Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Ends Novell's Anti-Trust Cast Against Microsoft
walterbyrd (182728) writes in with news about the end of the line for a Novell anti-trust claim against Microsoft. "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday brought an end to Novell Inc's antitrust claims against Microsoft Corp that date back 20 years to the development of Windows 95 software. By declining to hear Novell's appeal, the court left intact a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from September 2013 in favor of Microsoft. The court of appeals unanimously affirmed the dismissal of Novell Inc's claims that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when it decided not to share its intellectual property while developing its Windows 95 operating system. Novell was seeking more than $3 billion."
There was more to it than just not sharing its IP, such as deliberately misleading the company, and changing the APIs mid stream to break interoperability.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
What kind of "cast" did they use? Is there a new spell-book that us magicians can buy that where we can learn a spell to make /. editors proofread articles?
I really don't think this is as big of a political issue as you say. If people cannot get their software to run on Windows, they will need to switch to OSX or Linux. Windows therefore has an incentive to not just change things without a reason.
Novell is practically nothing in comparison to what it once was in terms of company size and market presence. Even if the SCOTUS had overturned the ruling completely and found 100% in Novell's favor, what could that have possibly changed at this time?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
We have a SCOTUS full of corporate suckasses.
I am a card-carrying TEA party member, and I use primarily Linux / Apple. God bless the USA and why the fuck do I have to pay for your slobbering kids to go to school?
Same as the Old Oligarchy
We won't get fooled again
Meanwhile Google hasn't paid more than $1 billion in taxes to France, and almost all tech firms have done the same thing, not paying taxes to the US, based on legal fictions and tax havens (a fancy term for a way they can make the middle class pay for their infrastructure and legal protections without paying even 1/3 the tax rate you do).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
In the reddit, magicians cast spells.
In slashdot, variables are cast by hackers!
Wow. I remember as an IT guy when Novell was the 800 pound gorilla of network operating systems. Then came NT 4.0, then Novell's marketshare slid, then came Novell trying to co-opt Linux to make their produce survive. No dice. SUSE is a good product, but I refuse to have anything to do with Novell after their shenanigans and failure. Then they took SUSE and bought into the whole MS lie of "buying" protection against Linux intellectual property suits against MS or others. Really? Let's not even get started on the notion of "intellectual property"... how about intellectual dishonesty. Thank God for Debian and community software.
Same stupid troll post over and over. Don't you get tired of being called a moron?
I am not a republican myself. But, waas this court decision really decided by the republican party?
I don't mind paying for kids to go to school. Why?
1: If they have jobs, they are not on the street vandalizing my car or robbing me.
2: Education gives them meaningful wages, so the economy sucks less.
3: Education may teach critical thinking so they might just see past the bread and circuses of today.
4: Education might give them the ability to innovate. I'm sure you are tired of Japan, China, and other countries having the cool stuff and we don't.
I'm a practical conservative. I don't eat my seed corn, and believe that with proper public schools (hint... not Common Core, and teaching things like dealing with confrontations, firearms [1], and other life skills) are a must, if the US is going to continue.
I've even thought of going with a voucher system... but that would replace failed public schools with failing corporations running private schools.
[1]: Better the kids know the reality of them than what their favorite gangsta rapper "teaches".
Google will pay all legally required taxes in France, and the US is one of the few dumbass countries with such a silly corporate taxation system so of course companies will try to get out of paying it. Eliminate corporate taxation (other that local/state taxes and taxes for resource use) and increase capital gains taxes and we would be much better off.
Instead, left wing dickholes like you _love_ the system because you can peddle flim-flam about "big mean corporations not paying taxes".
PS: This is attempt 2 to post this, because Slashdot is a complete piece of shit. Resource has changed, huh? You guys sure are competent, lolzers.
Sherman Antitrust suit? Windows 95? Never heard of them. ok, I'm showing my age. lol thanks for sharing link though.
There is no problem with common core itself, just with some of the implementation of it in some areas.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The "software industry" is an over-bloated sack of shit that rivals the dot-com bust. The quicker it collapses and starts fresh, the better.
I'm a card-carrying member of the DNC.
oh look, its Mr republicans are the cause of all of our problems. Heres a clue, get a life
There is no problem with common core itself, just with some of the implementation of it in some areas.
Yea, yea, sure, Melinda. Your corporate-robot-factory standards are just fine, then, but some bureaucrat messed it up for you?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Who said anything about expecting one company to help another out? What I except is that when I am working with a company they are not going to actively stab me in the back.In this case MS told them what they APIs were, then pulled it out from under them at the last second, to intentionally sink their product. If they would not have not given them the APIs there would not have been an issue, as then MS would not have been working with them and they could have developed something else, however by working with them and then pulling the APIs they intentionally sabotaged the product. By itself that still would not have been an issue, except they intentionally planned that.
As for a monopoly, there certainly was in the desktop, and the current state, after losing the antitrust and having to change practices, is not proof that there was not at the time.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
are you serious here? there is so much wrong with that statement its not even funny. first off, who are the people fighting for less taxes? the libertarians, tea party and a handful republicans. Who wants more taxes and higher taxes? the democrats.
If you want an actual solution, do away with the IRS and institute a fair or flat tax.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Stop being a dick just for the sake of being a dick. If you don't want your kids measured up against mine, perhaps you should have had smarter kids.
How is a flat tax fair? I used to think it was, but then realized how it actually hurts the poor even more than the current tax structure. I am all for lower taxes, but the problem is neither side wants to give up their toys to make it happen, they just want the other sides toys to go away.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The Republicans are why the software industry was destroyed here in Seattle. http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/2...
Too bad Seattle is such an Republican enclave - you should try to get more Democrats to move there if you prefer their tax policies.
Not that the article doesn't use some pretty skewed statistics. It compares the tax burden with 4 exemptions to that of 1. Hey, guess what, if you're supporting 1 person on 6 figures you pay more taxes than if you're supporting 4. That's what progressive taxes are supposed to do.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
If I wanted to use the mirror to your logical fallacy I might say you just want students to be passed up no matter what they know?
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES?
And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves
When you cant win, ad hominem.
You can't conceivably argue I'm wrong, either, considering the current state of the market and Microsoft's much diminished power due to market changes.
Much diminished? The profits at Microsoft suggest otherwise. The lopsided distribution of platforms that code is written for does as well. The share of new PCs sold with windows on it may have diminished from 99% to 95% in the past 20 years; that is not reasonably "much diminished".
And I say this as a Linux user. I would love to say that far fewer PCs today are running Windows than were 20 years ago, but I know that is not true.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I dunno whether you're being facetious - doesn't show in your post, but Seattle voted some 60+% for Dems election after election. They are essentially San Francisco, North. Republicans would be lucky to win votes for dog catcher in that city
It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.
Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare. They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class. The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.
Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest income brackets. They favor government spending on social programs and enforcement of environmental, safety and financial regulations. This sort of redistributes the money from the wealthy to the working class. Since in theory the wealthy pay more taxes and the poor receive more government benefits. Also the working class benefit from safer and cleaner working conditions and from cleaner conditions at home with safer places to place their money.
A political system with a healthy political discourse usually moderates between the two extremes. Unfortunately the vocal participants within the US political system are mainly the extremists of both parties and the public who can't be troubled with listening to anything more than a sound bite are reduced to cheering for their favorite team.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
A long time ago.
Novell owned the network File/Print market and pioneered the e-Directory (NDS) environment. Microsoft was playing catch-up the whole way.
The biggest problem with Novell was that you couldn't develop applications on the Netware platform. Microsoft offered ISVs the ability to develop software on the platform (Windows) on which it would run. When Novell purchased Unix, I thought that they would fully integrate NCP (Netware Core Protocol) into Unix. This would allow ISVs to develop software on the same platform on which their software would run. Had they done so, Microsoft would have lost the server wars and been relegated to the desktop.
But Novell didn't do the necessary integration, and the rest is history.
As I recall, Word Perfect was better than Microsoft Word in almost every respect. In fact, Word Perfect 5.0 is probably better in many ways than the current incarnation of Word. Sigh.
tl;dr version: Novell killed themselves and Microsoft moved into the vacuum created when Novell imploded. The resolution of this lawsuit just puts the cherry on top of the whole mess.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
And if we had good public education in this country that would be a good plan. The problem is that by Federalizing the education system, we've only been spreading the pain... and most large inner cities still have third-world level education systems. Mississippi brags at least they aren't Louisiana and Louisiana still brags at least they aren't Mississippi. A majority of the public still believes in astrology. To listen to a lot of people the country's leading biochemist is Jenny McCarthy. And the average voter can't explain how our government works at a 6th grade Civics class level.
The voucher system at least offers the potential for competition, something that doesn't exist today at the primary or secondary levels unless you are in the top 5-10% income bracket and can afford private school.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Do you expect anything more from someone who calls himself "ganjadude"?
His libertarian tendencies result from his need to be left alone to smoke his pot.
True, but when it comes to markets where Microsoft's monopoly couldn't help so much, phones and tablets, they aren't doing so well. Those markets show what happens when there's a more level playing field and Microsoft's market share is negligible in the mobile market. It might not stay that way, but they are currently way behind Apple, Google and others. That could not have happened in the PC world in the last 20 years.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I'd agree with you about that behavior being malicious and "over the top" ... but then there's the question of whether or not it was legal. That's really all the court system is supposed to determine. It might be a fine line, but ultimately, I think the courts did the right thing here.
If you volunteer information to a competitor and then it turns out the info you provided was bogus ... it was still information you VOLUNTEERED. There would be a clear legal case here if Novell signed a deal to PAY for this information from Microsoft, and it turned out they received bad info because of a willful intent to mislead and fail to live up to the terms of the contract.
This whole scenario is really not one you'd expect would play out the same way today, either. These days, interoperability has a net benefit to all parties involved. If Microsoft (for example) makes a concerted effort to ensure Linux or BSD or a Mac running OS X can't connect properly to its shared files and folders, it just makes itself look like a less attractive option. (If I have Macs on my network, or a BSD based FreeNAS or what-not, I'm just as likely to start trying to eliminate my Windows clients or servers from the environment as I am my NAS server or Mac clients, if this issue causes me hassles.)
Regardless, at the time, Novell went from "the only game in town" for a reliable server product to a costly option that was beginning to look like it might not be worth continuing to pay for. Hindsight is 20-20, obviously ... but if I was calling the shots at Novell back then, I would have probably tried to lock in a paid contractual arrangement to obtain access to Microsoft's APIs for networking, since that was very much key to my product's future success.
One reason here in Seattle is because of the Republican-created tax system that screws developers
Yeah FDR was a well renowned republican...
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
That's not really a good description of common core - it doesn't really do that. States can impose certain testing requirements on top of it, optionally, like Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), but you won't find any kind of requirement for "knowing" any objective facts in the Common Core.
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES? And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves.
That's a pretty big topic. The Common Core advocates seem to do a lot of marketing around their process for creating the standards, which includes taking a lot of existing standards (really bad ones), and pretending they're worthy of expanding upon.
I'll bring up a few of the basic issues and let you research more yourself.
Seventy-two CEOs hailing from corporations that usually like to stay out of the political fray, including Harley-Davidson, General Mills and Xerox, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times claiming that the curriculum will meet the “business community’s expectations.” That should tell you something right there: Are these companies interested in educating Americans to pursue their highest potential, or in creating a workforce beholden to the Corporate ladder?
The fundamental theme of Common Core’s English language arts (ELA) standards is a focus on non-fiction “informational texts.” The ELA standards were fashioned so that elementary students read no more than 50 percent classic literature and high school students may read only 30 percent classic literature. The other 70 percent is comprised of informational texts. The curriculum advocates a “close reading” of a text in which students are asked to analyze what they’ve read strictly from the available text without a whiff of historical context. This method teaches students to accept the information that they are given without question. It's an indoctrination technique writ large, through years of barraging students with lesson plans produced by government bureaucracies.
You can also check out some of the writing by Carol Burris, an award-winning educator that was a big proponent of Common Core until she started seeing the ugly details. Very enlightening.
Have you seen how they are teaching math under the Common Core now? The premise is that students should learn "estimating" instead of math or number theory. I guess that makes sense if you're a bureaucrat dealing with multi-million dollar budgets - as long as you're within 1 or 2% you're good. But that's not really good enough if you're trying to really learn the core principles. You should see if this makes any sense to you as a way to teach 5th graders math. I don't think it does.
You'll probably dismiss these issues as "growing pains" and issues that can be fixed over time. But we should not be experimenting on our children this way. Or they won't be able to contribute anything to the next generation of learners.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
im not saying one is better than the other just that the current way of doing this is bad. Id be for a consumption tax, where all FINISHED goods are taxed , supply line products (componants, unfinished wood etc would not be) and only charge a tax based on consumption. If you own a jet, you get taxed more than if you own a car. you dont own are car? you get taxed even less. Roll ALL taxes into the final sales and leave it at that.
The current tax structure is unsustainable, even to the pro tax and spend crowd and the less taxes are better crowd, we have to start over and the best first step should be abolish the IRS
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
All excellent points, I make those same points quite often, I was mainly just talking about on their face. You are 100% correct however
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I think the top brackets of wage earners face an undue burden imposed by the tax lawyer industry. I favor a flat tax (on both wages and capital gains) for the top 2.5% of income recipients at the same percentage rate as for those in the bracket just under that of the top 2.5%. The benefits of filing EZ really ought to be extended upwards.
People will say that without tax incentives, why would the "job creators" invest? But, the fact is, that everyone invests for the same reason, because it will turn a profit. If the investment won't be profitable, then easy borrowing and low taxes don't help create it. No one will invest if it's just throwing away money. If the investment is a net gain, then taxation doesn't prevent it. You still want more, and so will invest in a profitable venture to get more even if you're taxed at a higher rate.
Probably, if such a tax were imposed, personal corporations would be formed by those who haven't done so already.
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
That's not really a good description of common core - it doesn't really do that. States can impose certain testing requirements on top of it, optionally, like Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), but you won't find any kind of requirement for "knowing" any objective facts in the Common Core.
So you are stating that is not what it does, and then as evidence state something that is part of the implementation, not the standards themselves, which was exactly the point I was making... The standards dictate what should be learned, not the how they learn and how they evaluate what they learn..
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES? And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves.
That's a pretty big topic. The Common Core advocates seem to do a lot of marketing around their process for creating the standards, which includes taking a lot of existing standards (really bad ones), and pretending they're worthy of expanding upon.
Which bad ones? Really hard to debate something if you are being vague possibly intentionally
I'll bring up a few of the basic issues and let you research more yourself.
Seventy-two CEOs hailing from corporations that usually like to stay out of the political fray, including Harley-Davidson, General Mills and Xerox, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times claiming that the curriculum will meet the “business community’s expectations.” That should tell you something right there: Are these companies interested in educating Americans to pursue their highest potential, or in creating a workforce beholden to the Corporate ladder?
correlation/causation issue with your statement. It does not really tell me anything on its own, however on the flip side what those companies are interested in has little baring on it, however the purpose of the schools is to prepare you for work/higher ed when you graduate
The fundamental theme of Common Core’s English language arts (ELA) standards is a focus on non-fiction “informational texts.” The ELA standards were fashioned so that elementary students read no more than 50 percent classic literature and high school students may read only 30 percent classic literature. The other 70 percent is comprised of informational texts.
and what is the problem with this? On the face it does not really seem to be a problem. However just like before THIS IS IMPLEMENTATION
The curriculum advocates a “close reading” of a text in which students are asked to analyze what they’ve read strictly from the available text without a whiff of historical context. This method teaches students to accept the information that they are given without question. It's an indoctrination technique writ large, through years of barraging students with lesson plans produced by government bureaucracies.
You mean like how we were required to say the pledge of allegiance every day, without being allowed to opt out, while growing up is indoctrination?
What you claiming is indoctrination is not necessarily so. It is also used to be able to break apart the grammar to pick out subject, verbs, nouns, and the like as it was when we were kids. There is no evidence that I have seen to point to indoctrination, and seeing how this is part of the IMPLIMENTATION, not seeing how it is part of the standard itself.
You can also check out some of the writing by Carol
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I don't know what group of idiots was managing Novell at that time, but they screwed that company up just about every way that they could. They owned the PC networking space for years, there was nothing on the market with the capabilities or stability of Netware 3.1x for years and a Novell Netware certification was a ticket to the big paycheck. The move from Netware 3 to Netware 4 was years late, a huge amount of work, a complete paradigm shift, horrendously expensive, extremely risky, and notoriously flaky if it did manage to somehow successfully upgrade. And required IPX/SPX and did not support TCP/IP out of the box. In comparison Windows NT networking was easy, fairly reliable, free, and supported all the major networking protocols of the time, even Banyan Vines. Windows 2000 and Active Directory pretty much put the final nails in Novell's coffin as it delivered everything that Novell had been promising for years, did it easily, and did it much cheaper. Novell had no one to blame but themselves.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes
Regardless of what party prefers what, has this ever actually happened?
Your memory of AD and my memory are completely off. The first release of AD was horrible when compared with NDS.
--WooooHoooo--
Yes. The middle class has always paid the most taxes. They are too poor for any tax shelters and too rich for any tax credits.
Yeah, verily!
In my not-so-humble opinion, if ALL OS and software authors implemented a proper response to the warning from Star Treck, I must paraphrase, "I hate Engineers, they are always changing things.", we would all be much better off.
Oh, and YES, I still have a working Apple IIc with Appleworks which does EVERY THING I need in a "word processor", thank you very much; and a working Imagewriter.
Get off my damn lawn you punks!
I used AD before I used NDS, and remember an awful lot of head scratching while thinking "Why the hell did they do it this way?" Having used Windows first I also tend to do the same when trying to work on a Mac or Linux machine, a lot of it is just what one uses first.
NetWare had a lot going for it, it must have taken a lot of work to sabotage that much of a head start. There were several other companies in that same time frame where management insisted on maintaining revenue levels or not adjusting pricing to match a changing market, and have ended up on the dust heap of history. Too bad that Novell was one of them.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I'd agree with your legal take on it. However, regardless of legality, there is still the incentive for a company in Microsoft's position (controlling both the OS - Windows - and competing software - Word) to pull this sort of dirty trick to the detriment of the market and the consumer, but for their own self-benefit. It wasn't a part of this trial, but Microsoft had already pulled this type of trick before. It told all the software companies that OS/2 was going to be the GUI successor to DOS. So companies like WordPerfect got busy porting their DOS apps to OS/2. Then at the last minute, Microsoft dumped their partnership with IBM, declared that Windows was now the successor to DOS, and oh by the way here's a nice new word processor we made called Word which runs on Windows, since WordPerfect hasn't got their Windows version ready yet...
The cleaner solution, which allows companies to volunteer info this way but which eliminates the incentive to hurt the consumer (and competitors) for their own self-benefit, is something those of us opposed to Microsoft's tactics back then have always called for. Break Microsoft up into two separate companies - one which makes operating systems, and one which makes applications. If they had been broken up, Office for iOS and Android would have been released years ago instead of just recently. It's pretty obvious Microsoft was holding it back in hopes of using it to steer people towards Win Phone 8 and Win RT, and slowing down abandonment of Windows as their OS for productivity apps.
You see the same problem playing out in ISPs - where the companies which own the wires are also providing content, and deliberately throttling the content of competitors (e.g. Netflix's speeds on Comcast improved immediately after their agreement to pay Comcast, long before any new infrastructure could have been installed). Or how cellular service providers are able to lock down the phone you buy to their network - forcing you to buy your phone from them or from a third party who is getting their phones from them.
The incentive for this anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior disappears if you simply prohibit companies from owning both the platform/pipes and the content that runs on that platform/goes through the pipes. Can you imagine what the automobile market would've been like if Standard Oil and Ford had been one company, and only Ford cars had been allowed to fuel up at Standard Oil gas stations?
Before AD, Microsoft started including the Exchange client with Windows, making it much easier to just use Exchange for email. And that required a Windows server. And once you have your first Windows server, well, it's just easier to go whole hog. All of which would be okay (i.e. legal), i guess, except the bit about bundling with Windows. But Windows' monopoly status hadn't been established yet.
As far as Mac's and Linux systems attaching to Windows shares. It took an antitrust action in the EU to guarantee that one. Otherwise, the Samba guys would still be reverse-engineering deliberately obtuse (and frequently changing) MS protocols.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Well, why didn't novell release a desktop version of netware(or at least invest in the 1990's linux or bsd) if they were so concerned over MS secret api stack(unlikely) that only MS products have access to. All these software companies bitched but no one ever bothered to write their own OS or at least invest in bsd or linux. And today, all these top companies like adobe, autodesk, corel, etc... can make a long term commitment and rewrite their applications for the linux but yet novell keeps bitching.
Actually you could attach Macs to an NT domain, it actually was a lot easier than plugging them into the Netware network IIRC. Of course that was when Apple still did all of their own OS work, rather than slap their GUI on someone else's kernel.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I miss those days.
You are aware that the top 10 percent pay some 70 pecent of taxes right now correct? Oh, of course not http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/1...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They are sanctioning MS's action and it tells these companies they can do those things and just drag out the case long enough that it no longer matters, just because they have more money.
Who are "these companies"? The only one in that boat is Microsoft and it is purely because they have a monopoly in the personal computer market which pretty soon won't make a shit of difference since people are doing the same things on tablets and phones that they do on traditional PCs and it won't even be classifiable as a separate market.
All Microsoft's major competitors use private APIs (Apple does extensively) and apparently that's ok so long as you do not have a monopoly position which, given the personal computing landscape of today, Microsoft no longer has either.
So this ruling would be irrelevant either way, it only affects monopolies and in personal computing (PCs, tablets, smartphones) there no longer are any thanks to the proliferation of Macs, the Ubuntu OS (and of course MINT and others), Chromebooks, Android tablets, iPhones and iPads provides so many choices to end users that you cannot even pretend that you are somehow locked to only Microsoft these days for your personal computing needs.
I would love to say that far fewer PCs today are running Windows than were 20 years ago, but I know that is not true.
You just have a narrow definition of what a PC is. These days people don't need a traditional laptop or desktop to do their personal computing, they just as often do it on a tablet or a smartphone - you can see evidence of this in the dwindling numbers of new desktop/laptop sales and the soaring size of the smartphone and tablet markets.
Certainly as both a percentage and an overall number there are far more computers on which people do their personal computing that are not Microsoft than there were 20 years ago. In fact sales of those personal computing form factors of 20 years ago are collapsing only to be replaced by newer ones and of those newer ones Microsoft represents a single-digit percentage.
It is true, I don't know how to post links here but there is an article titled "Windows hits the skids, Mac OS X on the rise" that shows Microsoft market share has dropped below 90% in 2014. There are less PCs running Windows today, and less PCs in general as people have decided Phones in their pocket are good enough.
And we all know Microsoft doesn't rule the Phone markets. It's logical to assume, on the present course, Microsoft's future is grim.
CNN's source is the Heritage Foundation which doesn't line up with federal data showing the top quintile only paying 25.1% of the federal taxes.
It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.
Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare.
This isn't fair. Republicans in general want lower taxes because they want less burden on businesses to stimulate the economy (especially difficult on small businesses), and smaller federal government with less bloat (except on defense, point taken). The constitution calls for a federal government that provides for a common currency and a national defense, but shouldn't be much more than the mortar that supports the bricks which are the separate states. This is what the right wing wants. The left wing wants a monolithic government with ever increasing federal powers, where the states are little more than provinces under central control.
Republicans would prefer lower taxes for the working class too, not just the rich. No one is looking to tax the crap out of the working stiff and give it to the rich, because you can't get blood from a stone; and the more the middle class shrinks, the more this holds true. It's unsustainable.
There is no logic in the notion of wealth redistribution; "wealth" is not a finite zero sum game of some kind where if I have more, you must have less (unless I specifically work for you, and you give yourself huge bonuses from the company coffers while I get boned..but both Rs and Ds happily do that.) If you believe otherwise, you'd believe simply printing more money makes the country richer.
The most ridiculous claims I've heard lately accuse rich people of "hoarding" their money, as though this ties up the money other people need; in fact, that money is in full circulation, since the banks use that money for loans, and stock investments are used by corporations. It's not the 1930s anymore when people literally stashed their cash under their mattress.
They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class.
Wait, didn't you just state that republicans prefer to, in essence, give money to the rich via taxing the working class and subsidizing powerful corporations? If this doesn't work because most of these employers are small business owners, then why would they justify it? Sounds like they're trying to help out small business owners, to me.
The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.
Agreed that globalization does change the rules of the game, as it's no longer as closed a system as it was. That's going to take decades to level out -- if ever. Still, the basic idea that, if a company is doing well it expands and in doing so means hiring and promoting more workers, is sound. Except that offshoring labor for dirt cheap wages is mucking with that.
Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest inc
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
That's because Novell refused to release a working Netware client for Mac until after the switch to x86 processors, and even then it didn't work right most of the time.
wordperfect is still better than word and micro$oft still sux
Gee, sure are a lot of problems with the IMPLEMENTATION of these standards. I wonder why, if the standards are so fine, there are so many implementation problems.
Kind of like Communism, then, right? It's a perfect standard, and all of the murders, starvation, suffering and oppression are just implementation issues, right? Or, you know, like "spreading freedom in the Middle East" - the standard is just fine, but the IMPLEMENTATION was bad ...
Semantic arguments are just semantics.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I provided sources, you did not. so excuse me if I take your word on it coward
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I don't think you really want to believe what the Heritage Foundation is telling you.
Their premise is that the rich pay the majority of the federal tax, so let's really look at the numbers to make sure if their premise is correct.
According to the Federal Income Tax Data from 2011. The top 10% paid 68.3% of all the federal taxes. So far so good...
What makes up the top 10%? The Tax Foundation was nice enough to tabulate this report.
Top 1% includes all households that made over $388,905/year and they paid 35.1% of the federal tax burden.
Top 5% includes all households that made over $167,728/year and they paid 56.5% of the federal tax burden.
Top 10% includes all households that made over $120,136/year and they paid 68.3% of the federal tax burden.
Using the exact same information that the Heritage Foundation used I can factually say:
64.9 % of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $388,905/year.
43.5% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $167,728/year.
31.7% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $120,136/year.
My point being that Heritage Foundation used statistics to make a point that is not close to being factual. Their assertion that the rich pay the most taxes is most definitely false. The first clue should have been when they talked about percentage of income without actually showing the income bracket for each percentage.
Go read the actual Tax Stat reports at the IRS's Tax Stats and you will be surprised how small a percentage people who make over $800,000/year pay.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Actually, Apple intentionally took forever to approve their app until after they had released theirs for iOS