some would say that's where they used thugs and tommy guns ... or some modern equivalent, like lawyers who can manipulate 'immoral laws'.
Yes ... if OEMs and other companies had more cojones to tell M$ to screw off, some of this would have taken care of itself. Of course, we're in the US ... we use legislators and lawyers to solve that stuff.
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
How is it that the author can say Microsoft's money is being used for this project? If you rob me of money, and then I sue you and the court *gives me back my money*, and then I buy something with it, I'm not buying it with *your* money, I'm buying it with *my* money (or, in this case, L.A. Taxpayers' money).
According to the court, it apparently never was Microsoft's money to begin with. (One could endlessly argue about Monopolies, and whether Microsoft really is a monopoly, and whether the court award was correct, but that's tangential to my argument, so I don't want to get into that - my point is, even if it *was* Microsoft's money before the lawsuit, it is no longer their money afterwords).
It occurs to me that if they need to build a separate, secure, private, insert-adjective-here system, then it doesn't really speak much for the bog-standard cloud they're offering the rest of us.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Google deliberately. I use google apps... signed up for it with one of my domains and two users so I could have a chance to really play with the service... and I like it a lot.
Still, if they need to make a separate cloud for government, then aren't they kind of breaking the "cloud" paradigm and just providing outsourced hosting / SAS?
The Digital Sorceress
I could really use the money.
Within months we'll start hearing: 1. Low-end users - those who don't generally works at desks - will be the primary users of Google Apps. 2. Most of their desk workers will continue to use Microsoft Office. They'll use Google Apps for email and sharing Word, Excel and PowerPoint docs. 3. The total cost of this move will probably be higher than using on-premises mail servers or using servers. 4. There will be another GMail/Google Docs outage that will piss people off. And, I'd say there's a 50-60% chance that they'll back off this experiment within a year or two and use Google Apps in a much more limited way.
I don't buy it. Most laptops aren't purchased to replace desktops models either.
I still don't see how Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system market. Microsoft NEVER prevented me from running OS/2 or BEOS on the same hardware that I ran Windows on. So I think the Harry Potter reference is still the right analogy.
is the favourite sport of many /.ers !
Microsoft's executive offices just placed an order for replacement office furniture.
Google is the main one that tries to associate itself with OSS for marketing purposes.
Google does more than just that. Google releases software as well as sponsors Open Source projects.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
A) Using MS money against them - bet they should it would come back to them. Hah.
B) Did google agree NOT to parse, correlate and use the govt data for ads? If so, I'm good with this method provided all access is only via VPN. HTTPS shouldn't be considered secure anymore since Mom can be tricked into believing she's on a secure connection when she isn't.
This 'we, as a society' are the people of the United States who decided in the early 1900s to enact anti-trust laws, after seeing what lack of competition did to OUR (not their) economy.
The irony is that that of the "monopolies" that drove this policy, Standard Oil and American Tobacco, neither of the accused firms monopolized or "restrained" trade; on the contrary, both firms expanded outputs enormously, innovated continuously, and generally lowered prices for consumers. Many other anti-trust cases have also been against companies that dramatically lowered consumer prices, such as Alcoa. More info.
There just wasn't enough bandwidth to do this in the past.
But the bandwidth exists now? You didn't get the memo from the GAO saying the Fatherland, er Motherland, er Homeland Security Department hasn't been doing enough to save the nations bandwidth in case of the pandemic have you? They say there's not enough and some net access will have to be cut off.
Of course if we depend on corporations that enjoy monopolies to deliver broadband and high bandwidth access we'll never get it. We'll only get it by having competition.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Given your political views, I can only suggest you emigrate to Somalia. In that paradise, there is no central government controlling the market, and people are make any associations they want, No society will take your rights away.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Cloud Computing" is just web based thin client with the servers outsourced to a 3rd party who you then trust to run their services scalably. The reason it hasn't been done before is simply that it's batshit insane and before you added marketing hype you'd lose your job even suggesting something as asinine. You simply don't put your day to day operations at the mercy of yet another 3rd party (and unlike basic utilities these services aren't simple and service levels are a bear to negotiate).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books. They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.
Amassing isn't it? A person on welfare could become one of the world's richest people via their own work.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This is not a free market.
Yea, in a free market anybody can set any terms they within limits but nobody would enjoy a monopoly either. And MS most certainly does enjoy a monopoly.
Anti-trust legislation is force, and violates the rights of those at Microsoft to set the terms of their agreements.
Despite the fact that people like you have fallen for it, corporations are not people and they have no rights. Only individuals, people, have rights. Not only that but corporations exist at the whim of government, and government can revoke their corporate charters.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Sure, it was my money but it's not anymore. I put it in my wallet so it's my wallet's money now.
None of these monopoly-related court cases were intended to help consumers. They were intended to profit specific institutions and companies (e.g. CA Counties, Sun, AOL, etc).
we as a society have decided that we value a competitive market more than a free market
No we didn't. We have not had a free market since before the Civil War. Even then because there were slaves there wasn't a free market but other than that it was freer than it is now.
We have economic evidence that competitive markets are better for both consumers, corporations, and innovation than free markets
A competitive market is a freer market than a non-competitive market. Free markets mean there is competition. If you don't know that then you need to learn economics.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"However, it is not a free market, the government has messed with the market and done things like patents and copyright and all kinds of stuff that mess with the market."
Your forgot anti-trust in your list of government anti-free-market examples.
1) I never said we've had a free market since then. I said we've chosen competitive markets over free markets.
2) Read Brian's posts. He is using free market as a synonym for unregulated markets, so I used competitive markets as a counter to that.
Just because you don't like the truth, does not make it false.
When did we give them the 'right' to a free market?
Or, to put it another way, when did we give them the right to remove *our* right to a competitive market?
When did we have a free market? Free markets by definition are competitive markets.
Why is it socialists, including the corporate aristocracy, and communists don't know economics?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
LA gov will have a Google search-able city data bank.
Once again, I recommend you actually read my arguments rather than complain about people who don't know economics.
Just because you don't like the truth, does not make it false.
The irony is that that of the "monopolies" that drove this policy, Standard Oil and American Tobacco, neither of the accused firms monopolized or "restrained" trade;
Standard oil, under Rockefeller's direction, made deals with railroads such as Henry Flagler's who was a partner of Standard Oil, to charge higher rates for shipping competitor's oil. At one tyme "the railroad company at Rockefeller's direction denied the association permission to run the pipeline across railway land,[citation needed] forcing consortium staff to laboriously decant the oil into barrels, carry them over the railway crossing in carts, and pump the oil manually into the pipeline on the other side. When Rockefeller learned of this tactic, he instructed the railway company to park empty rail cars across the line, thereby preventing the carts from crossing his property."
If that is not anti-competitive behavior then what is? Especially when the railroads were given other people's land?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Google is well on its way to becoming Skynet! Come on, don't give them control of an entire Governments worth of information!
If that is not anti-competitive behavior then what is? Especially when the railroads were given other people's land?
Sounds like competitive behavior to me. The track record was that Standard Oil drove down consumer prices. As Wikipedia mentions "Standard's actions and secret transport deals helped its kerosene price to drop from 58 to 26 cents from 1865 to 1870."
Or do you simply mean that Microsoft made contractual obligations with its clients? How is that equivalent to destruction, or even force? It's a requirement for the delivery and sale of a product, and violates no rights.
And would you say the same if your grocery store said you could only buy from them instead of competitors? If so then what would you do if the other stores didn't carry what you wanted?
It's fine when you talk like this when you have a free market but there is no free market.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
1) I never said we've had a free market since then. I said we've chosen competitive markets over free markets.
Reread what I said, which was that free markets need competitive markets. If a market is not competitive it is not free.
2) Read Brian's posts. He is using free market as a synonym for unregulated markets, so I used competitive markets as a counter to that.
Ah, I get it, because someone else uses a wrong definition, thinking two wrongs make a right you also use a wrong definition.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Once again, I recommend you actually read my arguments rather than complain about people who don't know economics.
And I recommend you actually read my argument.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It's so easy to configure.
Sounds like competitive behavior to me
That is not competitive behavior, competitive behavior does not limit competition which is what Rockefeller's behavior did. Competitive behavior is making a better product not using obstructions making it hard for competitors to compeat.
The track record was that Standard Oil drove down consumer prices.
The track record is that Standard Oil reduced choices. And free markets are about making choices.
Reading you is sounds like you're prefer FDR over Teddy Roosevelt, while FDR was friendly to trusts, Teddy was a Trust Buster. A Democrat over a Republican?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I don't think that's very true at all. Lots of workers don't have "desktops". It's not uncommon to see laptops stay docked 24/7, but the department still isn't replacing them with desktops when the have the chance.
I would suspect it is because laptops are multifaceted in application. Likewise, as we see netbooks become faster and more efficient, they will start to replace traditional laptop uses.
Not the same at all. There are millions of other books to choose from because Rowling's does own all the printing presses.
It is the same. Re-read my post. I said a monopoly on Harry Potter, not a monopoly on books.
MS has monopoly on Windows = JK Rowling has monopoly on Harry Potter. Great.
MS Windows has 95% market share in the consumer desktop market and is abusing its monopoly position to undercut and eliminate products/companies in OS and other areas with anti-competitive practices = JK Rowling sells/licenses 95% of all end-consumer books and is somehow using this dominant position in the market to undercut and eliminate book, magazine and newspaper publishers, for example, by coercing the printing/publishing/pressing equipment manufacturers to not allow printing any/most content from other writers, or she will dramatically increase her Harry Potter licensing price, making those manufacturers unable to offer Harry Potter books at existing prices, effectively shutting down their business (because that's effectively shutting out 95% of their business).
Sure it would be the same thing if that's what was happening.
Full Disclosure - I install and maintain GroupWise Systems and could be considered a fanboi, but I also like GMail and use it. for personal accounts.
That said, if you really compare the two Gmail falls WAY short of GroupWise in the follwing areas:
Complete office and or process automation either through the local API or the server API via SOAP.
The list goes on and on. Some of the things the article does NOT say is that it will cost the city of LA MORE to run the Google mail System by about a cool million a year. There are many security issues and questions. The LA City councel is very skeptical of this whole thing. I personally doubt that the conversion will be successful and the city of LA is going to spend a boat load of tax payer money for something that is not going to work.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
They bitch, yet change happens.
So let them bitch and move away from unnecessary dependencies from predatory companies.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Looking at the top comments, no one even remembered of the concept explained by Richard Stollman a while back, that of TREACHEROUS COMPUTING. There is a concerted strategy by big corporations to take away the "local" nature of most people's and companies' computing substituting for that some huge externally controlled depositories and services. This is sold with a big imbecile smile of "But this is soooo convenient!! You can get to your data from wherever you are!" to the public One more part of the strategy is to make documents time-destructable, or unreadable to any third parties, by default, by building it into software. Plus add spying on each and every personal computer in the land: it won't be a self-contained piece of equipment any more. MS Vista and successors already implemented (in a crooked and buggy way, as we've seen) most of this functionality. The net result is that it's A BIG CENTRAL CORPORATION that is now in control of a company's information resources, a critical part: try not to comply, and someone there will close the faucet based on some extrajudicial and vague "request" from some unknown being. That is what this drive and "google clouds" are about, my dear friends. Wake up to it.
Bit late to post but...
Google will provide a new separate data environment
This is precisely why the cloud will never take off, and proof it is just semantic fluffware. If "a new separate data environment" were better than the cloud, then we'd all just get servers... which happens to be what we all already have now.
Either the government is being duped into buying something that should be way cheaper, or google is completely lying about the security and stability of the cloud service they are offering to the public.
The last time I checked, Google Apps is absolutely free.
The track record is that Standard Oil reduced choices. And free markets are about making choices.
Free markets are about voluntary interactions. That is what "free" means. Companies working together voluntarily is free action.
The record of government anti-trust actions is that they have added uncertainty and cost to business, either been ineffective or have raised consumer prices, and thus have not helped the consumer.
For example, the Sun/Oracle merger is on hold right now while governments around the world decide if it is worthy to global bureaucrats.
Meanwhile I am writing this on a Mac, which I was free to choose, so obviously by your definition Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. But tell that to the EU.
Yes, that's exactly what it does and that is what it's intended to do: it means you need fewer admins and they don't need to be as good, thereby lowering costs.
Neither does your OS. It wouldn't be good for business, but there's no requirement that the OS must work with anything else.
Well, yes, there is such a requirement in this case. That's why regulators have stepped in. And it's not the first time: people were making the same stupid arguments that Microsoft and you are making with railroads and cars and oil, and regulators did step in and that was a good thing.
I'm arguing what's right, not what's legal.
What is "right" is that Microsoft should have been broken up into tiny little pieces for their numerous anti-competitive practices, lies, and misappropriation of other people's technologies. Microsoft violated the law, they effectively stole money from the public, and they were punished for it (although, arguably, not severely enough). And if they do it again, they will get punished again.
Ohh, right, you mean Microsoft said that unless Dell agrees to the terms of their contract, they would not sign the contract. *gasp* How horrible of them to not let Dell have their business without agreeing to the terms of their contract!
It's not just "horrible", it's against the law, and for good reason: without such restrictions on contracts, we wouldn't have a free market or a democracy.
Meanwhile I am writing this on a Mac, which I was free to choose,
I too am typing this on a Mac, which I freely switched to.
by your definition Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. But tell that to the EU.
Strictly speaking Microsoft does have a monopoly. If that is not acceptable see what other law dictionaries say.
Falcon
If you didn't get it when I said I'm typing this on a Mac, I'm not MS fanbous, if you look at my previous statements about MS you'll see I oppose MS business tactics.
Should there be a Law?