Auction off Windows Source?

WINE by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 05:55 · Score: 0

The last thing we would want though is microsoft requesting/suing royalties for wine.. say the source is released, and one line of code is ripped that would be the end of it all. I don't think microsoft would accept credits at the end of a GNU license :) hehe.. i hope the keep it secret.. for everyones sake..

Just like.. the suit with winamp and other programs that evolved or were "re-written" or had seen the original licensed code..

i say just support the wine project, let microsoft decide its own fate, but let us as a user choose our own fate.. i don't buy nor use what everyone else uses.. i use what i want :)

werd

Quite true. But it gives you some idea of what the by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 05:59 · Score: 0

Attorney Generals have wet dreams about...

Here come the wolves by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 06:14 · Score: 0

Thank you! It's good to see that at least some people on Slashdot have the testicles to stand up for what's right. We all know Windows is crap, we all know Microsoft is evil, but enacting any of these insane proposed settlements would, as you said, violate the right to own property. Not Microsoft's right-- everyone's because once a government starts taking away one person's rights, you never know if you're going to be next. This book by a cult-leader I'm sure we're all familiar with does have a few good essays on why antitrust laws are A Bad Thing, one of them written by everone's favorite Chairman, Alan Greenspan.

Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 06:20 · Score: 0

As soon as they did that (which I doubt they would), they would figure out a path to get Win2000 to the desktop, making the source for Win9x obsolete in many minds. After all, who wants to use an old, buggy OS from them (which they all are so far) when a new onne could be better - although I don't think it'll ever happen!

Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 06:21 · Score: 0

This idea could work but there is one weakness. The new owners of Windows could do what they like, possibly splitting off into many incompatible offspring or even developing into a new super-monopoly.

The answer is an industry standards assocation, made up of all interested software, *hardware manufacturers* and *academics*. First all current Microsoft operating system code would be turned over to the new standards association. Then *all* of the current API's of all current versions of Windows must be published. Then anyone who created a product compatible to at least *all* of the API's could call it "Windows", all others would be "Not Really Windows". If some of the API's are incompatible with each other or cause, for example, security problems, or lack essential features, the standards body could propose changes to the standard. This could lead to Windows over Linux, Windows over UNIX, or whatever.

Ideally, in time the current Microsoft code could be simply thrown away.

Bad link by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 06:23 · Score: 0

Pardon me, I included a search link that appears to have timed out. This link should work.

Here come the wolves by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 06:29 · Score: 0

Roark? Steel industry? Perhaps you're confusing Atlas and The Fountain. It was Hank Rearden who had competitors in the steel industry; Howie Roark was an architect.

And I do agree with you to a degree. Objectivist is cult-like, and the Ayn Rand Institute is on crack, but can we agree that Capitalism and Free Markets are good things, that the government has no right to interfere with, unless (fair!) laws are broken?

Open Source! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 06:45 · Score: 0

Did you notice that a possible option listed at the end is to make the windows source code "open-source"! Atleast people are thinking about it. Linux could seriously kick some ass if this happened. Wine would grow by leaps and bounds.

Atleast it is being talked about.

Open Source! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 06:59 · Score: 0

Making the windows source open in the sense of
people can see it would be a big big step forward
for competition. Splitting microsoft up as well
would be ideal.

Perhaps microsoft apps and microsoft OS should
simply be forbidden to communicate anything about
code in private, only in public ?

Windows flavors by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 07:37 · Score: 0

The best thing that could happen with windows is a complete re-write. We've all heard the stories of Microsoft's own engineers too scared to fix the base of the code itself, so every patch is an extension to the current code base. And let's not forget the the 16-35 million new lines of code supposed in NT 5.0. Who is going to want to debug this? Or even look at it? I'm not entirely sure this would add up to a better version of windows itself. It would take a serious commitment of time and money to really improve windows as it is now.

However, there could be serious benefits to developers outside of Microsoft who would be able to find and take advantage of the well-know "secret" windows hooks that Microsoft has used to ensure its applications run the best on Windows. So, companies like Corel or Lotus may pick up some steam and actually provide a very good, robust alternative to Microsoft Office, Exchange, etc.. And, in interest to the open source community, especially WINE, it would probably improve the pace of their windows emulation.

I do agree with you that most consumers would probably still buy the Microsoft labelled product, just for name recognition's sake, so much probably won't change in the end. It is better than nothing, though.

Here come the wolves by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 07:37 · Score: 0

I think Bill ported Media Player to Linux.

Here come the wolves by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 07:48 · Score: 0

>>remember, those laws exist because wealthy
>>businesses abused their competitors, their
>>customers, and their employees. what makes
>>you think that that wont happen again if
>>the laws werent there?

Ok, what's wrong with abusing competitors?
It's called competition. I think anything
short of drive-by shootings should be allowed.

What's wrong with abusing employees? If you
have a lot of labor supply, you should feel
free to abuse and harass your employees, because
if they don't like it, they should look elsewhere
for a job. Of course, if your labor supply is
short, you will think twice before abusing an
employee, because (s)he will leave for a better
offer. That's free job market for you.

If you can afford to abuse customers without
driving them to your competitors, then you
should feel free to do so. It is once again
a basic fundamental and inalieable freedom,
which I hold self-evident.

Here come the wolves by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 07:56 · Score: 0

I am a white person who lived in one of the
worst neighborhoods in NYC. I have seen signs
"Latino only" and "Blacks only". Racism is
a two-way street. If all schools and businesses
decided to teach and hire only minorities,
we'd waste a lot of talent.
I guess the point is that for every business
that would choose to hire and serve whites
only, there'd be an equivalently bigoted
minority business. Black colleges are case in
point. Minority only scholarships are another.

The whole issue goes back to the 14th amendment
to the Constitution, and whether you interpet it
broadly or narrowly. Both views have their
advocates and it's not clear which view is right,
even thou American justice system chose a
broad interpretation a long time ago.

Grrl? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 08:07 · Score: 0

What the hell is a grrl?

Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 08:12 · Score: 0

Microsoft has a monopoly because they essentially control hardware manufacturers. PC makers aren't Microsoft's customers - Microsoft sees them as their slaves.

PC makers either submit to MS or get whiped by Microsoft. There's no negotiation at all.

It's because of this that not even IBM was able to get PC companies to preload OS/2 even though several years ago OS/2 was more stable, easier to use, and backwards compatible with Windows applications.

It's also because of this control that Dell actually charges you extra for preloading Linux. The Linux preload is a scam orchestrated by MS to get the Dept. of Justice off MS's back. They still have to pay MS for Windows. MS *wants* Dell to offer Linux at a premium to Windows so that Windows looks more attractive.

At the extra cost, most Linux users will just take Windows and install Linux themselves.

If you want a Linux computer go to EIS or VA Research. To hell with Dell - they're a puppet of Microsoft.

It's MS that has the gun! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 08:18 · Score: 0

Microsoft uses their OS as a weapon against competitiors.

When Corel struck a bundling deal with PC makers to bundle WordPerfect office, MS thretened the makers to drop the deal and take MS Office instead.

When MS was losing the war against Netscape, then they stopped trying to make Internet Explorer look like a seperate product and claim erroneously that it is a part of the OS.

When more Windows users were downloading Quicktime, they modified Windows to display bogus error messages to make it seem as though Quicktime was buggy. They did this to Real Audio/Real Player too.

If anyone is sticking a gun in anyone's face, it's Microsoft!

Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 08:18 · Score: 0

"Then *all* of the current API's of all current versions of Windows must be published."

No, no, no. If that happens MS will change the APIs for Windows 2001 and that, as they say, will be that. J. Maynard Gelinas has it right: no dicking about with Windows source or anything. The DOJ/Judge Jackson needs to impose these requirements:

1) Full disclosure of all APIs, present and future.

2) Full disclosure of all networking protocols, present and future.

3) Full disclosure of all file formats, present and future.

This disclosure requirement can remain in force until such time as it is determined that Microsoft no longer possesses monopoly power in the terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It allows any company to compete on a level playing field, software against software, may the best code win. The "essential facilities" doctrine certainly applies here; any OS that locks up 90% of the desktop market has become such a facility, Linux, Be, and the BSDs notwithstanding.

What about Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 08:22 · Score: 0

So if Microsoft one day decides that YOU are not to be allowed to legally use their software, you would be okay with that? Even if it meant you would lose your job?

Settlement? whatever happened to *JAIL*? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 08:24 · Score: 0

I suggest *jailing* the MS executives responsible for the monopolistic behaviour for a few years.

Are these people, if MS is found guilty in a court of law, any less reponsible for their behaviour than a drug dealer or a murderer?

They seem quite happy to send mafia bosses to jail when they were acting as part of a larger organisation. I don't see how an MS executive is any different, theyre both responsible for illegal acts.

It might make their replacements think twice about repeating the same behaviour.

Bar Microsoft from competing in the OS market for a few years too. i.e. Windows 95,98 and Windows 2000 cannot be sold (perhaps they could be given away for free if they included source code)

It was good enough to jail Kevin Mitnick, and take away his right to use a computer for his illegal activities, why is Microsoft any different?

This isn't really that great by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 09:03 · Score: 0

Do you really think that if an OEM shipped BeOS or Linux instead of windows that their customers wouldn't know the difference?

Do you really think that the customers will not return 99% of all their machines because "It's defective" and won't run their applications?

I was thinking just the opposite by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 09:37 · Score: 0

The difference is that Microsoft goes to great lengths to make compatibility between OS's important.

For the most part, you can run almost any DOS applciation on Windows or NT (NT has more restrictions, but my personal experience has seen a greater than 90% compatibility).

For the most part, you can also run almost any Win9x application on NT. The same is true of NT targeted apps on 9x (although there are many more issues in going down to 9x from NT than the other way around)

There is a huge common ground of applications. These apps don't need porting and if there are issues generally require minimal fixes to make it work.

Above all else, even 3 (4 if you count CE) platforms is not all that difficult to keep up with from the perspective of an average software developer. 100's of Unix variants running on dozens of different hardware platforms (some of which cost 10's of thousands or even 100's each) is not easy to keep up with.

This isn't really that great by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 09:48 · Score: 0

I think you're a little nieve.

Most people get the software for their computers from work. They want to run exactly the same applications that they use at work.

If whatever OS they bought didn't run those applications, they wouldn't want it.

Copyright = government-mandated monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 10:03 · Score: 0

What the government gives, it can take away, too.

I see nothing wrong with the government deciding to force Microsoft to sell its software.

its not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 10:04 · Score: 0

i agree. but it's probably a moot point anyway. microsoft will never gain the momentum necessary to keep up with linux when it passes them anyway.

KN

auctions by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 10:12 · Score: 0

FSF might have a shot at ownership of the code if it were a public auction. They'd be able to see what the minimum amount necessary to capture a windows license was, and bid accordingly. And what company would want to be known as the assholes who outbid the FSF?

But I bet it'll be a sealed bid auction, in which case who knows what a good price to offer is. Maybe FSF will offer 10 billion, and the second lowest bid'll be 100 million; talk about wasted money. Or maybe they'll offer 1 billion, and the next bid up will be 5 billion. Uh uh. Don't want to play that game, trust me, been there done that, auctions where *real* money is at stake can be ugly.

What COULD happen is, someone buys a Windows license and then gives it to the FSF or licenses it under the GPL (reasoning: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). It's difficult to imagine, however, who hates Microsoft enough *and* has the money to buy a Windows license.

It's MS that has the gun! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 10:16 · Score: 0

I think you give Netscape or Corel too much credit.

Like it or not, Microsoft always intended to integrate IE into the OS. The first stirrings about this were before Win95 even shipped. Netscape's success certainly made this change more imperitive, but it was inevitable.

Microsoft never intended for IE to *NOT* be a part of the OS. So claiming that MS changed it's tune anywhere along the line is either wishful thinking or revisionist history.

Back in the final days of the Win95 beta, they were already talking about "Windows 96" which was code named Nashville and "Windows 97" which was code named Memphis. (If take careful note, you'll see a pattern there of cities that slowly move east until you get to Cairo (since Memphis is a city in both Egypt and the US))

Nashville was to be the "Integrated Web browser OS" but the decision was made in mid-stream to support both NT and 95 in it's release. So, it was changed to be an add-on to both Win95 and WinNT. Since it now effected both OS's it couldn't be called "Windows 96" anymore (beside the fact that it was so late that it was well into 97) . So it was renamed to IE 4.

Meanwhile, work was also progressing on Memphis. Memphis was to be the "bridge" OS between NT an the 9x code base. It included a driver model that was compatible between both OS's and it would introduce more internet services.

Anyways, the point of all this is simply that MS's plans had been set long before Netscape became popular. Netscapes popularity made it much more difficult for MS to just capture the market though.

The flaw in everyones logic is that MS wasn't reacting to Netscape with IE and 98. It was simply pissed that Netscape was screwing with their well layed out plans.

Can't live his own philosophy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 10:23 · Score: 0

and I'm definately not in cohoots with a political party that glorifies drug dealers and prostitutes as "business models".

Who are you in cahoots with, then? The party that puts people in jail for life for things they do in the company of consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes? Or the one that wants to censor and regulate the Internet and all other modes of expression at every turn? Which one am I talking about, the Republicans or Democrats? Doesn't make a difference.

At least read the platform at lp.org before you slag the only political party in America that just wants to leave us alone.

Do you think that any company in America could survive the media firestorm that would surround them refusing to serve black customers? Be real. They'd be so boycotted it would be crazy. On the other hand, with all of our laws and the accompanying lawsuits, has racism disappeared? Is it expected to soon?

How can we continue to stomach laws that limit human freedom and at the same time preach freedom of information? You either believe in freedom OR you believe in force. That's all there is to it.

Simon White

Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 10:26 · Score: 0

No, IBM wasn't able to get OEM's to preload OS/2 because IBM was a PC competitor.

Paying money to IBM was the same as Gateway sending a nice hefty check to Compaq every month.

Most OEM's refused to preload OS/2 because they didn't want to do *ANYTHING* to help a competitor to succeed and take money out of their pockets.

At least Microsoft was hardware neutral. There was no danger of Microsoft changing the OS to favor their hardware. There was also no danger of Microsoft simply leaking rumors that "A Microsoft OS obviously must run better on MS hardware".

Linux is now being offered by many major vendors for several reasons:

1) Installing Linux doesn't help competitors (yet, although this could change quite radically if IBM and crew get ahold of Linux).

2) There is enough demand for Linux workstations and servers that vendors see profit in it.

Some people think that the court trial has made Microsoft loosen up it's restrictions, and perhaps it has. I think vendors would be selling Linux with or without any such loosened restrictions anyways though (since they don't have to pay twice for the OS).

close, but no cigar by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 11:07 · Score: 0

As it stands, the states' suggestion is rather ludicrous... However, with some changes, this would be a very, very good idea.

First, rather than reveal the entire Windows source, limit the concession to only the Win32 API and the kernel. This will allow authors of emus such as WINE, et al. to provide better support, and won't require seeing 2 zillion lines of ancillary garbage (does anyone really care about seeing the IE5 or GUI source?)

Second, rather than charge for the API source, make it free. Allow anyone to download the source to the Win32 API, and then use it for whatever they want - modification, emulation, education, etc. This will allow alternate 'Windows' to be created by non-MS developers, giving the states the competition they demand, and anyone the freedom they desire.

Can't live his own philosophy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 11:49 · Score: 0

My boss can't stumble across the bisexual links on my homepage and decide to fire me because of it.

Uh... in most states in the U.S. your boss *could* fire you.

This isn't really that great by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 12:55 · Score: 0

Knowing what an operating system is and not caring what OS it is are two different concepts. They care because the OS has to be compatible with the software they want to run.

This is known as "Network effects" in economics terms. The same people that don't know what an OS is, aren't going to know what the difference between MacOS software and Windows Software is. They just want to buy something and have it work.

Settlement? whatever happened to *JAIL*? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 13:04 · Score: 0

This is *CIVIL* court. Not Crimnal court.

Nobody can go to jail in Civil court. Damages and restrictions can be applied.

will be hard by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 13:05 · Score: 0

you are forgetting Microsoft cronic "forgetfullness"?

they might conviniently forget to disclose one or two important hidden API. without the source code noone will notice untill way late...

plus they can always make new API for their in house development, and release it much much later for everybody else.

Unix-only club by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 13:12 · Score: 0

You don't appear to try very hard ;)

I can screw up a linux system in minutes. Seconds if I'm particularly motivated. Of course I can fix it too ;)

You are missing the big picture by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 13:18 · Score: 0

Attitudes like this one confuse me. How is it possible to say that competition has been strangled when there are orders of magnitude more software companies today than there were 10 years ago?

It's also completely possible to read MS file formats on other OS's. The formats are documented and have been on their web site (well, at least for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint. Access is a different story). I have heard that StarOffice (I don't use it) can in fact read these formats.

It's perfectly possible for the vast majority of users to use a non-MS OS (In fact, many do. Lots of companies are still on OS/2 and Unix).

Marxist infiltration by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 14:12 · Score: 0

I knew it was the damn commies that keep the prices at Taco Smell high.

something to consider by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 14:17 · Score: 0

Linux is ultimately a kind of intellectual property, just like Windows. If the government can force MS to turn over the Windows source, why does everyone assume that the government won't one day do something nasty to Linux (because Linux is righteous? -- get a grip, Washington doesn't work that way).

If you people want your open source license, you have to respect the property of MS. No having your cake and eating it too.

If the government screws MS, it will mean the beginning of the end of a free computer industry. Companies like Netscape and IBM are trading big favors to see this happen, and price is letting the government get their hooks in one of the freest industries. We are virtually selling our souls to the devil on this one!

Grrl? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 15:16 · Score: 0

hm.. *cough* i know this is off topic, but

well, i'm a lesbian in boys town community, here we only call feminine males "grrrl".

An easier way out for M$ by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 15:19 · Score: 0

... M$ don't really need to do that type of chasing game. All it needs to do is to strip off the comments and documentation. Then it will be a huge bloated piece of .. .. that no one could figure out in two years.

Auction sure, but what about freedom? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 19:18 · Score: 0

Around 10 million people using an open source operating system (Linux, *BSD, etc...) if we each contributed a $10 we'd be in a good position to license Windows...

-Eh?

yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 20:26 · Score: 0

M$ ? I hope someone does make them. Then like the first day 3,000 patchs will be out to fix the sh***y code. Thats my POV (not my privatly owned vechile)..

Dark_Hour
timson40@bunt.com

Slackware Windows! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-29 01:22 · Score: 0

Slackware Windows will rule the world! Red Hat Windows is for wussies!

big deal by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-29 01:43 · Score: 0

insignia solutions already builds a fully functional crossplatform win32 operating system. they just refuse to make it for intel PCs. why?

The OS is half the problem, try the apps! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-29 06:06 · Score: 0

Well, I just want to state that "NS" didnt know "mailbox summary files".

NS ist the shortcut for National Sozialism, and the political system founded on this "Idea" is widely know as "the Nazis".

It would be interesting to know, if this was typed like that on purpose or by - propably subconsciousness caused - mistake...

who wants it by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-31 08:39 · Score: 0

who would want the source code
it sux

Reinventing the Wheel by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-31 15:36 · Score: 0

I wasn't applying the analogy to Windows. I was applying it to the 100's of other operating systems which everyone seems to feel the need to reinvent. Linux is yet another reinvention of Unix (that had been done 100 times before). It's great that people want to keep refining things and making it better. The problem is that we're not GETTING anywhere.

It's like the author that sits down to write a book. He writes the first chapter. Then re-reads it and doesn't really like parts of it. So he rewrites it again. And again. And again.

He never finishes the book, or even progresses past the first chapter because he's so busy trying to make the first chapter perfect. Even worse. Now take 100 other authors that read his first chapter and think they can do it better. Now, instead of 100 people writing 100 chapters of a book. You get 100 people writing their own first chapter of the same book... and never finishing it either.

We could have never developed steel belted radials that go 50,000 miles and can run flat if everyone thought they could carve a better wheel out of stone.

Here come the wolves--what is this? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-04-07 20:02 · Score: 0

Something other than a kneejerk, anti-Microsoft, I'm-cooler-than-you-because-I-use-ps-instead-of-tl ist posting?

Mayhap there IS intelligent life out there after all.

Rinikusu is right. The government is in its rightful role when it steps in and says "no, you may not hit that person over the head with a brick." The government has overstepped its bounds when it says "no, you may not enter into a voluntary contractual arrangement with this other private citizen." And the government is COMPLETELY out of bounds when it says "I'm going to take your property because you're too prosperous and we can't ever let someone become too successful, not without chopping them down to size, nosiree." (and reaping tremendous political rewards in the process).

Do you REALLY think the state AG's are acting in your best interest? Get real. AG also stands for "aspiring governer". And as for Joel Klein and his bullyboys, well let's just say that unless there's a bogeyman to fight, people start to wonder why we're sending all those hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the boys in antitrust. The spectacular results with AT&T and IBM scarcely justify an increase in the DoJ's antitrust budget. Remember, these are the same people who are trying to criminalize encryption -- the DoJ is NOT your friend. But hey, as long as it's to spite the Evil Microsoft, we'll trip along and put our own heads in the noose. I'm sure those boys in the soon-to-exist Government Operating System Design and Approval Committee will be completely different when it comes time to decide the future of the soon-to-be all-powerful and omnipresent Linux, right? Right?

Of course, I'm just a biased lackey, so what do I know...

--tc

MS Stock Price by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 06:37 · Score: 1

Look, slashdotters like yourself with no clue about business have been saying things like "Time for that stock price to drop" with every anti-MS thread at slashdot since the trial began. People who have continued to buy MS stock over that time, however, have seen it consistently rise. People who tried to short it are probably now living in a van down by the river.

Guess what I'm trying to say is that the Magic Eight Ball does a better job of understanding the business and financial world than the kids at slashdot.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

Evolution by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 09:14 · Score: 1

As I see it, you are bringing this down to the very level of evolution. From your point of view, competition between corporations and workers creates better civilisation and better humans.

You also work on the fact of public choice on the moral issues of limits to companies and/or individuals alike.

Haven't you considered the fact that the very existance of such laws means that people have decided that such limits MUST be set, to stop problems that the "look out for yourself"-mode created?

There was/has been a time for each coutry (I'm not American) when competition between companies was free and things like hostile takovers and intimidation were commonplace?

And hasn't the fact that it no longer is so already told you thet it SHOULD not be so!
The rights of an individual or a group within a society are ALWAYS defined by the benefit of the society, and it's people, not by the preference of the individual or the group!

Such thoughts crossed my mind while folloing this conversation..

Unless by Anonymous Coward · 1999-03-28 09:31 · Score: 1

Is everyone blind to the fact that the sheer number of Operating systems from over the years has greatly held back the advancement of software?

In my eyes, a OS monopoly is a *GOOD* thing. Although I don't agree taht MS is the organization to head such a Monopoly.

Why?

Imagine where software would be today if we weren't trying to recreate the wheel on 100 different platforms.

Imagine where software would be today if everyone out there could build upon the works of others completely without having to port the code to different platforms first.

Look at the Unix market. In most ways, Unix is extremely stunted in terms of software maturity compared to Windows. Of course this is a generalization. There's lots of advanced software on Unix, but most of it is advanced in only one area and ignores all the other factors of software that has evolved (such as UI).

No, I don't think breaking down monopolies just because they're monopolies is a good thing.

You've got it... by Pathwalker · 1999-03-28 07:05 · Score: 1

Yep, that's the price of the limited liability achived by incorperating...

Here come the wolves by Pathwalker · 1999-03-29 02:56 · Score: 1

The corperation is a legal fiction, not a natural entity. In exchange for some special rights for the stockholders (limited liability, etc) they give up many of the rights associated with natural persons.

(note: I only had 1 law class, and I got a 3.0 in it)

Usually an idiot by Shiska · 1999-03-29 00:44 · Score: 1

At a time, it was a feminist term ... These days it seems to have been perverted into another idiotic fashion statement. So much for that.
----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -

--
----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
Your honor is perfectly understandishable.

windows source auction by John+Kozan · 1999-03-28 06:38 · Score: 1

Yeah they could have the auction at Ebay. No, wait, I forgot microsoft hates ebay

My bid: by Wakko+Warner · 1999-03-28 08:37 · Score: 1

37 cents and an unopened pack of Big Red bubble gum. I know, it's a little extreme, but I think the gum's stale.

- A.P.
--

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

--
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"

It's involuntary sale, not theft by upper · 1999-03-28 08:22 · Score: 1

the theft of this revenue

This is a forced sale, not a theft. Because it's an auction, MS gets a chunk of money out of it. Theoretically, other companies will bid approximately the present value of the stream of profit they expect from having the license. In a competitive market, this would be about equal to MS decrease in profit, so it's arguably pretty fair.

Mind you, MS stockholders will probably lose some on the deal. Because the market is not competitive, the profit stream is bigger in MS hands than it would be in someone elses hands after the sale. And a fair price would be a big chunk of MS's market cap -- who could come up with that much cash?

The analogy someone made above to eminent domain seems pretty apt -- fair in theory, but mighty unpleasant. And I'm not convinced it will improve the world one bit. It certainly doesn't address the office-suite monopoly, which is more important now than the OS monopoly.

Multiple versions of Windows would split market by J4 · 1999-03-28 06:30 · Score: 1

err.. gotta start previewing these...

That is to say W2K after all _is_ not on the market yet.

Here come the wolves by J4 · 1999-03-28 06:36 · Score: 1

I dunno I'd love to see micros~1 port Office so they could be publicly humiliated by lack of sales. I know _I_ wouldn't use it, much less buy it.

Here come the wolves by J4 · 1999-03-28 06:40 · Score: 1

Businesses don't have the same rights as people. The Constitution doesn't say "We the businesses"

Re:This is monstrous by J4 · 1999-03-28 06:53 · Score: 1

They brought it on themselves.

Hope it never happens by J4 · 1999-03-28 07:00 · Score: 1

"...the world thinks it's a good thing.."

Not the world, just one country. A country which I might add doesn't prohibit people from leaving.

It does occur to you that this is supposed to be a form of punishment, doesn't it? If it comes to pass Micros~1 will have no one to blame but themselves.

Multiple versions of Windows would split market by J4 · 1999-03-28 06:27 · Score: 2

It's true that people would still tend to go with a micros~1 version of windows and theoretically micros~1 could make their new version of windows suffer from the same kinds of interoperability issues they have now, but it would take considerable time to do this and they already have their hands full trying to launch W2K. I tend to doubt that resources would be diverted to accomplish repollution of the code. It would also require getting people to upgrade _again_ to get off the ground. I didn't see in the article just exactly which codebase they would be licensing. I could foresee a compromise situation where the W2K codebase is exempt, after all not on the market. It would be interesting to see how quickly the released codebase became abandoned by MS.

Here come the wolves by Isaac-Lew · 1999-03-28 07:24 · Score: 1

I'm not sure of the current legality of such a
thing, but I should be allowed to offer my services only to, say, white people, if I choose to.

It's precisely this type of thinking that shows why:

Racism is alive an well in America
Affirmative action is still needed

If EVERY employer said "Let's just hire white Caucasians", if EVERY school said "Let's only accept white Caucasians", this country will waste a LOT of potential talent in all fields. Most minorites aren't looking for a handout, all we want is a fair chance.

Private property? by Isaac-Lew · 1999-03-28 07:44 · Score: 1

OK, so you're saying Microsoft *didn't* rip off Stac Electronics? Or mislead Spyglass when they (Spyglass) developed Internet Explorer?

Microsoft lives in a glass house and throws stones.

This wouldn't do anything, or change anything by gavinhall · 1999-03-29 00:34 · Score: 1

Posted by tdibble:

Microsoft could easily comply with these demands and yet retain business-as-usual, or, worse, further cement their monopoly.

"So, you want to auction off code? Fine, here's the code. But we won't tell you how to use it. Oh, and our automated code-filing system just stripped all the comments out last night to save space on our servers. Now, how much do you want to pay me for this?"

A handful of companies bid, and the highest bidder gets the whole shebang. Hundreds of engineers descend on the indecipherable, obfuscated mess, which even with help and comments would take several years to figure out (I once heard that Windows programmers are brought on board and not allowed to make any architectural decisions until they've lived through one full upgrade cycle. If MS employees can't grok Windows code enough to make architectural decisions unless they stare at it for several years, what hope do these upstart bidders hold?!?!?)

Then, just as the company that bought the code and subsequently hired a hundred brilliant engineers to figure out the various pieces is bringing its slightly improved piece of work to the market, Microsoft is bringing the "next generation" to market, with a slew of new API's and other "improvements". The public buys this for two reasons: it has MS's name on it, and the "alternative" obviously doesn't have much of a future.

All this costs Microsoft *nothing*. It costs one witless competitor *everything*. It does not hurt Microsoft, but instead helps them. When I first read this I actually thought maybe it was a "leak" by Microsoft attorneys hoping the state attorneys general would take the bait, but now it looks like the state attorneys general just haven't thought things through very well, and have a very poor understanding of the pace of the industry.

This isn't really that great by The+Man · 1999-03-28 05:42 · Score: 1

Sorry to rain on your parade here, but why exactly is this so great? The fundamental concept that everyone seems to be missing is that Windows sucks. I don't want to see different companies produce it. I don't want WINE to emulate it. I don't want to see anyone make, use, or sell it. EVER. I want it to die. Not because I hate Micro$oft (after all, this is about somebody else selling it), but because it's a bad idea. The concept of a brutally complex, single-user operating system - term used loosely - is a bad, bad idea. Better to kill it immediately than to prolong the pain, even if it is supposedly at Micro$oft's expense.

Therefore my settlement proposal is as follows: "Microsoft may not produce or sell any operating system or operating system-like product for a period of 10 years, and must immediately destroy all copies of source and/or binaries for any of its current operating systems or operating system-like products." This gets rid of Windows permanently, and gives competitors a chance to do just that - compete. Tough but fair.

This isn't really that great by The+Man · 1999-04-02 05:49 · Score: 1

If people choose to use a certain OS, whether it's Linux, *BSD, OS/2, Windows, etc., it is their right. We shouldn't just come along and take that right away, even if they do choose (in many people's opinion) an inferior OS.

Ignoring for a moment the issue of whether anyone actually chooses windows, the important point has been missed here. Windows sucks. From every conceivable technical standpoint it is inferior to every other halfway mature product on the market. I'm not interested in ensuring that people have 67 instead of 66 choices of OS. I'm interested in seeing technically inferior software die out, because that's what making a better product is all about. Every day of windows's existence is a slap in the face to the thousands of people like dmr, rms, and Linus who have written better software.

This is monstrous by pingouin · 1999-03-28 07:28 · Score: 1

This is state-sponsored expropriation, plain and simple.

No it isn't. MS will likely be fairly compensated in any scenario, and, if not, you should consider any losses to be (in effect) the punitive damages for previous actions - actions that caused the DOJ case(s) to begin with. If there were no legit reason for all this, then you could fairly call it expropriation, but, then again, IANAL.

--

--
=8^

The OS is half the problem, try the apps! by Simon · 1999-03-28 14:09 · Score: 1

The cornerstone of MS's hold on the desktop is based on the control and use of nonpublic proprietry APIs and file formats. 'Freeing' up the OS won't make much of a difference while MS still has everyone who uses Office by the nuts. Or should I say by "the data".

Q: Why can't people move to a different productivity suite?

A: They can't. All thier data is locked away in proprietry MS file formats.

Q: Why can't people write filters for other programs?

A: MS is reluctant to give up the format info.

Q: Yes, but people have written filters anyway, what's wrong with those?

A: They're often incomplete and by the time they are written the latest version of Office is out and the file formats have changed again.

Q: But couldn't people just settle on using an older version of the Word file format?

A: People and businesses need to stay up to date wrt to MSOffice so that they can handle .doc files from thier peers that have been written in the latest MSWord.

A workable solution to the MS problem would also have to handle the file format issue. Maybe with a requirement to have the file format public. Maybe XML will help here. I think that making all info wrt interchange and file formats would be a good lesson for the SW industry in general.

Even the mailbox format in Outlook is non-standard!

Does anyone know the format for NS mailbox summary files?

I was thinking just the opposite by pohl · 1999-03-28 06:27 · Score: 1

The "fragmentation" of unix is actually its greatest strength. Through diversity, unix has become the Hydra that microsoft cannot kill. I shudder to think of Windows gaining similar potency from such an auction.

--

The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

I was thinking just the opposite by pohl · 1999-03-28 07:42 · Score: 1

...in the mass market, where people prefer to learn only one system.

There must be some other reason, because the unity of Windows is an illusion, not only for any given fixed point in time, but as time passes as well. Windows is no less fragmented than the unix market. The only thing about it that is more unified is the number of vendors who can sell it. (I think its success lies in Microsoft's persistent leveraging of any protocol, API, or file-format that they can own and strategic morphing of same with each release, but I'm no super-pundit.) The differences between different "flavors" of unix are no greater than the differences between DOS/Win98 and NT, so the dominance of the latter cannot be pinned entirely on the fragmentation of the former.

--

The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

I was thinking just the opposite by pohl · 1999-03-28 07:48 · Score: 1

Maybe "Hydra" isn't the mythical beast I meant to invoke. Whatever it's called, the legend is that the beast has many heads, and it keeps growing new ones as you cut them off. It's true that there are flavors of linux that are dead today. However, unix itself is alive and well, and doesn't suffer that much with the death of any particular implementation, except in the short term.

--

The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

Can't live his own philosophy by jpatters · 1999-03-28 09:39 · Score: 1

I'm not a Randite (whatever that is) and I'm definitely not in cahoots with a political party that glorifies drug dealers and prostitutes as "business models".

It is interesting that you believe that you should have the right to conduct business with little government oversight, but that the government should have the power to waste our tax dollars locking up sex workers, drug dealers and drug users.

But, you are correct. From MY business strategy, anyone with money is a potential customer. However, I reserve the right to withhold my products and services to whomever I deem fit (communists, smelly vegan types). You should do the same.

Smelly vegan types? Most of the vegans I know aren't smelly, but I'll assume for a moment that what you really mean is "Smelly hippie types", like the loser Phisheads that hang out in front of Nectar's that I have to walk by every day. If you run a retail establishment, I suppose that you could set a minimum personal hygiene standard for clientele, but most states don't allow you to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation (like communists). The fact is, you simply don't have the right to withhold your products and services to whomever you deem fit. You can't produce a software product, distribute it to stores, and then specify in the shrinkwrap license that communists and smelly vegan types shall not be allowed to use the software. There are also restrictions on hiring/firing of employees, My boss can't stumble across the bisexual links on my homepage and decide to fire me because of it. If you don't like this, go start your own government somewhere, and leave the rest of us alone.

Jake "Veganitarian" Patterson

--
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."

Can't live his own philosophy by jpatters · 1999-03-28 13:56 · Score: 1

As for smelly vegans comment, that was a snide comment that could (and should have) been left out of the discussion, as it was not pertinent to the discussion at hand. If you want to be a vegan, it's your choice.

No no no, you misunderstand. I'm a veganitarian. I eat vegans. Very soft and tender. um um um.

Either you have the right to your property (and the disposal thereof), or you don't. There is no inbetween. So, it's your choice:, freedom or slavery.

I would submit to you that it does not constitute slavery for the law, which is written by representatives elected by the people, to require that if you are going to offer an apartment for rent, that you not discriminate against prospective tenants on the basis of race and certain other traits. There was a time in this country that it would have been impossible for a black person to rent an apartment in a white neighborhood. If you think that it should be right and proper for a cartel of landowners to decide where people should live based on race, then I guess I don't understand why you think such a cartel would be any different from an oppressive government.

Your flavor of Libertarianism fails to recognize that you can't have completely unregulated business without marginalizing our representive form of government. Public funding of private schools is another example of this, all that would accomplish would be to take the power out of the hands of an elected school board and put it into the hands of the owner(s) of the private schools, who are not elected.

--
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."

Can't live his own philosophy by jpatters · 1999-03-28 14:05 · Score: 1

Uh... in most states in the U.S. your boss *could* fire you.

Not in the state where I live.

I do think there should be a federal anti-discrimination law which covers sexual orientation, but I guess I'm biased. Before anyone here screams "Special Rights Bad", such a law would also prevent non-straight landowners and employers from discriminating against straight tenents and employees.

I don't support so called "hate crimes" laws, though. I think that it is inproper (even if the Suprime Court thinks it is constitutional) to punnish people for their thoughts.

--
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."

What about Microsoft by jpatters · 1999-03-28 14:28 · Score: 1

I don't see any situation which would cause MIcrosoft from banning me specifically from their software.

If there were no government oversight at all, Microsoft could include on their shrinkrap license a list of people who Charman Bill has decided to excomunicate, and these people would be prohibited from using their software. Or imagine if the original Windows 95 license had a clause that denied licensing to anybody who has ever used Linux. Do you think that anywhere neer as many people would be using Linux today if Microsoft could have done that? The vast majority of jobs in the computer industry require the use of some Microsoft software, even with all of the headway that Linux has made recently.

--
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."

What about Microsoft by jpatters · 1999-03-29 07:51 · Score: 1

Well, if they did that *now* it would be suicide for them, but if they could have done it in 1992, there would be no Linux today.

Regardless of what effect such a move would have, you seem to be arguing that Microsoft should have the right to blacklist certain people from their products. I'm sorry, but that's just wacky.

Believe me, I don't trust the government. However I trust business even less, because I can't vote for who should be CEO of Microsoft.

--
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."

Here come the wolves by Eccles · 1999-03-28 12:42 · Score: 1

>All philosophies that I've seen have at least one fatal flaw, and Objectivism is no exception.

You're right about that, although wrong about the exception. The flaw is that essentially, we live in a world that is consistent with Objectivist rules already.

You don't believe me? Look at any deed. Who grants that deed? At least in the U.S., it originates in the government. What are the rules of the government? The laws of the country. They are restrictions on the use of the land controlled by the U.S. Government, a super-HOA contract if you like. Don't like the restrictions on the use of your property? Go somewhere that doesn't have those restrictions. Can't find such a place? Hey, that's not our problem.

Objectivism assumes absolute ownership of property, which simply isn't the case.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Buyer? by crayz · 1999-03-28 05:14 · Score: 1

Maybe Oracle could buy it, or everyone at /. could contribute some cash and /. could collectively own it. Cool. I somehow doubt this was one of MS' concessions during bargaining... maybe the settlement isn't going so hot. Time for that stock price to drop.

Buyer? by crayz · 1999-03-28 08:19 · Score: 1

It's great that people have made money, but the first people in a pyramid scheme make money too. People made money before the Great Depression too. I am just saying that I don't understand why the stock price has doubled since the beginning of the trial. Is MS really twice as valuable? Aren't any of these people scared at what will happen if(when?) the DOJ wins?

Settlement extremely unlikely, maybe impossilble by hawk · 1999-03-29 03:21 · Score: 1

Speaking as an attorney, but this is not legal advice:

A settlement is extremely unlikely at the moment.

The basis of a settlement is finding mutually acceptable ground, or at least a ground that each side sees as preferable to the reisk of what they'll lose.

The problem is that it appears that both sides think they've won. When, after the evidence, there appears a strong probability that one side has one, or that the outcome is in the air, settlement is possible. In the first case, it is on terms close to surrender by the losing side; the winner gives up something for certainty. WHen it's in the air, something in the middle is palatable.

In this case, though, both sides are offering the first type, with themselves as the winner. Neither side has offered anything significantly different from what they receive in a win, and thus neither side has any reason to consider the other's offer.

Before serious motion towards settlemet can occur, the judge is going to have to drop some hints. So far, all of the hints lean against microsoft (laughing at witnesses, for example).

*If* there is a settlement, I expect that the judge will be involved, in the form of dragging counsel from each side into chambers, and strongly "suggesting" something to consider.

hawk, esq.

A little competition goes a long way by hawk · 1999-03-29 03:37 · Score: 1

Caveat's: I am an antitrust lawyer and economist. This is not legal advice. I have not reached a conclusion about the legality of microsoft's behavior, but here assume they lose. I do have an academic paper waiting to be finished on related subjects.

That said, a little competition goes a long way. It is not necessary for the competing windows to gain a laarge market share; just enough that third party projects won't want to overlook it, especially if compliance is easy.

The successful bidders will have a vested interest in *opening* the API, rather than creating interlocking NDA's: give the world enough information to make sure their products run on your version.

Any of the vendors could still make changes, but they would need to reveal them. Or they could come up with new versions collectively. But "hidden" changes to provide clandestine support for other products will be impractical; it cuts off access for that app to part of the market.

If an extension is useful enough, programmers will use it. If not, it dies.

The key thing here is that competition does *not* have to be for the entire market; it is sufficient that the contested portion, as well as that held by new vendors, be large enough to have some value. Almost all interesting economic phenomona occur at the margin; here that is in the contested portion of the market. And a little bit of it goes a long ways . . .

The OS is half the problem, try the apps! by robin · 1999-03-30 18:06 · Score: 1

[...] Even the mailbox format in Outlook is non-standard! [...]

I seem to remember that Outlook stores its mailboxes in JET format: ie using the Access database engine. This explains what it does to your email: beautiful, swan-like RFC 822 compliant documents go in, and a mass of bloody guts and feathers emerges, possibly crashing your machine. More seriously, if this `mailbox' gets corrupted, it's a binary file, and you can't recover the data in it. Email should be robust, and a binary database file accessible by only one firm's products just doesn't cut it.

--
W.A.S.T.E.

Here come the wolves by Daniel · 1999-03-28 06:55 · Score: 1

Whose freedom?

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!

Two problems by Daniel · 1999-03-28 07:08 · Score: 1

(a) I have little doubt that it would be difficult to legitimately use knowledge about the Windows source code in free software projects. I don't want Wine to get tangled in a legal fiasco.
(b) It won't be free software in either sense of the term:
- Making Windows "open-source" software, which would render it publicly available for use but not for resale. Software writers simply could obtain the source code for products they develop without having to pay a fee.

They're just throwing the term "open-source" around because they've heard it so much recently, IMO. Of course, this would at least be better than the current situation...

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!

reasonable remedies by copito · 1999-03-28 10:22 · Score: 1

I don't trust the DOJ or the states to come up with a reasonable consent decree for limiting Microsoft's monopoly. Look what they did with the last one. Microsoft's lawyers, while apparently not much good in the courtroom, certainly understand their business better than the DOJ and can make any settlement a mockery.

IMHO, the only fair settlement would be to enforce transparent pricing on Microsoft, fully open their API's, with a severe penalty for MS products that use undocumented API's. Opening or auctioning their source is not a good idea in it's present form, but it should be available on an ongoing basis to an independent body who will judge compliance with the API specs.

The only open source plan that could work would be to force Microsoft to distribute all future versions of Windows under the GPL. Watch them run to narrow the scope of windows when that happens. (Windows? that's just the kernel (aka DOS). Win32, IE, the GUI, drivers, those are still our proprietary property.)

Microsoft should also be forced to observe a 2 year moratorium on aquiring companies. Let them innovate, not assimilate.

--
"L'IT c'est moi!"

Please, no! The Win32 API sucks by timur · 1999-03-28 08:42 · Score: 1

This would be a disaster. Windows needs to die, not proliferate! The last thing this world needs is more reason to use Windows or the Win32 API. Time to write another letter to the DOJ.

--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address

MS Stock Price by Gregg+M · 1999-03-28 11:32 · Score: 1

No clue about business? You mean like the people who are betting on companies like Amazon? Amazon is hot as hell and wont be profitable for a few years yet. Betting on stock prices is like trading baseball cards. There is no basis in reality for the price of a stock, besides gullibility of other stock buyers. There is always some moron out there willing to bet on anything. Microsofts stock has always gone up. It has nothing to do with the stability of Windows XX. DOJ or not when the uncertainity of Microsoft business becomes apparent the price will swing like Tarzan.

What we at Slashdot do know is what kind of shity products Microsoft produces. If morons like you continue to inflate its stock prices why should we care. Why don't you bet on the current buzz word like portal or something.

--
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.

Right here by mikpos · 1999-03-28 10:20 · Score: 1

I believe the 'customer advantage' is that Windows is an enormous pile of dung.

Here come the wolves by Millennium · 1999-03-28 06:17 · Score: 2

You make an assumption which is sadly naive. I am guessing you are an Onjectivist (I've heard almost the exact speech from others before; all of them were Onjectivists too). All philosophies that I've seen have at least one fatal flaw, and Objectivism is no exception. Objectivism's is this: it assumes that all businesses act honorably (by this I mean that they do not lie, cheat, or steal). Those that do, according to Objectivism, must fail because the people will not buy from a business which does these things.

But I pose a question: what if the people do not know what M$ does? What if it is so clever at hiding these things, masking them in the jargon of a technology with whic depressingly few people are familiar, such that it can do whatever it wants and people who only think they know what's going on accept it? Such a man (or woman, I suppose), my friend, are you. I don't blame you for it; Microsoft is very devious. It hides its actions quite well. But I ask you: look over the trial; the obscenity behind the mask of Microsoft is coming to light, slowly but surely. You'll find, if you reread The Fountainhead, that Gates and Co. are nothing but real-life analogs to Howard Roark's competitors in the steel industry. (By the way, if you've never read The Fountainhead I suggest you don't; it's awful). And what's more, people are finally starting to take notice.

Release source? No, just standardise Win32. by acb · 1999-03-28 15:58 · Score: 1

What should really be done is for the Win32 API to be handed over to a standards body; a complete specification (sufficiently complete to produce a Win32 implementation) should be handed over by Microsoft (or distilled from MS source by independent experts), and put in the custody of an independent body, such as X/Open, IEEE or ISO. Microsoft should be restricted from extending its implementation of the API in proprietary fashions and using such extensions in applications.

This is the optimal solution. It imposes minimally on Microsoft (compared to a breakup or expropriation of source), whilst breaking the hub of Microsoft's monopoly, their control of the industry-standard desktop API. Microsoft can still compete, but they will have to do so on merit, by ensuring their Win32 implementation is the most efficient and stable (a novel concept), and they will have plenty of competition. (For one, IBM could build a Win32 implementation on their OS/2 code; and there will surely be Win32 implementations for Linux, possibly bundled with every copy of RedHat and the like.)

Not so. by ploeg · 1999-03-28 06:58 · Score: 1

For a Randinista, the whole thing comes down to autonomous individuals having the moral authority to create and to make agreements with other individuals without interference. You have no obligation to buy what I produce, nor do I have any obligation to sell you what I produce.

For whatever weaknesses there are in the Randinista position, that isn't one of them.
-----

Settle? I would rather see a MS defeat in court. by dattaway · 1999-03-28 05:36 · Score: 1

I would like to see the trial drag on for long as needed. The most valuable aspect of the trial as I see it are the little gems of information that are usually hidden. The public and other businesses may learn that screwing your customers is not cool.

May they be fined a dollar, people learn a good lesson, and we might see evolution in action. At that time, people might ask, "what monopoly?"

Open MS file format, close MS Office monopoly by maynard · 1999-03-28 15:24 · Score: 1

Black Parrot wrote:
The problem with your proposal is that so long as MS maintained their current status, all they would have to do is "embrace and extend" the now-public API's and file formats. Sure, you could make them update the standard every time they came out with an new release of anything, but that would just mean they could push the standards around at will. Where's the consumer's advantage in that?

After all, there are already standards out there,a nd MS just ignores them, except when they need to pervert them to their own advantage.

Microsoft can't "pervert" a standard format if it's public. They can change the standard with their own products, but if they must release documentation for coding to that standard they cannot prevent others from maintaining compatibility. Soon, if these changes become a hassle for its users, the vast majority may decide to go somewhere else for their software.

Right now this cannot happen because Microsoft maintains a complete lock on their file formats. They change them with the sole intent of obfuscation to promote ignorance. The same is true of internal APIs to Windows and the kernel. These things should be documented and that documentation should be available either for free on the net, or in print for a nominal sum.

If the DOJ does that in five years Microsoft will be competing on their merits or closing in on bankruptcy.

What's the benefit to consumers? by maynard · 1999-03-28 05:51 · Score: 4

So what if more vendors begin modifying and selling Windows? The issue isn't just Microsoft's monopolistic control over Windows and Office suite software, but their control over proprietary API, network and file formats. Two or more companies selling and developing the same product with interlocking NDA's could still leave us in the same position as before. More vendors selling Windows(tm) does not imply open standards or an end to monopolistic control over desktop software. This "solution" is a red herring which fails to resolve the core issues preventing competition in the desktop marketplace.

I suggest the government force Microsoft to document and release their Windows API, network and file formats to a standardization body like IEEE. Let the world know how to program to these standards while forcing Microsoft to either keep to those standards they created, or update the standards documentation with IEEE every time they make a change. The world doesn't need Microsoft's code, only reasonable documentation.

Here come the wolves by spot · 1999-03-28 08:15 · Score: 1

A monopoly (control of 100% of the market) will never be created without a government mule to create and control the market.

the microsoft monopoly is the result of a government mule: copyright.

If you truly believe in a competitive environment

then you should understand that people have a right to copy, modify, and distribute information.

"ownership" cannot apply to something that can be copied.

that said, forcible licensing and auctioning of the source code is a stupid remedy. the legal problem isn't the monopoly, but leveraging the monopoly into other markets (OS to internet). so the obvious solution is to break them up into smaller companies (OS, app, internet/media).

but this is just treating the symptoms. the only way to cure the disease is to eliminate copyright.

information is free.
the only question is:

--

Scott Draves

cash compensations by hany · 1999-03-28 17:09 · Score: 1

nice idea but if you want compensations, than everybody affected by bad MS practises should get such compensation. and if MS will pay ... hmm ... 200 milion US$ how much will get each one? 5 cents? what good does 5 cents for each one? and to be fair, windows users should get such compensation too (loosed data, unnecesary reboots and other "sweatees" they encounter)

i think the best for everyone is something like releasing MS' sources and/or reasonable documentation (as mentioned by maynard) otherwise nothing will change

--
hany

Settle? I would rather see a MS defeat in court. by Ken+Broadfoot · 1999-03-28 05:22 · Score: 2

Microsoft may even come up with a perfectly good deal to settle out of court, however I would rather see them lose in court and end up with less than let them wiggle out of trouble again. I can see the quotes now:

"We decided to settle out of court even though we 'knew' we were right and justly had the freedom to innovate, we just decided this would be better for OUR customers... blah blah blah blah.....etc."

Ken Broadfoot

--
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!

This isn't really that great by nadador · 1999-03-28 07:06 · Score: 1

Releasing windows source will not solve its problems. The greatest fault that windows carries is its baggage of interfaces and APIs. There are so many that its impossible to make a new one, or improve on a current one without breaking a myriad of other Microsoft products, let alone anyone elses.

Microsoft won't release its source, and even if it did, there would be no point. No one in the nerd community wants to improve the Windows code base because its dirty, ethically and code-wise. No one who codes for Apache, or GNOME, or Wine, or the Linux kernel is going to all of a sudden drop what they're doing to help out Bill. Seeing as how there is a finite supply of nerds who are qualified to do this type of work, I think that Windows wouldn't get much help.

Microsoft's monopoly has nothing to do with Windows, IE, Office, Media Player, IIS, Visual C++, or any single product. Microsoft has established a monopoly by being able to code, feature bloat, and market anything they want, and to buy any software startup that doesn't open its source. The only way to stop Microsoft is not to buy the software, to take the cash away, and that's something that the government can't do.

Andrew Gardner

--

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.

Private property? by Dream+Machine · 1999-03-28 07:16 · Score: 0

What is happening to private property in America?

I guess if you have enough guns you can just take what you want, without having to produce it.

Welcome to America, land of opportunity!

(But don't use that opportunity to produce a popular product, or someone - usually the government - will stick a gun in your face and steal it.)

Dream

Private property? by Dream+Machine · 1999-03-28 16:42 · Score: 1

Not everyone agrees or beleives that ideas and creative works are equivilent to and can be treated the same as physical property.

Creative works must be allowed to be copyrighted, or anyone could copy War and Peace and sell it as his own. I think you're confusing copyrights (creative works) and patents (ideas) - I will agree with you that software patents are bad, bad, bad - but were talking about forcing a business to give up it's actual product, not some design technique.
Were talking about stealing, plain and simple.

Besides that, how can a "public" company ever hold "private" property?

That's a loaded question - using the word "public" in regards to the ownership of MS is a misnomer, even though it's done all the time - it is in fact a privately owned company. Just because a company has more than one owner, does make it "public". Microsoft is owned by all of those people who were inclined to purchase a piece of it's stock, not the public-at-large.

Dream

It's MS that has the gun! by Dream+Machine · 1999-03-28 17:04 · Score: 1

Microsoft uses their OS as a weapon against competitiors.

How dangerous is this "weapon" to human life?
I mean in comparison to an M-16 rifle or a stealth fighter?

Pretty pathetic - as weapons go - if you ask me. I doubt you'd lose consciousness if I hit you square in the face with it.

When MS was losing the war against Netscape, then they stopped trying to make Internet Explorer look like a seperate product and claim erroneously that it is a part of the OS.

War? Why is it that the open source community can be so precise and so full of integrity when re-defining terms that help us ("software-piracy" comes to mind), and so underhanded and mis-leading when using other terms, like describing two companies trying to out-sell each other as "war".

Folks, governments wage wars, not private companies. Governments are the ones with the tanks, mines, chemical/biological/nuclear weapons, torture chambers, prison camps, and human experimentation programs, not businesses.

If anyone is sticking a gun in anyone's face, it's Microsoft!

Amazing how people can turn annoying business pratices into guns, and ignore the actual guns!

Dream

Private property? by Dream+Machine · 1999-03-28 17:18 · Score: 1

The line was drawn many times in the sand and they crossed it far too often. They have no room to cry about anything. You have even less room to cry for them.

I'm not crying for MicroCrap - hell, I don't even buy their products - I'm crying for us. Have you given any thought to what will happen when Linux becomes very popular and some gubbmit agency takes a liking to it?

"Why, Linux is so popular it's used everywhere - it's become a public resource. We can't have the public modifying and changing this valuable public resource, people depend on it! We'll just have to take over the project and make sure it gets done right!"

Dream

It's MS that has the gun! by Dream+Machine · 1999-03-29 01:43 · Score: 1

Get Real. If you don't like what the government is doing, vote them out (you guys are the land of democracy and freedom right?).

Interesting double-standard. To get my government to stop doing what's it's doing, I have to take action, but to stop MS from doing what it's doing, all you have to do is refrain from buying thier product.

And speaking of guns and weapons...try to stay clear of diesel fuel and fertilizer, you really scare me. This is /., the News for Nerds.... Militia and "Patriot" sites are around the
corner, way over on the right.

I do stay away from bombs and weapons, because I don't like them! (What is it you think I've been saying?)

Dream

How to deal with Microsoft by paul.dunne · 1999-03-28 06:47 · Score: 1

Isn't the whole thing very simple really? Microsoft now produce the OS and the applications.
The control this gives them is harmful to the market.
So, they should be compelled to make *either* OSes *or* applications, but not both.

Stupid Stupid Stupid by craw · 1999-03-28 10:09 · Score: 1

The point you make is very valid and highly plausible. The article did mention Windows2000 but didn't say if it was to be the Professional Edition which is the renamed NT5.0. But that is totally besides the point. Like you commented, all Microsoft has to do (and what they do best) is to come up with a newer version that breaks the compatibility with any versions they are forced to sell off.

Perhaps Microsoft could also deliberately put very subtle bugs into Windows 2000.

Good Counter offer by craw · 1999-03-28 07:21 · Score: 4

Microsoft has been posturing the past two weeks about settling the case with the DoJ and the 19 states. They actually put forth a proposal to the states, and will be talking to the DoJ on Tuesday. According to some new sources, the proposal to the states is woefully inadequate.

In the grand scheme of things, what the states are doing is countering MS's offer with one that must be totally repulsive to MS. After all, MS offering was most likely equally repulsive to the states. This is called negotiating a settlement.

MS has been sitting pretty since the trial recess as their stock price has steadily gone up because of the talk of a settlement. The best way to remove the smug smile from someone is to kick him in the nuts.

Who Cares??? by Bilbo · 1999-03-28 14:50 · Score: 1

Does anyone else get the feeling that this whole DOJ thing is an exercise in futility? I seriously doubt that the DOJ will be able to find a "solution" that properly fixes the Microsoft situation. (Sort of like trying to perform brain surgery with a baseball bat.) I'm not with those who feel there shouldn't be any government controls over businesses, but in this case, I don't think the DOJ (or the States) has a clue how to fix the situation in a way that is fair to all parties, but still puts an end to whatever illegal practices MS is engaging in.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Microsoft's days of complete control of the industry are numbered. They can't beat Linux into submission like they did with OS/2 or the original Mac - there isn't any company there to crush or buy out. People KNOW now that Windows is a piece of trash, and there are alternatives. Microsoft isn't about to go the way of the dinosaur, but there is enough of a hole in it's armor that other players will start to inflict damage. Unix is long from dead. Apple is making slow headway. Linux is making it's way into the server market, and as applications continue to roll out, it will continue to build strength on the desktop.

Microsoft has played dirty for too long, and people resent it. Fires are popping up left and right now, and Bill can't put all of them out at the same time any more.

--
Your Servant, B. Baggins

Auction sure, but what about freedom? by Monty+Worm · 1999-03-28 07:16 · Score: 1

In my mind, Microshaft's lawyers could send this stuff away, unless they're forced to release it freely.

This is free as in freedom, not beer!

Just think about it: we all give lots of money to the source god of choice (ie RMS/ESR/BLAH) and they purchase the code and relicense it specifically under (say) the GPL.

... Then a little while down the track we release Windows 2001: Open Source Odyssey....

--
... and today's pet project has ... been discarded for lack of time.

Here come the wolves by Logan · 1999-03-28 06:08 · Score: 0

Yeah, it's *my* business, so I shouldn't have to pay fair wages, or give lunches and coffee breaks, give my employees a day off on stat holidays, etc., right?

Nope. You don't have to. Most employees would rather work someplace that does offer some or all of the perks you mentioned, but some employees would be happy to work with none of the above.

Yeah, it's *my* rental property, so I shouldn't have to rent it to any of those ornery minority types, right?

That's right. Just because I choose to service one person does not mean I am required to service everybody.

When you're in business, you have a responsibility to play fair and abide by legislation. Microsoft obviously hasn't and doesn't, and they deserve whatever they have coming to them.

What is "playing fair" and what isn't is certainly a subjective opinion. I have no qualms with abiding legislation, provided the legislation is reasonable (and anti-trust laws -- and many many others -- certainly are not).

logan

Here come the wolves by Logan · 1999-03-28 06:31 · Score: 0

I didn't say it was a good idea. :P

What I am trying to say is that imposing your morals upon another person or entity to the point that you strip away their rights and property (both of which are supposedly defended by the Constitution) is not right. I'm not sure of the current legality of such a thing, but I should be allowed to offer my services only to, say, white people, if I choose to. Or I could choose to withdraw my services totally. I am not advocating racism or slavery, just freedom.

logan

Hope it never happens by Logan · 1999-03-28 05:53 · Score: 1

I'm rather disappointed that so many posters here think that this is a good idea. I, for one, am frightened that the world thinks it's a good thing to be able to force a company to cut its head off, after droning on and on that they are doing this so that others can "compete." I don't know what definition of "competition" that you guys are using, but my definition implies that there will be winners and losers. Despite their methods (which are actually protected by the government that claims to protect us, and are facilitated by the actions of all those OEMs that let Microsoft trample all over them), they have built up a product that is an incredible source of revenue for them. That so many people seem to support the theft of this revenue, rather than legitimately producing something better, disheartens me.

logan

Here come the wolves by Logan · 1999-03-28 06:25 · Score: 1

You'll find, if you reread The Fountainhead, that Gates and Co. are nothing but real-life analogs to Howard Roark's competitors in the steel industry.

Howard Roark was an architect. I believe you are mixing The Fountainhead with Atlas Shrugged, in which Hank Rearden was put forth as the ideal steel manufacturer.

However, your point is still valid, if you replace "steel industry" with "architectural industry." However, at no point in the book is it proposed that those firms that did not meet the author's ideals should be stripped of their rights and property. Giving or stripping away an entity's rights should not depend upon how much you like that entity. What if the government someday doesn't like you?

logan

Can't live his own philosophy by Logan · 1999-03-28 07:01 · Score: 1

Look, if you're a Randite Libertarian, the whole thing comes down to getting money when you supply something of value, right?

If so, anybody with money is a potential customer.

If you reserve the right to not supply your value to people for irrelevant reasons (i.e. anything but they don't have enough money), then you're not living your philosophy, you're contradicting it.

I never said that. My philosophical standpoint is that you have no right to impose your philosophy upon me to the extent that you violate the same rights that you pretend to support and protect.

logan

Here come the wolves by Logan · 1999-03-28 06:46 · Score: 2

Businesses don't have the same rights as people. The Constitution doesn't say "We the businesses"

Let me see if I've got this straight. First, we are all born as "people," and given the rights typically given to "people." At some point in our lives we decide to interact with our fellow human beings. As soon as that happens, we cease to become "people" and thus lose all our rights?

logan

This isn't really that great by sinator · 1999-03-28 06:08 · Score: 2

The econ/CS major's $0.02:

Sorry to rain on your parade here, but why exactly is this so great? The fundamental concept that everyone seems to be missing is that Windows sucks. I don't want to see different companies produce it. I don't want WINE to emulate it. I don't want to see anyone make, use, or sell it. EVER. I want it to die. Not because I hate Micro$oft (after all, this is about somebody else selling it), but because it's a bad idea. The concept of a brutally complex, single-user operating system - term used loosely - is a bad, bad idea. Better to kill it immediately than to prolong the pain, even if it is supposedly at Micro$oft's expense.

Such short sightedness. Remember, opening up the source lets people *fix* things. This same imposition was made regarding the magtape distributions of UNIX System III and V from AT&T. Opening up the source helps. If the source to Windows is opened (including Windows NT/9x/CE/etc), people can pluck out the bad parts and keep the (OLE anyone?) good parts of kernel and userland alike. (Let me respond to any free-source zealots who would point me to CORBA/ORB: No, it isn't the real deal... yet.)

Let's also make this clear. A lot of supposed *flaws* in a Microsoft system are actually flaws in the coding practice brought about by the closed source. For instance, you don't *need* to reboot an NT system after making changes and reloading the TCP/IP stack (for you point-and-clickies out there, allowing for a new network service or protocol). I've actually reloaded the stack on the fly and have had no problems. NT *can* handle it (who knows, this might even apply to peripheral configuration as well). But, because the code is NOT open source, programmers assume their peers are idiots and demand a reboot. Open source will help stop that.

Furthermore, selling the source (but forcing this to be done) shows that Open Source need not be Pay-Nothing Source. This is a situation that will make pseudo-libertarians and GNU enthusiasts alike happy, or at least content. I'm a big fan of Open Source, but I much prefer the BSD-style licensing, which imposes less in the way of ideological restrictions. I believe a laissez-faire attitude will pop in and weed out those who would attempt to corrupt the system. And before anyone tells me that the DOJ case reeks of government interventionism, let me respond by saying that someone elected the people who appointed these folks.

Business and Politics are just two of many ways to get the masses to improve their situation. Together these ways make up economics. A lot of people confuse business with economics =P )

Now let's listen to your proposed solution:

Therefore my settlement proposal is as follows: "Microsoft may not produce or sell any operating system or operating system-like product for a period of 10 years, and must immediately destroy all copies of source and/or binaries for any of its current operating systems or operating system-like products." This gets rid of Windows permanently, and gives competitors a chance to do just that - compete. Tough but fair.

Neglecting for the minute the difficulty in achieiving this goal, let's look at history. Sure, keeping Microsoft from being an operating system OEM has been done. It's been done to AT&T actually. That's why they opened up the source of UNIX S3 to universities and the like. That's why bored university folk hacked at the system till, by God, it worked. But to destroy all the copies of Windows because of a personal grudge you have against it? Sounds like the Ch'in emperor burning all the books and building the Great Wall of China to keep out foreigners.

It didn't work. Neither will your plan. Opening the source will allow peers to see exactly what's going on behind the curtain, and thus more efficient coding practices will come into play (no more assuming that loading X will fuck up Y, if you can see how the loading process works), and who knows? Maybe compiling Windows with a better optimization flag helps! =)

Ok. i know I was begging the question. Sue me. :)

--
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.

This isn't really that great by sinator · 1999-03-28 06:09 · Score: 2

Yikes! I hit the "preview" button, fixed my problems, and lo and behold they still existed after submission! Sorry -- sinator

The econ/CS major's $0.02:

Sorry to rain on your parade here, but why exactly is this so great? The fundamental concept that everyone seems to be missing is that Windows sucks. I don't want to see different companies produce it. I don't want WINE to emulate it. I don't want to see anyone make, use, or sell it. EVER. I want it to die. Not because I hate Micro$oft (after all, this is about somebody else selling it), but because it's a bad idea. The concept of a brutally complex, single-user operating system - term used loosely - is a bad, bad idea. Better to kill it immediately than to prolong the pain, even if it is supposedly at Micro$oft's expense.

Such short sightedness. Remember, opening up the source lets people *fix* things. This same imposition was made regarding the magtape distributions of UNIX System III and V from AT&T. Opening up the source helps. If the source to Windows is opened (including Windows NT/9x/CE/etc), people can pluck out the bad parts and keep the (OLE anyone?) good parts of kernel and userland alike. (Let me respond to any free-source zealots who would point me to CORBA/ORB: No, it isn't the real deal... yet.)

Let's also make this clear. A lot of supposed *flaws* in a Microsoft system are actually flaws in the coding practice brought about by the closed source. For instance, you don't *need* to reboot an NT system after making changes and reloading the TCP/IP stack (for you point-and-clickies out there, allowing for a new network service or protocol). I've actually reloaded the stack on the fly and have had no problems. NT *can* handle it (who knows, this might even apply to peripheral configuration as well). But, because the code is NOT open source, programmers assume their peers are idiots and demand a reboot. Open source will help stop that.

Furthermore, selling the source (but forcing this to be done) shows that Open Source need not be Pay-Nothing Source. This is a situation that will make pseudo-libertarians and GNU enthusiasts alike happy, or at least content. I'm a big fan of Open Source, but I much prefer the BSD-style licensing, which imposes less in the way of ideological restrictions. I believe a laissez-faire attitude will pop in and weed out those who would attempt to corrupt the system. And before anyone tells me that the DOJ case reeks of government interventionism, let me respond by saying that someone elected the people who appointed these folks.

Business and Politics are just two of many ways to get the masses to improve their situation. Together these ways make up economics. A lot of people confuse business with economics =P )

Now let's listen to your proposed solution:

Therefore my settlement proposal is as follows: "Microsoft may not produce or sell any operating system or operating system-like product for a period of 10 years, and must immediately destroy all copies of source and/or binaries for any of its current operating systems or operating system-like products." This gets rid of Windows permanently, and gives competitors a chance to do just that - compete. Tough but fair.

Neglecting for the minute the difficulty in achieiving this goal, let's look at history. Sure, keeping Microsoft from being an operating system OEM has been done. It's been done to AT&T actually. That's why they opened up the source of UNIX S3 to universities and the like. That's why bored university folk hacked at the system till, by God, it worked. But to destroy all the copies of Windows because of a personal grudge you have against it? Sounds like the Ch'in emperor burning all the books and building the Great Wall of China to keep out foreigners.

It didn't work. Neither will your plan. Opening the source will allow peers to see exactly what's going on behind the curtain, and thus more efficient coding practices will come into play (no more assuming that loading X will fuck up Y, if you can see how the loading process works), and who knows? Maybe compiling Windows with a better optimization flag helps! =)

Ok. i know I was begging the question. Sue me. :)

--
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.

hahah, we'll see by Accipiter · 1999-03-28 05:13 · Score: 1

Yeah, whether Microsoft actually decides to TURN OVER the source in it's ENTIRETY is doubtful. And if it were done, Whoever buys the source will probably be swallowed by Microsoft anyway.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

Hmmmm...... by Accipiter · 1999-03-28 05:24 · Score: 1

Now that I think about it, This could pose an interesting point.

If Microsoft can "develop *a* windows", wouldn't that be just what they want? I mean, when a person (GASP!) goes to buy Windows, they usually want MICROSOFT Windows.

BUT, I think a peek at the windows source code would be very interesting, but as I said before, parts could be conveinantly left out, and I don't doubt Microsoft would do that.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

Hmmmm...... by Accipiter · 1999-03-28 05:29 · Score: 1

P.S.:

How much would they auction it off for? I mean DAMN, if they base it on sales of versions of the 9x kernel alone, that auction would get PRETTY steep.....

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

9.x kernel by Accipiter · 1999-03-28 05:37 · Score: 1

hehe, Maybe. But by 9x, i'm referring to the 4.x kernel. Notice 9x, not 9.x. :P

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

This isn't really that great by Accipiter · 1999-03-28 05:49 · Score: 1

Do you truly believe that Microsoft will say "Shit, we lost. Ok everyone, Delete all of the windows source code, and nobody work on any operating system-related things for 10 years." Gimme a break. If in fact your idea were to be put into play, it would be useless, because all Microsoft would have to do is develop it's OS behind the scenes as technology progresses, and after 10 years, they'll release it.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

Here come the wolves by Accipiter · 1999-03-28 06:05 · Score: 1

I am a 110% believer in Linux. I Don't want Office to be ported to Linux, let alone any microsoft product. I'd prefer not to be included in your stereotype, thank you.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

WINE by Accipiter · 1999-03-28 07:01 · Score: 1

Exactly. WINE is based on non-Windows code, and That's their hook. They're not going to sacrafice that.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

News Flash by Accipiter · 1999-03-28 08:02 · Score: 1

I got news for you. If Microsoft stops developing it's operating system, it's stock WILL drop.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

Here come the wolves : Let's beat them ourselves by seichert · 1999-03-28 07:38 · Score: 1

I must agree with your sentiments. I generally do not want the government messing with a free market. If Microsoft has broken the laws that everyone else abides by then yes they must be punished in some way. I honestly can not think of an acceptable to do this however.
I would rather, see us(us being anyone who wants quality software to win out) beat Microsoft. I don't want the government's help and consequently I don't want them to bully me if my company does really well. Instead I want to be able to compete and win customers on the basis of the quality of my work and my ability to convey that ability(i.e. marketing). I know that is idealistic, but I think we have to push for a market that rewards quality work.
Stuart Eichert
U. of PENN student/FreeBSD hacker

--

Stuart Eichert

Settle? I would rather see a MS defeat in court. by Trent+Oliphant · 1999-03-28 05:33 · Score: 1

It isn't so much that I would like to see MS lose, rather, I'm not sure that we could trust anything that Microsoft is WILLING to do. As far as the forced lisencing of the source code - I think that this would only be effective if it were made publically available and not able to be made proprietary by Microsoft again, ala GPL. Otherwise you end up with incompatabilities in standards once the next version of Windows is released. As for the arguement that MS makes that they shouldn't be allowed to innovate, Microsoft's very exsistence is a creation of statute. Likewise, the ability to "innovate", ie. Intelectual Property, is a creation of statute. The government has every right and responsibility to monitor the behavior of corporations. Forcing Microsoft to give up it's intelectual property is a very valid way of keeping them in check.

Private property? by Trent+Oliphant · 1999-03-28 07:44 · Score: 1

Not everyone agrees or beleives that ideas and creative works are equivilent to and can be treated the same as physical property.
Besides that, how can a "public" company ever hold "private" property?

Trent
I used to know what I was talking about.

Private property? by Trent+Oliphant · 1999-03-28 15:06 · Score: 1

I am not ignoring definitions, rather I am asking a question with regards to how we define these words. I understand the definition of "Publically Held Company" and "Private Property" and I know that legally a public company can hold private property. I am challanging the notion that any company, especially those that are in the public trust, can claim the same rights to privacy and property ownership as an individual.

Any company is a creation of the government and exsists because the government allows it to. In contrast, individuals are not dependent on the government for their existence rather it is the other way around.

Perhaps my question would be better worded "How can a statutory creation (public company) claim inalienable rights (to hold private property)?"

Private property? by Trent+Oliphant · 1999-03-29 01:25 · Score: 1

Creative works must be allowed to be copyrighted, or anyone could copy War and Peace and sell it as his own. I think you're confusing copyrights (creative works) and patents (ideas) - I will agree with you that software patents are bad, bad, bad - but were talking about forcing a business to give up it's actual product, not some design technique. Were talking about stealing, plain and simple.

We'll just have to disagree as far as copyrights is concerned. I am fully aware of the differences between copyright and patents. I am not talking about the validity of either copyrights or patents, I believe that they have their place. However, I don't believe that they should be treated as "property". You believe that they should be.

That's a loaded question - using the word "public" in regards to the ownership of MS is a misnomer, even though it's done all the time - it is in fact a privately owned company. Just because a company has more than one owner, does make it "public". Microsoft is owned by all of those people who were inclined to purchase a piece of it's stock, not the public-at-large.

There are only two types of companies that I would consider truly private, as an extension of the individuals. All others are statutory, (creations of the government, which in turn is a creation of the "public"), and therefore are public. The two exceptions: Sole Proprietorships that are not incorporated, and general partnerships that don't enjoy the benefits of limited liabilty. I suppose that certian types of co-ops would also fit under this category. Again, we can simply disagree on these definitions if we want to.

WINE by zosima · 1999-03-28 05:30 · Score: 1

Don't think it will happen, but I bet the WINE developers are drooling at the possibilities. Just think of what they could do if the Windows source code was opened up!

WINE by zosima · 1999-03-28 06:49 · Score: 1

I agree that would be bad, but LOOKING at source code to get a better idea how all the APIs and such work is a lot different than ripping lines of code. Regardless, it probably is all moot, I don't really see it happening.

then can we have a business expert's opinion? by adraken · 1999-03-28 07:59 · Score: 1

can we have an in-depth analysis of microsoft financial future by a slashdot-reader/expert-suit?

--
-- adraken

windows2linux.org by Zontar+The+Mindless · 1999-03-29 00:39 · Score: 1

Check the source yourself.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

windows2linux.org by Zontar+The+Mindless · 1999-03-29 00:41 · Score: 1

Check the source yourself.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

This is monstrous by scrytch · 1999-03-28 06:14 · Score: 1

This is state-sponsored expropriation, plain and simple. It's horrifying that it's even being considered.

--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.

My Bid... by Grell · 1999-03-28 09:32 · Score: 1

$2.00 and all the useful M$ documentation I've used over the years.

If accepted I'll turn the source over to the WINE project so they can speed up their work on defusing the grenade that is Windows compliance.

More power to them, it's a work that I wouldn't concieve of undertaking.

~Grell

The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word "crisis." One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. -- President Richard Nixon

--
...when it gets down to fundamentals, do what you have to do and shed no tears. Dr. Matson in Tunnel in the Sky

Windows flavors by Mooset · 1999-03-28 05:21 · Score: 2

I think this would possibly be the best thing to ever happen to Windows. Different distributions of Windows challenging each other in the market place would no doubt lead to stronger and quicker development within the OS. Then again, they might also splinter apart and end up existing as entirely different operating systems if no standards are held among them. In the end it could end up that you need entirely different applications and such depending on if you use MS Windows 98, MS Windows NT, IBM Windows, Apple Windows, RedHat Windows, NUTTYX Windows, etc. This would no doubt lead to confusion amongst the consumers and make them end up buying Microsoft Windows anyways.

Windows flavors by rchuang01 · 1999-03-29 05:06 · Score: 1

I think your last sentence hits it right on the head! (^_^)

Contrary to the belief of the /. crowd here, most MIS types are VERY reluctant to take on any new OS unless there is a LOT of "handholding" from the OS vendor. This is why Red Hat is getting to be the "de facto" standard for Linux, since at least you can get regular support from Red Hat on installation and configuration issues. I'm sure that Red Hat is getting pretty close to being most people's favorite variant of Linux anyway.

Because Microsoft knows Windows more than anyone else, even in Windows is auctioned off to IBM, Caldera, Novell, etc., most people will still buy the Microsoft version since they are more comfortable working with Microsoft.

Here come the wolves by binarybits · 1999-03-28 10:01 · Score: 1

I'm not an Objectivist, but I am familiar with her work, and you are mistaken:

it assumes that all businesses act honorably (by this I mean that they do not lie, cheat, or steal). Those that do, according to Objectivism, must fail because the people will not buy from a business which does these things.

Anyone who has any familiarity with Rand knows that the sole purpose of an Objectivist government is to prevent people (and organizations, which are groups of people) from violating the rights of others. Stealing does this. So does cheating and lying (which are forms of fraud.) If Microsoft were to order its employees to do these things, Rand would be the first to advocate their being brought to justice.

But I pose a question: what if the people do not know what M$ does? What if it is so clever at hiding these things, masking them in the jargon of a technology with whic depressingly few people are familiar, such that it can do whatever it wants and people who only think they know what's going on accept it.

This is where courts of law and evidence come in. If someone thinks that Microsoft has stolen someone else's code, for example, they can take MS to court to recover damages. I fully support that right.

This is not the issue here. Microsoft is in essence being sued for being too successful, and then using its success in one market to help it succeed in others. This does not qualify as "theft, lying, or cheating." It is called competition. Microsoft spent a lot of money to produce a (bloated and buggy, but nonetheless) very popular and useful product. It is not theft for them to set conditions on the use of this product, including giving discounts to dealers who sell only its product.

I find your lack of understanding of Rand's ideas amazing. You clearly did not take the time to understand even the basic principles of the philosophy you claim has a "fatal flaw." I suggest that before you post, you make sure you know what you are talking about.

Boo, Hoo! by binarybits · 1999-03-28 10:09 · Score: 1

Nor is the existence of the Act any news. MS's lawyers should have been keenly aware of it all along, and if MS didn't want to fall afoul of it, all they had to do was behave.

The problem is that what Microsoft is accused of is "combinations in restraint of trade." That is so vague and Microsoft has a large enough market share that pretty much anything they do can be interpreted as a "combination in restraint of trade." Thus about the only way Microsoft could have avoided this is if they had stopped developing new products, and made sure they never pissed anyone off. As much as many /.ers would like this, I think we can agree that Microsoft's OS success does not make it unethical for them to produce Windows products.

Here come the wolves by binarybits · 1999-03-28 10:16 · Score: 1

Businesses are simply groups of people. If the people individually have rights to liberty and property, how can the group not have those rights?

Here come the wolves by binarybits · 1999-03-28 10:19 · Score: 1

Can't does not mean shouldn't. I think everyone here agrees that a business that hired only whites is a moron. The question is whether the government or anyone else has the right to dictate who he may or may not hire. If you believe in private property, then I would think that you would support someone's right to hire whomever they choose, whether they agree with the reasons or not.

The Solution by binarybits · 1999-03-28 12:18 · Score: 1

This doesn't go nearly far enough. Windows sucks. Microsoft sucks. The government should simply nationalize all of Microsoft's assets and disband the company. It can place all Microsoft software and its source in the public domain.

After all, corporations are not persons and they have no rights.

My God! by binarybits · 1999-03-28 12:33 · Score: 1

Let's just shoot Bill Gates and be done with it. These are software executives! How the hell can you caompare them to murderers? You are out of your mind.

railroads by binarybits · 1999-03-28 13:19 · Score: 1

If you don't think this is true I will remind you of the Railroad barons that neccessitated the creation of antitrust laws in the first place.

The railroad gained their monopoly in part because they were given exclusive land grants at well below cost. No one could compete with them, because they could not afford to build the railroads without government help. Thus the railroad barons were *not* a failure of the free market. They were a result of government interference.

Hope it never happens by Lupus+Rufus · 1999-03-28 07:48 · Score: 1

I don't know what definition of "competition" that you guys are using, but my definition implies that there will be winners and losers.

Actually, from an economic standpoint (the considerable inaccuracy of modern economic theory notwithstanding), competition is precisely the state of having no "winners" or "losers." The problem with Microsoft is that in the OS "industry," there is no competition anymore. Competition is good from a consumer standpoint because perfect competition forces prices down to the cost per unit of production (i.e. zero-profit), so that there isn't a ridiculous transfer of wealth from consumers to corporations (and their shareholders).

Why should consumers be preferred over corporations? Well, consumers are people, while corporations are formal legal entities. There's a reason corporations can't vote in the voting booth (why do you think they contribute so much money to political campaigns?)--the elected government is supposed to protect the populace (i.e. consumers) from individuals who don't have the best interests of the populace at heart (i.e. corporations like Standard Oil, AT&T, and Microsoft before legiaslation). As representative and guardian of the populace at large, it is the duty of the government to protect the consumers' interests. In the case of anti-trust law, this means making sure that corporations cannot stifle competition and thus use a monopolistic pricing scheme.

That so many people seem to support the theft of this revenue, rather than legitimately producing something better, disheartens me.

Actually, better things have been legitimately produced throughout the late eighties and nineties, but the sheer force of Microsoft's monopoly has prevented these (better) technologies from getting off the ground. Probably the best example of this is IBM's OS/2 Warp, which was released shortly before the launch of Microsoft's Windows 95 (and the accompanying "Start" campaign). OS/2 was in many ways better equipped to deal with the environment of the mid-nineties (the mainstream onset of the Internet and corporate computer networks) but Win95, which until very late in the game was devoid of substantial Internet infrastructure, went on to consume the market.

A comparable situation to this is the VHS-Beta wars of the early eighties, which as we all know VHS won. That battle, however, was much more compatible with perfect competition, because VHS and Beta were open standards, and thus commodities. There are many, many licensees of the VHS specification, which is why blank videocassettes are so cheap. This is an example of commodity (competitive) pricing. All the Microsoft lawsuit is trying to do is produce (artificially, if necessary) a state of commodity pricing in the PC OS industry. Linux and the BSD's are the world's first commodity operating systems, and the success of that model in the market is already becoming clear. All the DOJ wants to do is make Windows into a commodity, not a pivot of monopolistic power.

-josh

--

Aren't you dead?

The Solution by JohnnyX · 1999-03-29 02:16 · Score: 1

If Windows sucks, and Microsoft sucks, then why in the world would we need the DOJ to hack the company up into little pieces and give away all of their valuable IP? Perhaps Windows doesn't suck as bad as you would like it to, and having the government step in is the only way that whatever it is that "doesn't suck" can prevail.

Having the government nationalize MS opens the door to the nationalization of Linux and/or GNU. Imagine a group of vocal distro companies clamoring about how open-source doesn't allow them to remain competitive. The DOJ steps in, nullifies the GNU license, and voila! What was open becomes closed.

If the alternatives are better, they will prevail. If not, tough cookies.

Open Source! by wapentake · 1999-03-28 07:01 · Score: 1

And if the open source community benefits from Microsoft source, then it becomes the theft source community.

Linux already kicks ass. It will see no improvement by feeding off Window's carcass (if the gov causes Microsoft's death, then the code will be a carcass). Such feeding would only poison.

Private property? by wapentake · 1999-03-28 13:23 · Score: 1

> Besides that, how can a "public" company ever hold "private" property?

You are ignoring definitions of words, or mixing concepts. Your question makes no sense; a perfect example of the old oranges and apples cliche.

This isn't really that great by domc · 1999-03-28 08:52 · Score: 1

Actually, most people do NOT choose Windows. Most people do not know what an operating system is. The OEMs CHOOSE Windows! The average consumer does not realize that they even have a choice.

Dom

This isn't really that great by domc · 1999-03-28 09:29 · Score: 1

No, I don't think they would know the difference.

As long as there were (commercial) applications that the customer wanted to run, they would not care about the OS running on their computer.

Of course, as you know, the problem is not that simple. Microsoft has a monopoly on shelf-space. They also have an unlimited amount of marketing resources. People can easily be led to believe that MS is the only game in town.

Dom

This isn't really that great by domc · 1999-03-28 12:04 · Score: 1

Yes, but, there is no reason why that software
HAS to to be produced by MS. It is just
CURRENTLY the way things are.

None of this has anything to do with the FACT
that most people don't know what an operating
system is. It is obvious that people will use
any OS if the type of aplications they want to use
will run on it.

Windows flavors by IntlHarvester · 1999-03-28 05:48 · Score: 3

One of the percieved advantages of Windows over the Unix world, from the standpoint of MIS directors, is that there is only two flavors (and they both run the almost the same set of applications).

Corporate buyers would probably stick with authentic Microsoft Windows, and you'd only see the generic versions on cheap clones.

(Case in point - long ago I worked at a place that bought lots of IBM brand PCs. They formatted IBM DOS off the hard drive and installed MS DOS, even thought they're basically the same thing, except the MS EMM386 was broken on IBM hardware. But they did it anyways, because other applications weren't "supported" on non-MS DOS.)

--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

Anyone reminded of a Paul Anderson novel? by Zarchon · 1999-03-28 07:26 · Score: 1

Has anyone here read the David Falkayne/Van Rijn series by Paul Anderson? If you happen to be among the elite few who have, doesn't this business about splitting up/stealing from Microsoft strike you as somewhat similar to the way Van Rijn's era came to an end? (i.e. The Seven and the Commonwealth?)

Remember what happened after that?

Why? by InfiniterX · 1999-03-29 02:20 · Score: 1

Because we have WINE.... it's not as good but hey, can't beat the price.

legislation by JamesKPolk · 1999-03-28 16:54 · Score: 1

you have a responsibility to play fair and abide by legislation.

Who says playing fair and abiding by legislation are necessarily compatible goals? Fairness is somewhat of a subjective term; many would say that forcing Microsoft to compete with one hand tied behind its back (attempting to separate the Office and OS divisions) is unfair. After all; it's their source code. Why can't they release early and often within the company, and use their own OS code to improve Office?
That addresses the last lawsuit; now for this one. I, personally, would say that nobody has a responsibility to abide by unconstitutional or unjust legislation. In fact, in many cases, one may even have the moral responsibility to attack improper legislation. Considering the fact that post-Roosevelt federal law doesn't take into account any Constitutional restrictions (save certain bill of rights amendments), the laws that MS is accused of breaking might just be worth fighting against, regardless of how obnoxious the popularity of Windows is.

Vive property rights!

elimination of copyright by JamesKPolk · 1999-03-28 17:00 · Score: 1

the only way to cure the disease is to eliminate copyright

spot: Would I be correct in guessing that you are a fan of the GNU GPL? Thought so. Now, do you realize that if copyright were eliminated, copyleft would disappear as well? That's right. All source code would have no restrictions on it, including making binary-only, proprietary distributions based on GNU code.

Imagine MS Visual C++ being powered with a gcc based compiler? Or Solaris or BeOS stealing linux hardware driver code? That's what you'd get if copyright went away.

Be careful what you wish for...

Here come the wolves by dirty · 1999-03-28 06:35 · Score: 1

You obviously didn't pay attention in history class. Worker's rights laws and anti-discrimination laws were brought about because bussinesses were treating workers unfairly and workers accpeted it because they had no choice. If bussinesses could treat their employees in any way they wanted do you think any bussiness would offer lunch breaks or 8hour work days or pay you a decent salary? It didn't work in the past.

Also, w/ regards to minimum wage, if you took a highschool level economics course you'd realise that w/o a minimum wage people who are making minimum wage wouldn't be making nearly as much money, more people would have jobs however.

--

-matt

its not going to happen by vpp · 1999-03-28 05:14 · Score: 0

i dont know why they say all this hype, it will simply never happen

--
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net

9.x kernel by vpp · 1999-03-28 05:36 · Score: 1

hmmm... wouldnt that be the same as the 3.x kernel?

--
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net

oh god why? by BiGGO · 1999-03-28 07:13 · Score: 1

why would anyone want windows?
it's a big bloated mess.
I think MS will be glad to get rid of that junk.
and "start a new technology".

this a nice excuse for them to stop supporting it, "it's not our anymore",
and sell a (suppose to be) better product instead.
"bugs in windows? not our fault [anymore] contact xxx-sucker that baught windows from us,
and buy our new 'walls' OS, guarenteed to work better".

A company would not rush to buy that thing anyway.
After all that linux hype, it's a suicide.
they can get the source of a good OS for free.

I think windows is a dead weight.
it cant be developed anymore without backwords compatibility.
MS will be so glad to have an excuse to drop it off.

---

--

---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.

The correct solution by DynoMutt · 1999-03-28 07:44 · Score: 1

The real way to

fix

this problem isn't to break M$ up or sell off its source code to the highest corporate bidders. The best thing to do would be to BAN HARD DRIVE PRELOADS entirely. This would disrupt Microsoft's business model and make the market more egalitarian. The technology already exists. Here is the proposal:

Make bootable CDs using a free OS controlled by no one corporation which will hold an image of the operating system and load it on to the hard drive on first activation. This way, there is a lower cost to the hardware reseller to change a specific machine's OS. They only need to make one master for each OS on each model line and they can easily swap windows out on request.

--
-- Game over man, game over!

The correct solution by DynoMutt · 1999-03-28 13:30 · Score: 1

But you're assuming anyone who doesn't want Windows must also be a computer expert. I disagree. I think if all boxes had El Torito CDs put into 'em from the factory w/ OS images instead of automatically loading the images on the HDs IN the factory, it would cut down on the computer seller's cost to change OSes per customer request. This would essentially nix Windoze preload inertia and the cost burden excuse from the computer seller.

--
-- Game over man, game over!

I was thinking just the opposite by Chris+Pimlott · 1999-03-28 07:43 · Score: 1

I wouldn't say so. How many Unix variants have died off over the years and don't exist today...

You are missing the big picture by curveclimber · 1999-03-28 13:05 · Score: 1

>Microsoft does not have a stranglehold on me or any of my computers. I can change operating systems at the drop of a hat. You can, too.

Of all the desktop computers in the world how many do you think run M$ exclusively? I have read that the figure is close to 95%. If you think that the majority of computer users can change THEIR OS at the drop of a hat you have not been in an office environment lately. M$ is THE OS if you want someone to be able to read your memos or see your slide presentations. Because of this they can do just about anything they want, like charging $89 for a bug fix.
The system of capitalism works wonderfully, to a point. Once a company obtains dominance in a field the competition is quickly strangled. If you don't think this is true I will remind you of the Railroad barons that neccessitated the creation of antitrust laws in the first place. Is forcing M$ to sell their code the solution? No, I don't think so, but your opinion seems to be that there is no problem with the way M$ does business. I heartily disagree with you there, and quite honestly the fact that someone like yourself (use Linux, read /.) frightens me.

You are missing the big picture by curveclimber · 1999-03-28 14:49 · Score: 1

Orders of magnitude more software companies doing what? Are these companies developing specialized software for industies or applications the average user will encounter? If it's the latter I'd bet you my bottom dollar their developing for the Windoze OS.
Again, I maintain you're missing the big picture, walk into any business off the street and see how many are using OS/2 or Unix. In an educational environment the story would be different and I'll grant you that many corporations use Unix, but I truly doubt that the majority of users out there, from secretaries to teenagers playing Quake at home, have even HEARD of Unix. Do these people have a choice in OSs? I think not. Who is to blame for that and what is the solution? I don't have an answer to those questions but denying a problem exists just dooms the rest of the poor users of the world (non-geeks) to a single (shoddy) OS.

railroads by curveclimber · 1999-03-28 15:08 · Score: 1

>The railroad gained their monopoly in part because they were given exclusive land grants at well below cost.

Which railroad are you referring to? The government offered ultra-cheap land to several. that's why I said barons, plural. No, it would have been impossible to start a new railroad with out government help, but what happened to the competition between those that recieved help? Your point may have shown my use of the railroad industry as a poor analogy of M$'s single company hold on the OS market. However, it hardly refutes the fact that once a company, (or group of companies with a friendly agreement) makes it up the difficult road to success in a capitalistic system there is nothing short of government intervention to keep them from doing as they please.
Again, I am NOT arguing that M$ code should be auctioned off, I just think that the idea that people always seem to espouse; "the free market will work for the best if we would just let it", is incredibly naive.

Linux Community by Tannin+Kal · 1999-03-28 07:37 · Score: 1

I'm wondering how the linux community as a whole would react to this, and what they would do with it. We've already seen several opinions stating that everything here is to be completely avoided, but I'm not sure that's the best approach. Windows obviously has a massive market base, and if some linux-based company managed to release a version, or if the linux community in general were to work with the kernel, good things could happen. Imagine the increased security, reliability etc., if we were to do so. Of course, this would be a tremendous draw away from linux.

Thoughts, anyone?

-TK

--
-Tannin Kal

Unless by Tannin+Kal · 1999-03-28 08:09 · Score: 1

Reason notwithstanding,
this could do more to break down not just the M$ monetary monopoly, but the OS monopoly. If Windows were to split similarly to the unices, lacking some of the necessary standards, perhaps more of the population could be turned to a linux distro.
It's a long shot, and likely out of the question as an actual DoJ option, but it's not a bad thought.

--
-Tannin Kal

True, but. by Tannin+Kal · 1999-03-28 10:10 · Score: 1

or maybe not.
either way,
that isn't actually the issue now.
in order NOT to prosecute M$ for monopolistic practices would require an amendment to the law itself. for now,
while that remains as it is, the DoJ is only following "orders."
so while in some ways i do agree with you,
though i don't like the way M$ is taking software,
that would require a restructuring of that portion of the US legal system, or at least a portion relating to computers, etc.
hope M$ never thinks to exploit that.

--
-Tannin Kal

Grrl? by MsWillow · 1999-03-28 12:04 · Score: 1

What's a grrl? As in "riot grrl" ... a radical femme, sometimes used (as here) to refer to a lesbian, or a punk rocker, or maybe both.

Think "Becca" from "Tank Girl" ...

Love and light,
Jeannette

--

Lemon curry?

Open Source? by Mr.+Piccolo · 1999-03-28 07:10 · Score: 1

Hardly. The way they are defining "open source" makes the APSL look like the BSD license by comparison.

According to the article, you would be able to look at the source, but you can't redistribute it at any price. This would be the biggest abuse of the term ever.

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised to see SGI's Origin 2000 for sale in your local Best Buy before Windows becomes Open Source by Bruce Peren's standards.

--
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei

Here come the wolves by Linux+Freak · 1999-03-28 06:25 · Score: 1

No, Logan, you *can't* do the types of things you are saying. Try hanging a sign saying, "No Negroes" on your rental property. See how long it stays up before you are convinced to take it down.

Here come the wolves by Linux+Freak · 1999-03-28 06:00 · Score: 2

Yeah, it's *my* business, so I shouldn't have to pay fair wages, or give lunches and coffee breaks, give my employees a day off on stat holidays, etc., right? There will still be plenty of people who don't mind being exploited, after all!

Yeah, it's *my* rental property, so I shouldn't have to rent it to any of those ornery minority types, right?

When you're in business, you have a responsibility to play fair and abide by legislation. Microsoft obviously hasn't and doesn't, and they deserve whatever they have coming to them.

I was thinking just the opposite by Ian+Lance+Taylor · 1999-03-28 07:20 · Score: 1

The fragmentation of Unix may indeed be its greatest technical strength. However, it is a great weakness in the mass market, where people prefer to learn only one system. Windows isn't the most widely-used OS because it's technically superior.

Fortunately, there are various solutions which preserve technical competition with consumer standardization. I think that either the branding or open source approaches I mentioned could work well.

As far as your concerns about Windows gaining potency, I personally prefer to use Unix, but that doesn't mean that I want Windows to be bad. It's not a zero-sum game in which a gain for Windows is a loss for Unix.

Multiple versions of Windows would split market by Ian+Lance+Taylor · 1999-03-28 05:54 · Score: 3

Remember what happened to Unix? Each Unix company developed their own Unix variant. They were all slightly different. Moving programs back and forth became so difficult that there is a GNU package specifically designed to handle it (autoconf).

If there were two or more owners of Windows, the same thing would happen. In the case of Windows, as the market split, people would stick with the known vendor: Microsoft.

I don't think this solution is any solution at all.

A better approach along the same lines would be to create a standards body with the ability to brand versions of Windows. Require that all Microsoft versions meet the branding. For anybody else, branding would be optional. Let the organization evolve the brand over time. However, this is quite complex, and it's hard to imagine that the court could create an organization which could adapt quickly enough and fairly enough to the rapidly moving market.

I think the simplest solution would be to require Microsoft to license the entire Windows OS under some open source licence. That would give Microsoft a choice: bundle it in and make it open, or keep it proprietary and don't bundle it.

This isn't really that great by Richard+Frost · 1999-03-28 06:44 · Score: 3

I think that you are being a little too fanatical about this. By destroying Windows in the way that you suggest, you would, for many people, effectively take away their right to use the OS they want to use. If people choose to use a certain OS, whether it's Linux, *BSD, OS/2, Windows, etc., it is their right. We shouldn't just come along and take that right away, even if they do choose (in many people's opinion) an inferior OS. As to "why exactly is this so great?", if the source is open (or at least, opened to a dozen or so different organizations), then it gives everyone involved with it's development a chance to improve this "brutally complex, single-user operating system". It might turn Windows from a thing to be despised into a thing to merely be made fun of. :)

Richard Frost

Yes you do have to!!! by SeanNi · 1999-03-28 20:20 · Score: 1

Ummm... I have no idea where you live, dude, but around here, you do have to give your employees breaks and vacations -- it's required by law.

Besides, let's say you were allowed to not give your employees these prviledges. But in your jov advertisements you said you would give them anyway. Even in your interviews. Then, once the employees were on-board, and tied into a lengthy contract, you revealed to them that they werent... I'm sure even you would admit this is highly immoral, if not illegal. And this is exactly the sort of thing that Microsoft does.

Also, you are not allowed to discriminate against who you allow into your store -- again, it's the law.

Either you're trolling, or incredibly naive that's all I can say.
--
- Sean

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean

WINE -- The code itself isn't the important part. by SeanNi · 1999-03-28 21:23 · Score: 1

Exactly what the subject says. If MS was forced to auction off it's source code, WINE's work would be over.

Not because they would be able to rip the code. They wouldn't even need to look at the code. The real benefit from opening Windows' code would be that at last the "secret hooks" and undocumented API's would be out in the open. In other words, WINE's target would be properly defined.

Once thay have that; once they know *exactly* what they need to emulate, all the hard work is done, as far as I can figure.
--
- Sean

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean

Reinventing the Wheel by SeanNi · 1999-03-28 19:59 · Score: 2

In my eyes, a (sic) OS monopoly is a *GOOD* thing.

Imagine where software would be today if we weren't trying to recreate the wheel on 100 different platforms.

No, I don't think breaking down monopolies just because they're monopolies is a good thing.

This is a good analogy -- a very good analogy, in fact, but like many analogies, it is misapplied.

First off, just because a wheel exists, don't assume that it is not worth reinventing. You bring your analogy from the "Real World," where we have a nice round wheel which works very well. But imagine if that wheel were in fact square? The wheel as we know it is not worth reinventing, which is the basis for that expression. However, if the wheel were substandard, ie: a square wheel, it would be very much worth reinventing. And that is how I believe the analogy would be more apliccable to our Operating System situation. We have a square wheel (Windows), which we are trying to re-invent, or rather supplement with a better, round version (ie: *nix).

Don't let the mantra of "Don't reinvent the wheel" prevent you from replacing a substandard wheel.

Second of all, A wheel may be worth improving. Not necessarily reinventing, but improving on the original design. Such as (for a real-world wheel) adding shocks, tyres, and so on. In terms of our software analogy, this can mean anything from Microsoft's attemtpts at "embrace and extend" (bad) to Linux's DE's such as KDE and GNOME (good). On their own, each individual strain of improvements may lead to OS clutter and usability setbacks (witenss the KDE/GNOME flame wars on Slashdot), but on the whole, especially once you combine them, and/or relegate each improvement to its specific purpose, they are a definite improvement.

Third , and finally, don't confuse standards with monopolies. This is where the wheel <--> Operating System analogy really shines, and also where you misapplied it. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with a standard -- standards are good. The wheel is a standard; everyone can use a wheel. But the wheel is not a monopoly. No one company or person has control over either the design or the implementation of the wheel.

Rather, the wheel's design is well-known. It is ubiquitous -- a standard. Anyone who wants to can take a wheel apart, find out how it works, and make another one. This is the reason why it is a standard -- also why no-one reinvents it. Simply because no-one has to. Unfortunately, Microsoft does not allow this with their Operating Systems. Not only is no-one allowed to take them apart and see how they work, but it is very difficult to emulate them. And this is exactly the problem that the "solution" propsed by the states is trying to solve!

By opening Windows up, and forcing Microsoft to release/auction off their source code, they would be effiectively freeing up the design for the wheel, and letting anyone build their own, so they don't have to reinvent it!

So don't confuse design and implementation. Ubiquity of design is great. A monopoly on the implementation (which Microsoft has) is not. We don't have to reinvent the wheel because the design is open to us. With the opening up of the "Windows" wheel, we won't have to reinvent that one, either, and maybe, just maybe, we can improve it, changing the wheel from a rolling log into a spoked set of discs on an axle, with tyres and shocks. Pardon the analogy, but I think you can see where I'm going.

Basically, you hit on the problem, but misapplied it, coming up with the wrong solution. Or rather, you had the right solution, but translated it the wrong way.

I agree, we shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. That is what we are trying to put out. And A monopoly can be good. But a monopoly on design, belonging to the people, rather than a monopoly on implementation, belonging to a company.

If Dunlop had a monopoly on the wheel, and priced it/did quality control to match, I'm pretty sure there would be alternatives that people would use, leading to fragmentation. Thankfully, they don't. The design of the wheel is open, leading to standardization as people realize what features are and are not useful.

Don't let a fear of fragmentation lead you into accepting a square wheel.
--
- Sean

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean

Grrl? ugh... by No-op · 1999-03-29 13:03 · Score: 1

they make testosterone shots for that. take some, and switch.

--
EOM

Sexual orientation as a fashion statement. hahaha by No-op · 1999-03-29 13:05 · Score: 1

yes, indeed, look at me... I'm not a homosexual, i am a Grrl... stop shopping at the Gap and buying vintage clothing and wake up.

--
EOM

Boo, Hoo! by Black+Parrot · 1999-03-28 08:46 · Score: 1

if you don't like it ... write your own!

Now that's a novel idea. Anyone here interested?

Microsoft got to where it is today because it provides a product that people want, or a product that people accept.

No, Microsoft got to where it is today because IBM fumbled their monopoly into MS's lap. The PC has had a virtual full nelson on the desktop since it first came out with IBM's name on it. MS got the advantage partly because of stupidity on the part of IBM and Intel, but once they did get the advantage they've done nothing but exploit it ruthlessly. MS having acquired economic control of the de facto standard, it's the very real need for compatibility that makes MS products something "that people want ... or will accept". People have been cursing those products for years, but pretty much have to use them in certain contexts so they can get along with other people that use computers.

That being the case, the only fair remedy is to either change the de facto standard to something else that doesn't give any small group a stranglehold on the nation's (or world's) economy, or else to level the playground around the existing one. In that context, forced licensing is probably the fairest solution around.

why do most of these same people quiver with glee when rumors of Microsoft porting Office to Linux appear

One doubts whether "most" of these same people really do, and even for those who do, it is probably a reflex of the problem described above, namely that they need to maintain compatibility with a monopoly application, even if they prefer to run it on a stable platform.

the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and its allied bills, laws, etc, is nothing more than a wordy repeal of the right to own property, ideas, etc

I see it differently, but surely there's one fact we can agree on: the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is the law of the land in the USA, and MS is subject to it just like everyone else is.

Nor is the existence of the Act any news. MS's lawyers should have been keenly aware of it all along, and if MS didn't want to fall afoul of it, all they had to do was behave.

But behaving doesn't seem to sit well with people who've made so much loot that they think they're above the law.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

What's the benefit to consumers? by Black+Parrot · 1999-03-28 08:54 · Score: 1

The problem with your proposal is that so long as MS maintained their current status, all they would have to do is "embrace and extend" the now-public API's and file formats. Sure, you could make them update the standard every time they came out with an new release of anything, but that would just mean they could push the standards around at will. Where's the consumer's advantage in that?

After all, there are already standards out there, and MS just ignores them, except when they need to pervert them to their own advantage.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

This isn't really that great by Black+Parrot · 1999-03-28 08:59 · Score: 1

They certainly weren't very effective at deleting their e-mail!

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

MS's offer = no offer by Black+Parrot · 1999-03-28 08:22 · Score: 2

I haven't researched it extensively, but what I've seen of the MS offer basically amounts to agreeing to act in the future the way they should have been acting all along, but without any provisions to enforce it, let alone any substantial punitive damages for bad behavior in the past.

And even the above ignores that all-important caveat reserving the ability to innovate. But since for MS, "innovate" means to copy someone else's idea and use the copy in a monopoly context to run the true innovator out of business, allowing such a loophole would mean MS wasn't really even bound to good behavior in the future.

Personally, I think an acceptable solution should not only coerce good behavior in the future, but should also involve huge cash recompenstions to all the owners of competing products who have been crushed by MS's unethical practices in the past.

Truly, I expect the states + DOJ to apply an ineffective remedy, but I'm hoping that all the dirty laundry that has been aired by the trial will cripple MS more than any legal remedy is likely to anyway.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

If the DOJ forces them to auction... by the_tsi · 1999-03-28 07:09 · Score: 1

FSF should start a fund which people all over the world to contribute to with which to buy the rights. Imagine: this would be the pinnacle of Irony. The largest open source promoter *buying* the ultimate closed-source product, and turning around and giving it to the world.

Even though I don't think "auctioning" the windows source would help anything at all (in fact, I think the whole anti-trust case is just more evidence of the DOJ/government/media's ignorance of NerdStuff), I'd be willing to pitch in at least as much as I've spent on windows licenses over the past decade. :)

-Chris

It's MS that has the gun! by JohnnyCannuk · 1999-03-29 01:10 · Score: 1

Gee, I guess I missed the day the DOJ and the Marines walked into MS offices and took over, summarily executing Bill Gates and Paul Allen...I'll have to surf over to CNN a little more.

Get Real. If you don't like what the government is doing, vote them out (you guys are the land of democracy and freedom right?). And speaking of guns and weapons...try to stay clear of diesel fuel and fertilizer, you really scare me. This is /., the News for Nerds....Militia and "Patriot" sites are around the corner, way over on the right.

--
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha

Stupid Stupid Stupid by W2L · 1999-03-28 08:38 · Score: 2

There are hundreds of things Microsoft can do to make the auctioning off not work.

Here's a scenario:

- Microsoft gives the source to NT 4 to 3
companies.
- Microsoft then ships NT 5.0
- Microsoft makes changes to the API that
aren't compatible with the source they
gave to the 3 companies.
- Everyone wants NT 5.0 for the bug
fixes that should have been in 4.0,
that are now in 5.0.
- The third parties licenses are totally
worthless.

This is a stupid stupid stupid solution. Without the engineers behind the OS, it's going to take a minimum of 6 months for any licensee to even get started doing anything.

-----
http://www.Windows2Linux.org (Submit your Links)

--
http://www.Windows2Linux.org (Submit your Links)
Everything y

Fair chance by DarkFyre · 1999-03-28 10:29 · Score: 1

Most minorites aren't looking for a handout, all we want is a fair chance.

I applaud your idealism, and I will fight to the death for your right to what you claim you want. However, it has been my unfortunate experience that most of the people who advocate affirmative action don't want equality, they want superiority.

I've had this argument with many people of many backgrounds. I try very hard not to be racist. But when it comes down to it, I refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of people who lived three or eight or twenty generations before me -- of any race. We learn from the mistakes they make, and we move on. A lot of minority advocates of affirmative-racism seem to want nothing more than revenge, and that I cannot condone.

As to your assertion that America(?) would waste a lot of potential talent if it excluded minorities, I would like to say that some might accuse you of being racist for refusing to realize that the same principle applies to all nations, and all races. I know that it was merely a figure of speech, and I'm not accusing you of anything, but the point stands.
In direct response to that assertion, I would like to say that a lot of companies that I have personal experience with are forced to turn down a lot of talent because of affirmative action policies, too. In Ontario, Canada, corporations are virtually forced to hire specific ratios of certain races, religions and genders. This means that if my company has a position that only three people in the province are qualified for, and two are male caucasians and one is a female Aboriginal, I may be forced to hire an unqualified person of {pick a minority} because of these policies. Thus, not only does affirmative action harm white-supremacist capitalist dogs, but it also harms minority citizens who have worked their asses off to get their fair chance.

Now, just so that I can say that this post is slightly on-topic, I'd like to refer back to my previous point -- we should learn from pst mistakes, but that does not condone revenge. Are we going to destroy a corporation that employs thousands of Americans and foreign nationals alike, and pours billions of dollars into the North American economies, simply because of poor (read: over-aggressive, psycotically paranoid) management? Personally, I feel there are better ways.

Just my opinion.

Well... by OptimusPrime · 1999-03-28 07:16 · Score: 1

Maybe someone said this (I'm too lazy to read all the comments) but if it did happen what if the linux comunity got together and helped wine buy it? Just a thought.

-------------------

--
Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.

This is monstrous? by mtngrown · 1999-03-28 07:34 · Score: 1

State-sponsored expropriation? No worse than eminent domain. Or income tax (don't get me started).

If MS broke the law, they should be hammered.

Source code? by kipling · 1999-03-28 12:21 · Score: 1

<satire>This is a waste of time, as there is no Windows source. This would imply that there was a human hand in their production. The Win* installation CD leapt fully-formed from the entrails of a sacrificial goat.</satire>

<serious>I do think it is a waste of time, as the proposal does not directly address the problem - MS using its position as the producer of the de-facto standard OS to produce dubiously "integrated" products, charge too much, bloat, threaten competitors in the non-OS market, and all those other practises we know and love them for. I doubt that producing Micros~1, Micros~2, Micros~3,... will do that much either. </serious>

--
-- open source? sounds like the real book --

What good would the source code do? by gwmccull · 1999-03-28 08:26 · Score: 1

If someone actually did buy the source code to Windows, would they actually be able to use it? How many companies are going to invest the time and effort needed to read through 35 million plus lines of spaghetti code? Forcing Microsoft to release their source code will not do the industry any good. At most, we will all get a good laugh at the horrendous coding practices and colleges will be able to show students an example of what not to do.

Forcing Microsoft to release their standards and protocols is the fairest and most logical way to settle the case.

Here come the wolves by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 07:46 · Score: 1

You are correct. If you don't want to give your employees breaks, vacations, etc, you don't have to. I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that you'd also have a real hard time finding quality employees.

And if it's your property, you should be able to discriminate against whomever you wish. It's not smart business, but it's business nevertheless.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Can't live his own philosophy by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 07:50 · Score: 1

I'm not a Randite (whatever that is) and I'm definately not in cohoots with a political party that glorifies drug dealers and prostitutes as "business models".

But, you are correct. From MY business strategy, anyone with money is a potential customer. However, I reserve the right to withhold my products and services to whomever I deem fit (communists, smelly vegan types). You should do the same.

Check your premises, just because you limit your market doesn't mean you can't make money.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Here come the wolves by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 08:06 · Score: 1

Hmm.. that's odd. Considering I'm a History major, that's quite a profound leap in logic. Historians like to portray the Industrial Age as the most evil anti-human event to ever happen in the Age of Man. This is largely due to Marxist inspiration/infiltration and that's what we get taught in schools. However, I'm sure if YOU took a closer look as to what really was going on, you'd find a different story. It's the various unnecessary government rules, or unenforcement of the laws that ARE just (due to corruption by the unscrupulous few) that screws everything up.

Minimum wage is the reason why you can't go to taco bell and get food for 2 for $5 anymore.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Can't live his own philosophy by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 10:10 · Score: 1

I don't deny that prostitution and drug dealing should be legal activities. If a persons wants to destroy himself, then by all means he should be left at it, as long as he does not endanger the lives of others (hence DUI laws). I propose that they would probably not be the ideal choices for a guest speaking appointment at your child's middle school career day.

As for smelly vegans comment, that was a snide comment that could (and should have) been left out of the discussion, as it was not pertinent to the discussion at hand. If you want to be a vegan, it's your choice. I'm occasionally unconsciously vegan (I love Indian food and you get quite a bit of vegan food there), but it's not a philosophical or lifestyle statement, but, rather, a result of my fondness for certain cuisine. I do dislike communists and socialists and collectivists in general, although I have acquaintances with whom I get along great with that fall into one or more of those categories. Yes, it is illegal to "discriminate" (except for california, you lucky bastards), but thisis an immoral law. Either you have the right to your property (and the disposal thereof), or you don't. There is no inbetween. So, it's your choice:, freedom or slavery.

And finally, why should I move when I live in the US of A? We have the basic structure to have a "right" country, just a mixed up philosophical premise. Either we are individuals with volition, willing to choose between a life that will promote peace, prosperity, and property, or we are cattle to be sacrificed to the first "needy" person that comes around (I need a job! I need a career! I need a free OS! I need an Audi S4 Quattro (don't we all?)).

And as for your bisexuality (or lack thereof), it's your personal business. If it doesn't affect your job performance, I don't see a real reason that your boss would fire you,unless he's a real ass. But then again, if a person is going to fire you just because of your sexual preferences, do you REALLY want to work for him?

-Shane Essary

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Boo, Hoo! by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 10:42 · Score: 1

>>>>if you don't like it ... write your own!

>>Now that's a novel idea. Anyone here interested?

that's precisely why I put that part in there. Linux is an example of this.

>>>>Microsoft got to where it is today because it provides a product that people want, or a product that people accept.

>>No, Microsoft got to where it is today because IBM fumbled their monopoly into MS's lap. The PC has had a virtual full nelson on the desktop since it first came out with IBM's name on it. MS got the advantage partly because of stupidity on the part of IBM and Intel, but once they did get the advantage they've done nothing but exploit it ruthlessly

So, you're saying that you can't take advantage of a competitor's mistakes? Shame on you. Look at the auto industry. For years, the Japanese tried to break into the US market, and the US consumers just wouldn't buy it. Then came the oil crisis and instead of heeding public demands for automobiles that got got at the very least, double digit gas mileage, they basically told consumers to go screw themselves. Unbenownst to them was the reaction to begin buying the little Japanese "gas mizers." Faced with a shrinking market, they turned to the government to curtail the Japanese invasion of innovation. Fortunately for us, the legislature did not ban imports or the like. The Japanese jumped all over the mistake the US automakers made and look where they are today. (this is not even mentioning quality control, etc, all ideas generally conceived of in the US, but were told "to go elsewhere").

>>That being the case, the only fair remedy is to either change the de facto standard to something else that doesn't give any small group a stranglehold on the nation's (or world's) economy, or else to level the playground around the existing one. In that context, forced licensing is probably the fairest solution around

Microsoft does not have a stranglehold on me or any of my computers. I can change operating systems at the drop of a hat. You can, too.

How can you level the playground? To what level? Your kind of thinking is the kind that that tells kids to say "Hey, quit making A's on the test, you're ruining the bell curve for the rest of us". You want to dumb the economic scale down to it's most basic level, you'd probably be happy foraging in the forest for grubs.
As to forced licensing being fair, it most certainly is not fair to Microsoft. So much for being just and fair for all, eh?

>>I see it differently, but surely there's one fact we can agree on: the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is the law of the land in the USA, and MS is subject to it just like everyone else is.

Just because it is indeed the law doesn't mean it should be. By testing of the law, and by legislation, it can be changed. The biggest problem with these laws (besides being immoral), is that they are completely subjective. ANYONE who is moderately successful at business could be charged with violation of SOME part of Antitrust. The fact is, Microsoft violated nothing concrete. The merely exerted their "power" over THEIR software and the vendors either complied or went elsewhere. Just because that until recently there were no real viable alternatives (besides MacOS) is not their problem. They most certainly want everyone in the world to be running Windows. Apple most certainly wants everyone to be running MacOS, and BeOS the same. I propose that if Apple had Microsoft's share of the market, most of you would be whining about how Steve Jobs is nothing more than a Borg, assimilating us all, and how Bill Gates is a victim of Apple's monopolistic practices. The only thing the government has against Microsoft is a percieved notion of "unfairness" in the market. What is fairness? Rolling over and allowing your competitors to stomp you at will? Self Sacrifice? I certainly don't think so. Microsoft does what most businesses do: they compete. Compete means you can just buy your competition outright (it's their company/product to sell, remember), or you can produce a superior product with a lower price, etc etc (for marketing strategy, enroll in your local college and take some courses in marketing).

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Can't live his own philosophy by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 11:16 · Score: 1

I doubt a company would be able to survive in a cosmopolitan country such as the US. You are correct, a company that would not sell to blacks might not do so well, but then again, it may. I do not support racist organizations, although I do support someone's right to be a moron, as long as it does not imfringe upon another's right. For clarification, you do NOT have a right to a job, a house, an education, etc. You have the RIGHT to accept a position at someone else's company, if it is offered to you, to purchase a house from someone who is willing to sell you one, and to pursue an education. Happiness is not a right, the pursuit of happiness is.

You are correct, it IS a matter of freedom vs. force. But forcing an author to give up his right to his creation is NOT freedom. Forcing Microsoft to give up their source code is just that: force.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

What about Microsoft by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 11:26 · Score: 1

I don't see any situation which would cause MIcrosoft from banning me specifically from their software.

As for me losing my job, you'd have to give me a damn good way to lose a job because of Microsoft, other than by getting bought out. Be realistic, man. You're really really stretching for a point.

But, if you need a basic answer, if MIcrosoft doesn't need my business,then I don't need Microsoft. Look at it as dating. If you want to go out with a woman and she says "No", either you get on with your life or you become one of those scary stalker people. I prefer the former.

Have a great day!

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Can't live his own philosophy by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 17:09 · Score: 1

I submit that an owner of property who chooses to only rent to whites limits himself to only 50% of the population, thus limiting his income potential. However, to whom does the property belong to? If you decide that the owner cannot do with the property as he wishes, then he does not own the property, but merely controls it. The government owns the property and retains the right to take it away. So, we have to call a spade a spade.

Regardless of the representative government, there MUST be objective laws. You cannot have the "basic right to own property" and then undermine it by saying "you don't have the right to dispose of your property as you see fit". The two concepts are incompatible. If we had a truly 100% representative government (a total democracy), then I submit that 51% of the population will vote to enslave the other 49%.

There should not be any public schools. Privatize them all and let the schools compete for your children. They may have to start EDUCATING for a change.

I am NOT a libertarian. Nuff said.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

railroads by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 23:46 · Score: 1

>>Lets say the railroad decides to go into the grain business. If its competitors have strange problems transporting grain, the railroad has an unfair advantage and can drive its competitors out.

What do you think the grain producers think about this? All a grain producer wants is RELIABLE transportation of his product to the market. If a "strange" problem occurs to a company and is unable to ship a grain producer's grain, all the grain producer wants to hear is "I will ship your grain" and have it shipped. he doesn't care HOW you ship it, that's your problem. And if you are unable to do it to the satisfaction of the grain producer, but Company #2 does, who do you think is going to get the business? This isn't an "unfair" advantage. The other company had EVERY opportunity to exploit this market. Like IBM, it didn't. So, should you handcuff the railroad who can successfully move the product in the name of fairness? Should you force the grain producers to use the other railroad who can't move the grain, causing the grain producer to go out of business because his grain doesn't make it to market? Should you force people to install and utilize an alternative OS and hire a massive OS police to go around checking computers for compliance? Legislation breeds control.

>>Microsoft does not (quite) have a monopoly on Operating Systems or on applications. Microsoft does have a monopoly on the average consumer "Experience". When Microsoft leans on a pc manufacturer who distributes Corel Office Suite, it is over the line of acceptable practice.

I'm not sure what average consumer "Experience" is. It sounds vague. My average experience is that I started my computer "career" with a Commodore 64, went to an Amiga 500, then an Amiga 3000. Intel nor Windows had me in a lock (neither did motorola or CBM). I preferred the Amiga line and only reluctantly moved to the Wintel architecture (with the release of Win95, an MS Windows I could actually stand to use) when CBM folded and the rights for the technology went into limbo. I don't know if I'm an average user or not, but Microsoft certainly didn't lord over me when it came down to what system I run and why. Microsoft has EVERY right to lean on PC manufacturers that want to ship other products. It's THEIR products! They can determine who gets to sell it. Think of it as the various licensing schemes in the Linux world. MS just has a license that is extremely aggressive and it works for them. Please, don't mistake me for a Microsoft cheerleader. I like some MS products, others I could care less about. However, most of the anti-MS sentiment is nothing more than a hatred of the good for being good. If Linux were found on 95% of the machines on the planet, these same people would be running Windows 95 in defiance of Linus Torvalds and the Linux "community".

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

railroads by Rinikusu · 1999-03-29 00:05 · Score: 1

>>Which railroad are you referring to?

Union Pacific, for starters. The first transcontinental railroads were generally heavily subsidized in the form of land grants. You say a railroad can not exist without government subsidy? Wrong. Ever heard of the B&O? That was privately funded. Ever heard of James J. Hill? He built the first transcontinental railroad WITHOUT government subsidies (I think it is better said that he built it IN SPITE of the government). And there are literally hundreds more like them. It was the "unfair" advantage that the government subsidies gave some companies that caused alot of the privately funded railroads to end up folding. Other reasons for folding was the maddening rush to expand into markets that didn't exist.

What about modern day railroads? Yes, it is true that they are now mostly government supported. Why? Because railroads cannot compete anymore against the "FREE" roads that the trucking companies use. It simply is not cost effective. Again, another market ruined by "government intervention." It may turn out that even had the government NOT built the public highway system that enterprising private industry would have, and the same fate would face the railroads. We'll never know.

The facts are: in a free market, companies are free to succeed. Companies are also free to fail. It happens.

If left to its own means, Microsoft could blunder (ala IBM) and fail miserably, but does this mean that we'd all be willing to buy MS products, just so Linux or whatever OS becomes dominant, will have some competition? A Linux "monopoly" is still a monopoly. The facts still remain: a monopoly will not exist unless a goverment mule is there to pull it and enforce it. Someone will always find a way to compete and God Bless America (metaphorically speaking) for the freedom for him to find that way.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

What about Microsoft by Rinikusu · 1999-03-29 00:15 · Score: 1

Okay, can you imagine the public backlash against Microsoft for doing such a thing? "Poor college student forbidden to use Microsoft by Bill Gates, list of victims grows." How many businesses do you think will remain on a platform that uses this kind of power? At the drop of a hat, they can be forbidden to use the software, do you think an IS manager will want to take this kind of risk? Heck, it could be the best thing for Linux and other OS's is for Bill Gates to DO something like this. The market rules and without consumers, you have no market.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Yes you do have to!!! w/sermon by Rinikusu · 1999-03-29 01:54 · Score: 1

Whoops! That was my mistake. That whole comment was misleading. You SHOULDN'T be forced to provide your employees with breaks & vacations, etc, however the law says otherwise.. I would like to point out that it is to a company's BENEFIT to do so, as it improves employee performance, morale, etc. There are various studies to confirm this, feel free to check out your local business college library (I'm sure Amazon.com has a nice selection as well).

In the second paragraph, your example is an example of outright fraud, which we already have laws for. And, if you haven't noticed, contracts are BINDING agreements (this is how Microsoft gets its leverage, as well), and violation of a contract is a usage of force. It is (and should be) illegal to initiate the use of force and fraud against the consumer. Microsoft does not FORCE anyone to do anything. Microsoft makes stipulations and conditions upon resellers of its products that the vendor is free to accept or reject. If the vendor perceives a competitive advantage by accepting the Microsoft terms and conditions, then so be it. Microsoft owns its software, plain and simple (I know I'm beating the dead horse here but for some reason this is so complicated for some people). Get over it.

And for the last point, it is currently illegal to discriminate against persons in a business (however vague it may be.. I wonder if I could sue Audi of America for discriminating against poor people by not offering their S4 Quattro at a price range (say, $20) that I could afford). I would like to see this law changed and remove AA/EOE from the books as "law." It is immoral to replace "volunteer" racism with a legislated racism. Racism ends through education, which is now controlled by little multiculturalist freaks who think race is THE defining characteristic of a person.
Notice that I don't try and reduce an argument down to "you must be naive." That's not an argument. Give me points, valid arguments that are well thought out, or point out mistakes in my thinking and I will give it my best shot. If you can provide solid facts, or really good logical thinking that prove something otherwise, then I have no problem changing my position. It's called life. However, the arguments against Microsoft are shallow, at best, and most people are not concerned with what's REALLY at stake: the computer industry (which includes the internet, linux, operating systems, games, etc) has been relatively unregulated (as compared to other industries) and consequently is one of the fastest growing and most prosperous fields in the HISTORY OF MAN. I would assert that the fact that it is so "free" that makes it so prosperous, with a few big players, and THOUSANDS of small players who more than equal Microsoft. If you let the government crack down on Microsoft, who is next? Who becomes the next Microsoft to be batted down? Don't think it will happen to YOUR software? Think again, sir. It's bad enough that the tobacco industry backed down and chickened out, but it really comes home when they start mucking around in MY industry. Wake up and smell the Starbucks.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Here come the wolves by Rinikusu · 1999-03-29 02:30 · Score: 1

begin real_content

Yes, I am an Objectivist, or at least a student thereof. Objectivism does NOT make the assumption that businesses will act honorably. I don't know where you learned your Objectivism, but I've never heard of that. In fact, Objectivism anticipates the fact that some people are jerks who try and use force and fraud, lie, cheat (a very subjective term that is not only undefinable, but would be very hard to prove in court) and steal their way to the top, which is the ONLY time that the government should step in. If Microsoft were guilty of lying, stealing, fraud, or force, then the government would have a REAL case. Unfortunately, the government has to concentrate on cheating, because everyone knows you can't build a multi BILLION dollar corporation without cheating, right? Or can you? And, as mentioned before, the case for cheating is undefinable, the government is REACHING. They're hoping to make the case for Microsoft so expensive, plus with the subjective attitudes of the courts (not to mention the already mentioned "MultiBillion dollar industries have to be invented by fraud" mentality) that Microsoft will deal (and, unfortunately, they are). That's the government's ONLY goal. If Microsoft has to settle, then in the public's mind they are guilty. Of what? Who cares, they're guilty of SOMETHING, otherwise they wouldn't be settliing out of court. Microsoft has LIED to federal prosecutors, but I question the fact that they should even be prosecuted. It's analogous to the whole bill-monica thing. I don't care that he screwed some intern. That's between him and her and really is none of my business. I DO care that he accepts funding from a nation that relies upon SLAVE labor to supply your dollar stores everywhere with cheap, plastic goods. Bill lied under oath about sex. He never should have been asked that question, it's not anyone's business.

I have read The Fountainhead and find it extremely good. It becomes a chore to read at times, but it's better than 99.9% of the crap that passes off as "modern literature" today. The whole "anti-hero" worship of today's crap just gives me the heebie-jeebies. Gates & Co may very well be the competitors to Roark in analogy, but I've not seen them running to the government for special favors. Then again, I've not seen anyone who could compare to a Roark. I can see the point, though. Where Roark was all about innovation and changing the way things were done, using new tools to their fullest capacity, Microsoft is about.. well, probably not that. However, Microsoft HAS opened the doors for millions of people to new tools and technology (the world wide web and e-commerce, while the backends are in LINUX, the primary consumers are still on Windows 95). This is wonderful. Ever find it ironic that most people first hear of Linux via the WWW, on Internet Explorer in Windows 95? If you think that no business can operate without lying and stealing, then you become part of the problem. I wonder if Be steals and lies.
What about Linus Torvalds?
Have a great day!

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

acknowledgements and clarification by Rinikusu · 1999-03-29 02:48 · Score: 1

I would like to acknowledge and give thanks to the other posters who pointed out that Roark was an architect, Rearden was the flawed steel man.

ARI is probably not on crack. Institutions can't take drugs, people can, though. I am not affiliated with ARI in any way and rarely peruse their website (slashdot is much much more informative and entertaining. ARI doesn't care about Star Wars). The best thing I ever read on ARI was it's moral defence of Microsoft and Kazan, which I wholeheartedly agree with, not because it's the ARI's official stance, but because they're well reasoned arguments.

Objectivism is not a cult, but if you feel it is, please feel free to send your life savings to me, via slashdot (feel free to keep any money this generates /. you earn it).

All comments by ME are MINE (read: I do not claim to speak for Objectivism, nor am I an official spokesman for the ARI, etc etc. I'm just a guy, eh?) If the so-called Powers that Be of Objectivism deem that all businesses will be honorable and never lie,cheat or steal, then I will no longer consider myself to be an Objectivist. I hope this clears up any confusion.

Thank you and good day.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Here come the wolves by Rinikusu · 1999-03-28 05:49 · Score: 2

The thought of forcing Microsoft to release its Source Code to Windows is the most horrendous idea I've heard yet. Microsoft built it, it's theirs and if you don't like it, run X (or Be, or MacOS, or Workbench, etc) or write your own!

Microsoft got to where it is today because it provides a product that people want, or a product that people accept. If you truly believe in a competitive environment, then you have to accept the fact that Microsoft, Sun, or anyone else reserves the right to refuse to sell their products to anyone they deem fit, for any reason. If Microsoft refuses to sell it's OS to manufacturers because it sells systems with other OS's, it's their decision, it's their product. If you question the viability to survive without Microsoft, ask VA Research how many of their boxes shipped with Windows 95 last year. In fact, it seems that there is an ENTIRE subculture emerging around non-Microsoft operating systems (Linux, Be, and the ever present Amiga).

Just as an aside, for people who hate Microsoft, why do most of these same people quiver with glee when rumors of Microsoft porting Office to Linux appear? This "fence" straddling perplexes me.

And finally, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and its allied bills, laws, etc, is nothing more than a wordy repeal of the right to own property, ideas, etc. A monopoly (control of 100% of the market) will never be created without a government mule to create and control the market.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Here come the wolves by Darth · 1999-03-28 06:32 · Score: 1

>>Yeah, it's *my* business, so I shouldn't have to pay fair wages, or give lunches and coffee breaks, give my employees a day off on state holidays, etc., right?

> Nope. You don't have to. Most employees would rather work someplace that does offer some or all of the perks you mentioned, but some employees would be happy to work with none of the above.

uh....yes, you do have to. there are laws requiring you to do so. (you know..minimum wage and all that?) and if you think the market would support decent wages for unskilled labour without those laws, take a peek in a history book at why those laws were created in the first place.

>>When you're in business, you have a responsibility to play fair and abide by legislation. Microsoft obviously hasn't and doesn't, and they deserve whatever they have coming to them.

>What is "playing fair" and what isn't is certainly a subjective opinion. I have no qualms with abiding legislation, provided the legislation is reasonable (and anti-trust laws -- and many many others -- certainly are not).

what is "playing fair" is determined by law for businesses. if you are in business, you obey the applicable laws. if you dont and you get caught, you suck it up. if it's a law and is unreasonable, you work to change the law...but until it is changed you abide by it. (because if you dont and you get caught, you suck it up).

if all the insurance companies in your state got together and agreed on some pricing that would allow them to artifically inflate your insurance costs while decreasing your benefits, would you still be opposed to these laws?

remember, those laws exist because wealthy businesses abused their competitors, their customers, and their employees. what makes you think that that wont happen again if the laws werent there?

--
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre

APIs and formats -- and nothing else by warlocke · 1999-03-28 06:15 · Score: 1

Yes!

Releasing the source code won't do anything but embarrass them (that might be worth doing in and of itself, but they've been doing a fine job on their own .)

On the other hand, releasing the APIs and file formats doesn't confiscate what they claim is their most valuable asset. And back in the real world, if other developers could use the secret stuff Microsoft squirrels away to give their own app developers the advantage, the juggernaut wouldn't look very intimidating.

The DOJ stuff is a side issue. The real big deal here is the meltdown of 5.0/2K. The longer it goes without being released, and the worse it is when it finally does come out, the better off the rest of us are. It might make a few PHBs actually think about what to buy. Remember that PHBs are basically as fad-driven as their teenage kids are. Imagine a fad for software that works!

If we just let them alone they'll self-destruct. They're pretty close already.

Can't live his own philosophy by warlocke · 1999-03-28 06:33 · Score: 1

Look, if you're a Randite Libertarian, the whole thing comes down to getting money when you supply something of value, right?

If so, anybody with money is a potential customer.

If you reserve the right to not supply your value to people for irrelevant reasons (i.e. anything but they don't have enough money), then you're not living your philosophy, you're contradicting it.

Unix-only club by Uart · 1999-03-28 10:57 · Score: 1

Windows bites, so does OS/2, and almost every other non-unix OS. Unix is the most stable OS, and no matter how hard I try, I can't screw up my Linux-box. It rakes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'.

Anyway, back to the topic. I think Windows should be killed off completely, in-fact every non-unix-based OS should be burned at the stake. (MacOS X is ok) If MS should then be banned from the OS market, they could still write their Applications, but for other Operating systems (obviously) If Microsoft gets their hands on an OS, they will screw it up, and Gain anouther monopoly.

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!

Release source? No, just standardise Win32. by Uart · 1999-03-29 04:04 · Score: 1

there will surely be Win32 implementations for Linux, possibly bundled with every copy of
RedHat and the like.

Not on my PC. anything created by Monkeysoft, including their API's are evil, and i would never install that on my PC. But that is my opinion. Besides, Monkeysoft will just create a brand-spankin'-new API (Win64) Don't forget that Intel has a new 64-bit processor coming out that MS is writing a version of windows for.

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!

Unix-only club by Uart · 1999-03-30 13:03 · Score: 1

I'm not, but hey, I guess its just cuz I'm used to windows getting screwed up without me even trying.

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!

Thanks, ... by Tony-A · 1999-03-28 11:14 · Score: 1

>... Microsoft's own engineers too scared to fix the base of the code itself, so every patch is an extension to the current code base.
I have been expecting and looking for this, but this is the first reference I've come across. I've seen the phenomenon before, from a distance. It is the kiss of death, not quick and easy, but slow and agonizing.
-- "The evil that men do lives on after them. The good is oft interred with their bones"

BAN HARD DRIVE PRELOADS by Tony-A · 1999-03-28 12:04 · Score: 1

or heavy excise tax.
In any event, disallow the Microsoft EULA which makes the hardware reseller, not Microsoft, responsible for the software.

Hehe, hehe. by Tony-A · 1999-03-28 14:11 · Score: 1

This could be a real embarassment for Microsoft. I suspect the real value of the code base is well under $.02. Somehow this whole thing smells like a hoax. From Seattle Time Sunday edition. Dateline SEATTLE (CNNfn).

Microsoft does not support it anyway. Read the EULA.

While I am on a rant, WINE is a good idea, if for no other reason that "because it's there", to see how far the idea can be pushed. It will even run some (most?) legacy Windows aps. Having the source to Windows would help some, maybe. Emulator running simulator running legacy ap. It's been done before.

Best bet is good clean aps for Linux (and thence *BSD and other un*xes).

Who Cares??? by Tony-A · 1999-03-28 17:03 · Score: 1

>Does anyone else get the feeling that this whole DOJ thing is an exercise in futility?
Maybe so, but letting it go unchallenged is even worse. I still remember the cartoon of someone reading a newspaper headline of the start of trial captioned "There *is* a god."

>Microsoft has played dirty for too long, and people resent it. Fires are popping up left and right now, and Bill can't put all of them out at the same time any more.
Very true. The DOJ case by itself will probably *not* fix the situation. Nor the states (somehow this Auctioning off Windows Source looks like a hoax). The key is a *lot* of fires, some will fizzle, Bill will put some of them out. With enough light thrown on the subject, more and more people will see the microsoft bubble as a bubble. Just hope there are enough penquins around to help pick up the pieces.

Present and Future by Tony-A · 1999-03-28 17:13 · Score: 1

Agreed, but Microsoft will *never* go along.
Microsoft doesn't even know their own APIs, although they do know rather more than is published. The rules for monopolies *should* be different.

railroads by Tony-A · 1999-03-28 19:06 · Score: 1

The monopoly per se is not bad, but it does open certain possibilities for abuse.
Lets say the railroad decides to go into the grain business. If its competitors have strange problems transporting grain, the railroad has an unfair advantage and can drive its competitors out.
Legitimate businesses in a monopoly or oligarchy (i think that's the right word) situation tread *very* carefully to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing.
Microsoft does not (quite) have a monopoly on Operating Systems or on applications. Microsoft does have a monopoly on the average consumer "Experience". When Microsoft leans on a pc manufacturer who distributes Corel Office Suite, it is over the line of acceptable practice.

railroads by Tony-A · 1999-03-29 03:00 · Score: 1

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough. The railroad, which has a monopoly on transportation, goes into the grain business where is does not have a monopoly. The railroad by various means can drive drive out any competition in the grain business. The grain producers play ball or have NO transportation to market.

>Microsoft has EVERY right to lean on PC manufacturers that want to ship other products. It's THEIR products!
If Microsoft is selling to the public, their rights to discriminate are severly restricted.

Precedent by GenePrescott · 1999-03-28 06:51 · Score: 1

As I understand it, MS did in fact license the source code for NT to Citrix. As Citrix gained market share, apparently MS retreated (in its source code licensing strategy) and brought that functionality into Terminal Server.

Microsoft deletion by evin · 1999-03-28 14:21 · Score: 1

They may not be able to delete their email, but they've already shown their ability to delete the source code to windows...

Settle? I would rather see a MS defeat in court. by schon · 1999-03-28 06:01 · Score: 1

I agree.. sorta...

While I'd love to see the humiliation they'd get by being proven wrong publicly, I think the longer it drags on, the better their chances are for winning; I believe if they stay in court now, they'll be found guilty, but they'll just appeal and it will drag on and on... and all they need to win one appeal (out of as many as they can make) is one Judge who's not technically savvy enough to understand what they're doing; then they win.

Also, a settlement would (hopefully) stop them sooner than any judgement against them (even if they do eventually lose all appeals...)

The correct solution by ClipDude · 1999-03-28 12:03 · Score: 1

Instead of a total ban on hard drive preloads, how about a law that guarentees that customers be able to buy PCs without Windows or a Windows licence? PC manufacturers would be required to sell "blank" PCs without any OS and without paying for any OS licence. Microsoft would be prohibited from requiring manufacturers to preload Windows on all machines to get the licencing discounts. Thus, customers would be freed from the M$ tax but novice users could still get Windows preloaded if they wanted.

--

The DMCA--for corporations, the best copyright law money can buy.

MS Stock Price by Znork · 1999-03-28 18:08 · Score: 1

Heh. The Magic Eight Ball does a better job of understanding the buiness and financial world than Wall Street. But for real market knowledge you should seek out the professional pyramid game creators. Because that is what the stock market is about today.

But hey, you can do it yourself. Take a piece of paper. Sell it to a friend for a buck. You've made a buck. He can sell it to another friend for two bucks. Now you both have made money off it. Go on repeating until you reach the last poor sucker who suddenly realizes that nobody will pay $2000 for a worthless piece of paper...

who really cares folks... by half+clued+aussie · 1999-03-28 11:56 · Score: 1

personally I don't give a rats about microsoft, the DOJ or Windows..

however.. I hope they don't try to make ms auction off the *windows* tm.. I mean how'd we all feel if they tried pulling that crap on us?

windows is the legal and rightful property of microsoft no matter how we feel about them.

~dio~

just a thought

No real change by rking · 1999-03-28 06:57 · Score: 1

I don't see how having competing suppliers of Windows would help.

Either they'd all get together to agree standards, in which case since they're all cooperating so closely anyway there's no way to prevent a cartel emerging with the situation for the consumer being the same as ever.

Or alternatively one market leader will emerge as most people will want to look to the biggest to set a de facto standard, probably Microsoft but if not then "the next Microfoft". They'll effectively control the market and the situation will be the same for the consumer.

Two birds with one stone by SindiBad · 1999-03-29 01:03 · Score: 1

Agreed. Just and ... practical would instead be a sentence
that would _prevent_ MS to free itself of the own ballast: we
make that it strains to peak with its merchandise, and we kill two birds
with one stone.

Deserve Freedom by get+real · 1999-03-29 08:42 · Score: 1

And what of the freedom to rape your sister in the A**? Or pimp your children? Should you be allowed to kill your co-workers for interfeering with your climb to corporate success?

There are limits to your rights. We base laws on what we think these limitations should be. After a greate deal of violence and social tension, American citizens decided that we DON'T have the right to descriminate based on race. It's illegal buddy.

Not that I would advocate something simply because of the law. Concider this. Your freedom to descriminate against {chose a minority} infringes on that minory's freedom to persue their lively-hood or whatever. What makes your freedom a priority over theirs?

If you're a fundamental libertarian, you should be prepared to accept the erosion of all of your basic human rights: your right to live, your right to property, your right to personal securty (read your rigth to not be raped) etc. You give up these rights when you accept freedom to behave in any way you choose (kill people, steal from people, rape people).

If you're not willing to give up these rights, then you must accept some imposition on your freedom. If you're willing to give up these rights, then I hope you can see that it is ultimately to your benifit to give up some freedom, in order to enforce the rights of yourself and other. I hope that you can see then problem with argueing for freedom for freedom's sake.

Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

Private property? by Tiger+Smile · 1999-03-28 07:40 · Score: 1

This is America, don't break the law, and get found guilty or there might be a slight problem.

Clearly Microsoft make some nice products, which is not the problem, they engaged in bad practices.

The line was drawn many times in the sand and they crossed it far too often. They have no room to cry about anything. You have even less room to cry for them.

--
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri

Wont Stop MS for very long by justSomeDude · 1999-03-28 14:12 · Score: 1

Three things, first I don't have a desire to see MS or Windows destroyed or sold or whatever. Because I think the open source way is better and will dominate given time. And I respect their (MS) right to make a buck. Don't kid yourself Larry Ellison (CEO Oracle) would dominate the OS Market the same way if he could. Secondly if you did sell off Windows 98 you had better sell NT too. To sell off Windows 98 would just be a good excuse to dump a bunch of legacy code they need to ditch anyway. Lastly I think MS if forced would dump the windows moniker and copyright change it a bit to make it incompatible with the other Windows and call it something else and would still make MS Office run best on MS Aperatures or whatever it ends up being called. In the end not alot would be accomplished.

something to consider by justSomeDude · 1999-03-28 14:36 · Score: 1

I agree we should all be very wary of the idea of the US Goverment in essence taking any kind of property from an entity. It's been done before I suppose with the imminent domain laws. But I don't like the idea at any rate.

235 comments