Slashdot Mirror
The MS vs. DOJ case arguments end
BlackICE writes "Ding dong the witch is dead-The trial portion of the case is over, and now both sides will have about a month to prepare closing statements. Expert opinion seems to be that the government will win, but what the final outcome will be in terms of reforms or injunctions is still up in the air. " Reports have also been hinting at settlement talks as well - maybe that will get everything over with sooner. Of course, following this comes the appeals, so my kids should be somewhere in grad school by the time this really finishes.
"Microsoft has already changed its behavior, "Kovacic said. "They've backed off some of the contested practices. Their competitors have been emboldened to do things they may not have one before the trial. The government has gotten a lot of what they wanted. The company is not swinging away like they used to."
Uh huh. And they did this of their own accord, realizing the err of their ways. They're now a benevolent monopoly - a cuddly monopoly if you will. The anti-trust case had nothing to do with it.
If Microsoft loses, they'll be required to provide a nice ornate headstone for Netscape.
Seriously, does anybody else find it ludicrious that this whole case centers on wether Netscape or Microsoft should be allowed to own the browser market?
I say neither, and find it startling that so many people consider the fact that it's framed as an either/or decision disturbing.
Bummer. The sheer amusement factor that resulted from Micro$oft's :-).
lame attempts to defend the indefensible will be sorely missed
You know of course that they do not have any contracts that force OEM's to ship only Microsoft OS's.
So no you are wrong.
Well Mr. Software Engineer. How about n different versions of Windows, all completely incompatible. That would be EXCELLENT for consumers. "You mean Windows95 software won't run on Windows2000 anymore? Does Windows2000 software run on WindowsXTreme? No? It doesn't run on Windows2kLite either!? What the hell. I wish Microsoft was still the only company making Windows.. it'd be like the good old days of AT&T before the breakup. You knew where to get your phone service, and you knew where to get your OS."
Unfortunately I live in one of those shithole countries where monopolies are the norm (one economists like to point to and say how great capitalism works). Yeah, it's really nice. Lousy telephone service that costs 5X the US average, rice 10X, sugar/salt 3X.....one of the most dangerous airlines in the world. Swill they call beer at a dollar a can. Oh yeah, there's nothing wrong with monopolies.....if you don't have to live under them.
Ummm, clogged? They don't spend the month in the court room preparing their statements.
It'd be worse. Phone service is phone service. An OS is not an OS. Multiple OS's would severely cripple software development, and consumers wouldn't stand for it. It ain't gonna happen. The Courts aren't that stupid. Remember: They're not geeks!
moderators?
that comment is definatly flamebait..
IMHO it doesn't really matter what punitive action the DOJ thinks up. The main purpose has been to raise user awareness about choices in OS and software, so we have what we need. I hope that they keep the appeals process going as long as possible so that the alternatives to M$ get as much free publicity as possible.
I think the judge should give Microsoft the chair and declare open season on all current and former MS employees.
Well - From what most people learn throughout their life. You buy what you need.
These OEM's buy as much Microsoft software as they need. If they buy more then they can sale and cram it on their machines then that is their fault not Microsoft's.
They do get a better deal if they buy in volume but that is with ANY industry, can you name one particular industry that doesn't work this way ?
btw -
Yes they do not allow you to modify the boot up sequence.
As far as I know Microsoft doesn't support ANY multiboot configuration officially. (Meaning you can do it but dont expect any official help channel if it breaks).
MS harmed consumers? I mean these laws are meant to protect the consumers from getting overcharged or bullied by big companies. Yet i havent seen a single consumer take the stand and say "They prevented me from downloading and installing Netscape!". If they can prove that MS harmed consumers then its not for people like you and me (people who know how to click on a icon without fear of the computer blowing up [my dumbass dad]).
They can prove MS bullied other companies, but if that is what ends up winning the case then look for more "handout" lawsuits from various companies wanting technical detail on a competing product(s) (think AMD suing Intel for Merced designs, it "could" happen). Hell Pepsi is trying to sue Coke as a monopoly. Yet Pepsi owns several fast food outlets that WILL NEVER sell Coke. Think they will win? All they have to prove is that Coke treated them (and vendors) like dirt.
Competition is good, yet in the tech industry which SCREAMS for unified standards, the more companies there are trying to push their version that they think is better, the more exspensive it gets, and the higher the retail price. It took a while for the 56k standard to get finalized, and recordable DVD's are still YEARS away all the while each version wont work with each other. If there was just one company then everyone wouldnt bitch about it. The government wants to promote more competition, yet they are clueless as to what happens when it does. Companies DONT want to spend the resources on drivers for BeOS, Linux, Windows, Mac, OS/2, ect, ect.
Think it wont happen to Linux? Give it a decade or two. That is unless companies like Redhat donate funds to the campain fund of the fat asses in congress. MS spent hardly anything in the lobbying world, since the trial started they are throwing hard cash in all directions, which is exactly what these politicians want. Dont tell me thats BS because you DONT make any friends in DC unless you cough up the cash.
PS
I realize my spelling is lacking.
This is very sad, yet nothing compared to stuff going on with multinational corporations and oil companies. So people will say, "you must be a communist, that will never work." I agree it will not work, and state controlled communism is a very scarey thing. There is however another political theory that barely gets any recognition at all from the mainstream media, except using it's name to be synonymous with chaos, violence, and psychos. I am not talking about libertarian capitalism (which only seems to be something that exists in america anyway), but true libertarianism, aka libertarian socialism, aka anarchy.
I know this is very slightly off topic, although it's the underlying problems which exist with MS and about every major corporation, and corporation to be. They tend (or seem to) start out as under dogs and nice, but next thing you knmow they're running everyone out of business and using third world countries for cheap labor.
For more information on the theory, I suggest you first read Noam Chomsky books as he points out modern day problems, mainly with capitalism...that way you'll be aware there are actually problems. You may think everything in the world is perfectly all right sitting in your nice house or apartment with a nice expensive computer, telling yourself you fairly earned it and ANYONE can easily do the same if they just try.
Also, I suggest reading Anarchism: From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin, who explains it pretty clearly for the average person. If you want to read material from the sources of the theory, I suggest The Essential Kropotkin by Peter Kropotkin (he didn't name the book that himself, it was named that later by the author who put the book together); God and State by Michael Bakunin; Statism and Anarchy by Michael Bakunin; Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker; Bakunin on Anarchy by Sam Dolgoff; and even the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx (although he has been linked to be pro-state communism which has been proven to be "bad" as the original Russian philosophers during his time predicted). Karl Marx is one of the most popular socialist philosophers mainly because the Soviet Union massed produced his work, and obviously didn't promote the other philosophers because they opposed the state. There is an interesting (and brief) summary of the Russian revolution that many people might not actually be aware of (what really happened that is) here. There was also a Spanish anarchist revolution in the 1930s that was eventually defeated. I suggest reading The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936 by Murray Bookchin if you're interested in that.
There are some good libertarian socialist websites as well. liberty for the people, anarchy library, and spunk library.
Anyway, before you go attacking political theories you know little or nothing about, I suggest reading these materials. I wish everyone would/could.
This is very sad, yet nothing compared to stuff going on with multinational corporations and oil companies. So people will say, "you must be a communist, that will never work." I agree it will not work, and state controlled communism is a very scarey thing. There is however another political theory that barely gets any recognition at all from the mainstream media, except using it's name to be synonymous with chaos, violence, and psychos. I am not talking about libertarian capitalism (which only seems to be something that exists in america anyway), but true libertarianism, aka libertarian socialism, aka anarchy.
I know this is very slightly off topic, although it's the underlying problems which exist with MS and about every major corporation, and corporation to be. They tend (or seem to) start out as under dogs and nice, but next thing you knmow they're running everyone out of business and using third world countries for cheap labor.
For more information on the theory, I suggest you first read Noam Chomsky books as he points out modern day problems, mainly with capitalism...that way you'll be aware there are actually problems. You may think everything in the world is perfectly all right sitting in your nice house or apartment with a nice expensive computer, telling yourself you fairly earned it and ANYONE can easily do the same if they just try.
Also, I suggest reading Anarchism: From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin, who explains it pretty clearly for the average person. If you want to read material from the sources of the theory, I suggest The Essential Kropotkin by Peter Kropotkin (he didn't name the book that himself, it was named that later by the author who put the book together); God and State by Michael Bakunin; Statism and Anarchy by Michael Bakunin; Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker; Bakunin on Anarchy by Sam Dolgoff; and even the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx (although he has been linked to be pro-state communism which has been proven to be "bad" as the original Russian philosophers during his time predicted). Karl Marx is one of the most popular socialist philosophers mainly because the Soviet Union massed produced his work, and obviously didn't promote the other philosophers because they opposed the state. There is an interesting (and brief) summary of the Russian revolution that many people might not actually be aware of (what really happened that is) here. There was also a Spanish anarchist revolution in the 1930s that was eventually defeated. I suggest reading The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936 by Murray Bookchin if you're interested in that.
There are some good libertarian socialist websites as well. liberty for the people, anarchy library, and spunk library.
You may be interested to know the House has passed an amendment to make flag burning illegal. The only free rights we are semi guaranteed are those in the constitution, and yet we STILL have to fight for those rights as well as those not pointed out in it. Of course corporations don't have to obey the constitution and they can censor whatever they wish...unless you have millions of dollars to fight them in a legal case...and if you are working for them consider yourself fired.
We can really not be free in a world when freedom and knowledge conflict with the best interests of the massively wealthy (and corporations themselves) and the states that promote and spread their existence (such as the US military and CIA promoting right wing and fascist militaries/political parties so US corporations can use the countries natural resources and citizens for cheap labor).
I am remaining anonymous because I do not doubt that some proud patriot or some sort of jerk will flame or stuff my (e)mailbox.
Anyway, before you go attacking political theories you know little or nothing about, I suggest reading these materials. I wish everyone would/could.
All of the thread replies wondering about who the government would sue miss the point. Antitrust is not about punitive measures; it is about recompensing the consumer for damages suffered, and ensuring that the damage doesn't happen again.
So, in the poster's hypothetical case where someone brings a case against "Linux," he could name the providers of Linux distributions as defendants. Those distributors might then successfully defend themselves from personal damages, but the government can still enjoin use of Linux if it buys into the predatory pricing claim. That's because remedies are not supposed to be punitive, but just to fix the situation. One way that the government might accomplish that would be to declare Linux (or all computers) public utilities and then regulate their use.
-AG
A constant refrain on this and other pro-antitrust forums is that antitrust was passed to "fix monopolies." Yet the Sherman Act passed nearly five years after Standard Oil's market share had declined to below 40% because of competition from the then-new Texas oilfields as well as the strikes in the Caucasus.
And the fact is that antitrust law is just another form of regulation. The free market is the best mechanism of accountability there is -- the existence of Linux and of this discussion board prove that. As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the alternative is not imperfect free market versus perfect government... the latter has its warts.
Too many people -- and this is not limited to techies -- view government as an institution whose outcomes we get to choose. And that's surely the idea. But it's not the reality. The reality is that if you allow the Department of Justice or the Department of Commerce to regulate software or other companies, then it is not programmers or consumers but lawyers who will determine what products are available, and for much. Lawyers have a lot of faith in their ability to make the right decisions and rules, but as anyone paying attention knows, they are often wrong. That's it. End of story.
That graph of the stock price of Micro$oft reminds me of something I have heard about the Standard Oil antitrust case, the largest of them all.
After the 1911 breakup of Standard Oil into seven successor companies, the total stock value of the companies went up dramatically. After several years (admittedly, the outbreak of war in Europe contributed to this) John D. Rockefeller's net worth had doubled. Apparently the inefficient quest for market domination had cost Standard Oil billions in lost stock value. Maybe Microsoft should break themselves up rather than accept a government judgement in order to maximize the created shareholder value.
Linux is a good poster child for libertarian socialism, not pure-capitalsim. Linux was created by thousands of people working for free on something they never intended to get money from. If it supported capitalism, you would have to say the only reason people worked on it because they knew they were getting paid.
State socialism and capitalism (in all forms) are harmful to individual freedom, progress, and the world (natural resources, land, agriculture, etc). Many more fficient and effective (and cheaper) means of doing things have been stamped out, bought out, or forced to be illegal with heavy influence (or direct action) from corporations whose only interest is making money right now. They do not care that there are better alternatives, unless they can make more money off of them.
Capitalist states just support and spread the disease of capitalism to as much of the world as possible. The enemy is any country who will not allow their corporations to use it resources and/or citizens for cheap labor. Then they say "well, you want something different?!?! Look at those evil Soviets and Chinese...do you want that? This is your only choice in freedom." When it really isn't. There is libertarian socialism, and it barely gets any recognition what so ever...People trying to seem smart immediately dismiss it without reading in depth explanations of the theory etc.
I have made a post (two I think, one by accident) describing libertarian socialism ("Problems with Capitalism") more directly with suggested reading materials if you are serious interested.
The last we heard about Caldera vs. MS anti-trust actions on Slashdot was in February in regards to MicroSoft winning a 6 month reprieve. The reprieve is half over and in another 3 months Caldera's case over an estimated 1.6 billion dollars is going back before a judge. But despite the magtude of impact that a ruling favoring Caldera could have on MicroSoft, Caldera and the Linux movement, the press on this case and how the goverment case effects it appears to be non-existent! If the goverment wins against MicroSoft, is there expert opinion on if that could be used to help the Caldera case? Will it negatively effect the Caldera case if the goverment settles with MicroSoft before a ruling is issued?
You are incorrect actually. Libertarianism never had a real political leaning (as in pure socialism or capitalism) but was originally used to be synonymous with anarcho-syndicalism. During the early 1900s the more right wing (pro capitalism) people along with the help of Ayn Rand transformed it to being synonymous with capitalism without state intervention. This really only happened in the US, and I still think it's really the only country in which, if you used the term libertarianiam, people would immediately think of the pro-capitalism definition.
I forgot to add that socialism was not defined as state controlled socialism, which is what the media and average people think today when they hear the word. I could also argue that Libertarian capitalism is a contradiction of terms when corporations have control over what information gets produced, who can see the information, and who gets to work where, etc.
Don't drag the good name of Libertarianism through the mud with your socialistic nonsense.
That's an educated remark. It's clearly obvious you really understand anarchism. "Libertarianism" (by your definition) is quite obviously the best, most logical, and the smartest man's, political theory. (End of sarcasm)
Consider the following link. It shows some historical background on antitrust issues
here.
So IBM wasn't guilty and they should've been able to nail Microsoft for writing a version of DOS able to work without their BIOS? (Trade Secrets and all that?)
For example: I know for a fact that my mental health is jeopardized every
time I have to deal with Microsloth products at the office.
The part you're missing is that Microsoft hasn't broken any of those rules. This case is about the losers whining to the government (and state Attorney General's out for money and their names in the paper) dreaming up new special rules that they can then claim Microsoft broke in order to extract money from them.
The kicker is the line in the story about how even the DOJ acknowledges that Microsoft's business practices would be fine if they didn't have a "monopoly". But Microsoft has never legally been found to have a monopoly. So how could they have been breaking these rules?
This is like the government telling you that you broke some law that only applies to people in class X, and oh, by-the-way we just decided you're in class X now so we are going to charge you for doing those things that are illegal for class X people even though you still thought you were in class Y back then.
Cheering bad government just because you like one particular outcome is a compromise of principle.
You are thinking of anarcho-capitalsim, or as Americans like to call it, libertarianism. This is not the same as anarcho-syndicalism [often referred to as libertarian socialism (which isn't a contradiction of terms!)] Which is the ultimate in democracy, the ultimate in freedom (unless your freedom limits the freedom of others, then you will be punished by not receiving the benefits of the rest of society), and the ultimate in equality since no race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation can have more power than another. There is no central government controlling everything, it's an organized, organization of workers/citizens who depend on each other and help each other. It's a bit too complex to explain on a Slashdot post, which is why I suggest reading the books I listed. It's even hard to imagine at first since we are born into a world based around hierachal depencies (the struggle to live, the struggle to work your way up to a position of more freedom, etc.), rather than cooperative depencies.
Microsoft no longer has contracts that require OEMs to pay for Windows on every machine whether it ships with Windows or not.
The current DOJ case revolves around the question of whether Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, and if they do, whether they used that monopoly illegaly in an attempt to gain control of the browser market.
The per processor licensing issue was part of the original DOJ case in 1994 that was resolved by the consent decree. It was not an issue in this trial.
Uh, IBM was found guilty? News to me.
And I think it was more Compaq deliberately writing their own BIOS that "happened" to work with DOS more than it was Microsoft writing a DOS that "happened" to work on a BIOS other than IBMs.
That was indeed a long post and I will only respond to a few points.
First of all it is just false that antitrust was passed to protect competition or to destroy monopolies and trusts. Antitrust was essentially a competitive tool by Standard Oil's opponents, when they could not defeat Standard Oil in the marketplace (OTHER, mostly foreign, companies were succeeding - hence the fall in Standard's market share - but the American ones were having a harder time of it). U.S. Steel broke up more or less on its own, after coal and steel production expanded out of the Appalachians and tariff protections started to go away. The real reason for antitrust was to provide a legal rationale for "progressives" who thought that a planned economy was better than a free one, for social and moral reasons.
As to the threat of what unregulated employers do... that demonstrates the need for a reality check. It is burdensome regulations that provide the most direct threat to individual livelihood today. When one has to hire consultants at $500 per hour to tell you how to navigate the regulatory process, when the FCC has technical authority to review every new computer hardware product introduced, with up to an 18 month delay (it is purely for logistical reasons that this is not exercised more often... one reason FCC asks for more staff is so it can exercise this oversight), when it is LITERALLY impossible to comply with all hiring and civil rights laws... well, I think the people here who believe that firms exert more power and less accountability than any of that need to take a look at the Federal Register.
As for the idea that monopolies reduce consumer feedback... that is only true when the monopoly is a perfect one, ie it satisfies ALL of the characteristics of a monopoly (barriers to market entry, no substitutes, declining average costs). The second one -- no substitutes -- is key. Human inventiveness never ceases finding substitutes for goods that are too expensive, due to monopoly power or anything else. There are VERY few goods without substitutes -- the classic example is insulin to a diabetic who will die in 5 minutes. Of course such a firm exists only in theory. The idea that some regulatory agency could provide more accountability than the direct feedback of consumer choice, even in the face of a single firm, is laughable.
-AG
>No one has the right to write Windows Apps..
That's a rather strong statement. Care to back it up?
>If they did something wrong, whether they did it for "good reasons" or "bad reasons" is irrelevant. When's the last time you saw a murder defendent argue he meant to perform "good, clean" murder? Law should limit actions, not intentions.
Intent is integral to law. Your murder defendent can get off by convincing a jury or judge that he didn't intend to kill anyone.
As far as no way for Microsoft to know that its actions were illegal, well, they could have consulted a lawyer. Instead, they seem to use their lawyers to justify their actions after the fact rather than to restrain themselves. There's a quote from "The Microsoft Files" where William Neukom complains about all the 'elephant shit' that he has to clean up after Joachim Kempin works his magic on OEMs.
Who wants to take care of the public school system? is that a lucritive bussiness?
you don't even know what the definition of monopoly is. claiming public school system is a form of monopoly is just about the most rediculous thing i have heard.
Monopoly is a major form of free market failure. That means, when you have a monopoly, the free market model fails. Economists all agree that monopoly is something harmful to the society.
Why? One of the reason is, Monopoly created very extreme distribution of wealth. This creates social problems. (if i can never make my ends meet, i might as well rob the rich guy who make millions per hour...) And the instability of the society can result in castrophy.
absolutely. now small companies are less fearful of creating good products.
I also think if the gov. make it official not to use any MS product, it will make a huge impact.
can i ask you something?
how does the desktop apps company compete to OS company??
No they won't. That's why OS/2 miserably failed, and no one is using BeOS.
I spent last hour thinking about a good solution, since i am a programmer who happens to be studying economics, i came across all the suggestions, and here's my version:
To quickly desolve the monopoly, the settlement can be:
1. Open thier source code. This is going to boom the entire industry. You guys are technical ppl, so no explanation needed here.
2. a huge monetary settlement: between 150-500 billion dollars.
here's my analysis of the effect: if MS suddenly lost a huge amount of money, first, it cannot aquire smaller companies, at least for a while. Second, MS will not be able to afford as many programmers, so a lot of good programmers may flow out of Microsoft. I do think MS hired a lot of good programmers so that these people will not work for thier rivals. Third, if the MS is facing difficult financial situation, it might be forced to sell a subsidary of it. example: putting MS explorer on the auction block. This will form the most natural way of splitting Microsoft.
I think the money should then be used to finance new, small software companies. Or maybe doing infrustructures, such as public network infrastructure. (so we all can download SuSE in 3 hours) This way, we will see a huge boom in software industry, due to MS's inability to aquire new software bussiness, and the financial help for small software businesses.
The basic idea is, this is an open market. restrictions and rules normally won't help an open market, but the re-distribution of wealth will. Even if it sounds terribly unfair to Microsoft.
--can't remember my login. i'm hsiao-yu chen
No matter how the case ends, it's caused huge changes since the day it was filed. As the article points out:
"Microsoft has already changed its behavior," Kovacic said. "They've backed off some of the contested practices. Their competitors have been emboldened to do things they may not have done before the trial. The government has gotten a lot of what they wanted. The company is not swinging away like they used to."
Corel's CEO, for example, has described the anti-trust trial as creating a window of opportunity that allowed Microsoft competitors to push onto the Linux platform without fear of retaliation. And perhaps most importantly, the trial has educated the public to Microsoft's tactics. The public no longer takes it for granted that Microsoft products are best, or that Microsoft controls the future of computing.
Personally, I hope the trial lasts another 20 years. As a lawyer, my recurring fantasy is that Judge Jackson will find Microsoft in violation of the anti-trust laws, then take another year or two of proceedings to decide what to do about it, which is entirely possible.
With a violation ruling in place, the sharks can unload on Microsoft in follow-on cases, where Microsoft's violation will be taken as established as a matter of law (through a little-known provision of the Clayton Act), leaving only the amount of damages to be decided in those cases.
Decades from now, I suspect the legal historians will regard as Microsoft's biggest mistake the decision to butt heads with the government rather than cut a deal early on. The Clayton Act's provision requiring the violation to be taken as established in other cases kicked in the moment the trial itself started. From that point on, not even a settlement could get Microsoft out from under that requirement.
pem@televar.com
No way: that's totally unacceptable, and your ignorance is not an excuse, and while value neutrality is fine and good there is always a limit.
In the event that AOL and Microsoft _are_ finding it better to divide up ownership of the world by using this convenient opportunity to pretend to be battling while simultaneously buying up everybody else out there, only to turn around when the dust settles and go 'tadah! There Can Be Only One'- what, exactly, do you propose to do about it? Your attitude is totally unhelpful _before_ the disaster. Do you have any better plans for _after_ this seizure of power (it's lovely how the appearance of _two_ huge powers seems to make it OK for those powers to be eating up everything else- lovely until they turn out to be cooperating in this...), or are you simply going to retreat to a fscking armed compound with no electricity or phone service?
'scuse the ferocity, but I hadn't considered how effective MS/AOL collaboration would be for both companies- they're somewhat orthogonal and could help each other, and pretending to fight _now_ is one hell of a smokescreen- and the instant I get tipped off by MOSR to consider the idea, I come here and suddenly there's no such thing as trusts- feh!
And when the fat, stodgy and arrogant Microsoft works with the fat, stodgy and arrogant AOL and gets all the fat, stodgy and arrogant ISPs and network backbones to run only fat, stodgy and arrogant AOMS software, and passes legislation making it criminal to attempt to deconstruct such work causing a natural, easy takeover of everybody's communications infrastructure, where are you going to escape _to_?
Jon Postel is dead. I'm not sure whether I'm happy he doesn't have to see this, or sad that he isn't around to fight it. You simply don't know your danger. What you are moving towards is feudalism, top-down government without representation or recourse, and you only like it because computer geeks get to be the feudal barons. If somebody suggested that your state Senator (assuming you're in the USA- I think you must surely be, Europe loves feudalism less as they actually live with it here and there) ought to become your King and take all authority from the federal government, you'd flip out! How dare he!
I think the way the US government works, particularly in this case, is deeply flawed but probably the best we can expect.
How many people died fighting Standard Oil?
This decline was not an easy natural thing. The reason antitrust law exists is to help these things straighten out _without_ so much shattering of families, loss of life, hired thugs charging picket lines with sawed off pool cues or shotguns.
You are underplaying the simple historical fact that these, too, were undeclared wars- of a savagery we are not used to in our present day society- with acts of desperation that we are not driven to.
Yet.
Basically, Bill Gates ushers in his reign of terror by condemning hobbyist computer users for copying his software, his intellectual property, and how in God's name will he make money if people don't buy it?
There is a case there, however:
1) RedHat's $80 is not predatory pricing
2) The qeustion of the case is not "does MS have a monopoly?" but "is MS using its monopoly position to stifle competition?". MS is trying to defind point #2 my trying to declare that they are not a monopoly at all, thus making the question moot.
Point #2 is very important, because according to the law (IANAL), it's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it *is* illegal to use that monopoly power to maintain the monopoly. The govt is trying to prove that through MS's predatory pricing and contracts, that it is trying to maintain a monopoly.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Except that this time the investigators didn't blow the case by having an anti-computer nazi "find" all of the incriminating evidence.
LK
Posted by generic kewl tech reference:
8) Never, Never, NEVER start your defense by pissing off the judge.
Posted by generic kewl tech reference:
I have a question: What would prevent Microsoft from using their current anti-competitive tactics without laws against them?
Unless I totally misunderstand the concept of anarchy as a political system, it seems to me that Microsoft would be free to use bribery, extortion, and intimidation to maintain a dominant market position.
Please explain how anarchy would lead to increased consumer protection. And yes, I know that any increased consumer protection resulting from MS vs. DOJ will be incidental at best.
I do want to keep this polite, so I won't address the comment about sitting in my nice home in front of my expensive computer...
Standard disclaimer: IANAL
Additionally I think they broke the law when they used their existing monopoly (the OS market) to gain market share in a new area (the browser market). Wasn't this part of the trial too? Or was that just the Netscape v. Microsoft trial?
?
>When's the last time you saw a murder defendent argue he meant to perform "good, clean" murder? Law should limit actions, not intentions.
Murder *is* about intentions. That's why we have various degrees of murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, etc. *Real* bad example there.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
It's the only answer. Form them into at lease 3 grous, O/S, desktop apps, content and make them 3 completely separate companies with clear rules and guidelines as to how they can interact.
It's good for the industry as other technology will have a chance to flurish, it's not really bad for M$ (it never hurt standard oil) or their share holders as they start with a huge lead over all their competators.
This is the only solution that will solve the problem, which is that M$ can and does use it's two monopolies to support each other and drive competition out of the market place.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
> After all, the gov has a monopoly on your
> public school systems and I don't hear any
> motions to stop that
Darn, I must have gone wrong then when I voted for my local microsoft board member. Oh wait, I don't *get* to vote for microsoft board members...
--
What's that, 'DOJ' trial? :)
But seriously, this could drag on much longer. I hope they just settle, split the company into OSes and Apps, document all the Windows calls, support other OSes, port their apps, or something. That's what should have been done before, anyhow.
However, I read that if it goes up to the Supreme Court, this could last another four years. Windows 2000 already integrates much more than Internet Explorer, so I wonder what will happen if Microsoft loses... will they have to tear the browser out of the OS, and redesign it? Can they use an HTML help system? Where do the components end...
That's what I like about Linux: clear division and versioning of libraries and applications...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Heh. They're both free, and they don't "own" anything. People can use whatever browser they like, be it lynx, amaya, or mozilla M7... (I'm not paying for a browser though, so I haven't tried Opera... I wouldn't mind a fast SVGALIB web browser, though. :)
The actual dangers are that people don't necessarily know that much about it--they think that Internet Explorer is the Internet, and that the Internet is slow and crashes a lot--or that they have a choice, and they don't realize why some web pages don't work or look right under Netscape (maybe they were created with a Microsoft product) or Internet Explorer... (maybe they were written with Netscape extensions...)
Both parties are guilty of pushing incompatible extensions, protocols, services... (Frames, ActiveX, DHTML, etc.) If we didn't have two competing browsers, maybe we could just stick to the open standards. At least Mozilla is trying to do a better job of being standards-compliant.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, back when there was Mosaic and Netscape was just coming out, we got the incompatible Netscape extensions. Some of them were good ideas, and the W3C was dragging their feet (the CENTER tag) while others should have been destroyed from day one (the BLINK tag).
/HTML in a page. It foils many stupid disclaimers, and forces people to write correct HTML. (you can't write bad C and have it compile, why should you write bad HTML and expect your web page to display? :)
However, I've tried browsing with Amaya, and I like standards-conformance. I like it when a browser doesn't read past the
It's a shame that people can't implement the agreed-upon specs. This works for languages, mostly, and good extensions sometimes get folded into the next version of the spec. I'd even be happy if there was a box to check in your browser that enabled standards compliance with a particular HTML spec... I've seen web page filters that do this, so it can't be that difficult.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
See my earlier post on this subject.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No they don't have contracts that force an OEM to ship only Microsoft OSes. They can't do that yet because they don't yet have enough power in the server arena. They do however have contracts that force OEMs to pay for Windows on every desktop machine they ship, whether it ships with the software or not. Since the OEM can't afford to be paying for software that the customer isn't paying for, they only allow the customer to buy a computer with the Windows software which the customer must pay for. Hence the lack of consumer choice arguments.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Microsoft no longer has contracts that require OEMs to pay for Windows on every machine whether it ships with Windows or not.
You are absolutely correct in this statement. BUT, I will say it again, I'm not saying they require them to pay for Windows on EVERY machine that is shipped. As I said in the previous post, they don't have the power in the server arena to do this yet.
The per processor licensing issue was part of the original DOJ case in 1994 that was resolved by the consent decree. It was not an issue in this trial.
I didn't say they were using "per processor" licensing, did I? I said "per machine." Actually, "per model" would be a bit more specific. You see, they now have contracts that require OEMs to pay for Windows on every machine of a particular model if any machine of that model ships with Windows installed. So, if Compaq wants to ship any Deskpro model with Windows, they must pay for Windows on every Deskpro machine that ships, whether the customer wants Windows or not. That is how Microsoft got around the "per processor" wording in the consent decree and is one of the reasons that the consent decree was such a joke. That's also why the DOJ is professing its determination to have an airtight resolution to this case. They don't want Microsoft to be able to weasel out of it on a technicality... again.
The current DOJ case revolves around the question of whether Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, and if they do, whether they used that monopoly illegaly in an attempt to gain control of the browser market.
I'm well aware of what this case is about. I've been reading transcripts and following it very closely. I read everything I can find that is written or said by an anti-trust attorney. This case is about a lot more than just browsers, but that has become the most understandable and obvious part of the case and so became the focus of the DOJ. It's kind of like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. They use what they know they can make stick in court. If they tried to show all of what Microsoft has done, they would probably just confuse anyone who doesn't already understand what's been going on. It gets too technical and people, including the courts I would think, don't have the patience for it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The government can slap Microsoft down because the government gave Microsoft the power to get where it is today. People tend to assume that our free market system is perfect and should not be interfered with because it will correct itself. I don't buy that. I can't think of a single thing our government has set up that is perfect and I don't think that this system is any different. It needs constant attention to keep it running properly.
If it weren't for government laws that allow Microsoft to buy and control intellectual property, and for the advantages that come with incorporation, Microsoft would not exist today. In return for these privileges, Microsoft must obey certain laws. Microsoft allegedly (*cough*yeahright*cough*) hasn't done that and now they are in trouble. It's fine for a company to profit by using the system, but it's not ok to abuse the system. I look forward to many lawsuits against Microsoft. I hope to see them pay for their arrogance and abuse. They will hopefully end up coughing up a lot of the money they've ripped off from consumers over the years. If that happens, I might regain some bit of faith in the legal system... not much mind you, but some.
I don't think anyone can raise a stink about Linux. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. It's hard enough to make charges against Microsoft stick, and they've been about as blatantly abusive as any company I can think of. They wouldn't have a prayer of making any kind of case against Linux.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The above comment is definately NOT in need of moderation. While perhaps the writer did not write the greatest example ever of disallusionment, it is a clear indictment of our justice system and our declining faith in it. The post is terse and effectively conveys his forecast for the trial. So, take your finger off the moderation trigger.
_damnit_
It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
>BeOS will win virtually every battle against linux in the home market
Get real. It really looks like the only argument guys like you can make for BeOS is nothing but the same old tired Multimedia Rulez Bullshit that ended up sinking the Amiga.
Me too.
Which is why I resent governments forcing private citizens to bow at the point of a gun. Make no mistake, political force is nothing but physical coercion. If the DOJ wins, it sends the clear message the US citizens have no rights, and exist only at the whim of thugs and their sycophants.
"A government of laws, not of men" - if only this was true.
IF is the point. The antitrust laws are so vague that it is almost impossible to know if and when you have broken them, until you are taken to court.
I remember studying the famous US vs ALCOA case, in which a judge ruled that providing better products at a lower cost than your rivals was anticompetitive, and found ALCOA guilty. Their crime? They were successful and popular. The punishment? Restriction of ALCOAs business. The consequence? A chronic shortage of Aluminium during WW2.
The problem is simply that the antitrust laws can be interpreted to punish anyone for anything, retroactively. That's right - even if it wasn't illegal when you did it, you can still be found guilty anyway.
Laws should be definite and objective.
A month to prepare a closing statement?
No wonder courts are clogged.
I'm one of the last people to support Microsoft's practices. However, I don't agree with the notion that the government should intervene in this case (or any other anti-trust case). The free market has a nice way of settling this stuff out. I know things don't always look good, but we have to trust the system.
I can't understand why the government hates monopolies anyway. After all, the gov has a monopoly on your public school systems and I don't hear any motions to stop that. (Yes, I know there are private schools, but in most states we still have to pay school taxzes even if all your kids are in private schools).
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
I for one am glad that this part of the trial is over. I'm tired of hearing all about everyone going up to testify and having it be daily news. The closing statements should be interesting. Granted, it's not as all-inundating(SP?) as the OJ trial was, but it's in my area of life, so it seems worse somehow. My prediction: Microsoft will be severely reprimanded and excluded from those contracts that force the OEM to ship MS OS's only.
You can't see this if you have sigs turned off.
I used Win95 at work, came to the conclusion I didn't want it, but couldn't avoid having it bundled and paid for when I bought machines. A consumer rip-off, plain as day.
.too long to get into. Bottom line, they ripped me off.
Then there was the QuickC incident. .
On the other hand, WinNT is more stable under VMWare/RH6 software emulation. Go figure!!!
Today's English Lesson: Oxymorons
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
Seeing a banner ad for MS Office 2000 on the worlds biggest Linux advocacy sites, at the top of an article about the MS vs. DOJ case which speculates that MS is getting ready to lose.
Odd.
If Microsoft is willing to pay for slashdot banner time... at least it pays the bills.
Want some of my sandwich? You must be hungry by now.
"We want to take over the world, but we don't want to do it tomorrow, it's OK if it's next week"-- Linus Torvalds
Want some of my sandwich? You must be hungry by now. Besides if it were druged I wouldn't be able to eat it, as I am now, right?
"We want to take over the world, but we don't want to do it tomorrow, it's OK if it's next week"-- Linus Torvalds
> If we didn't have two competing browsers, maybe
> we could just stick to the open standards.
Doubtful. Any time you only have one primary implementation of something, that implementation (with all its flaws) will supercede any defined standards whether or not they are open.
It's sad but true: no matter who the coders are, if they don't need to worry about interoperability with other implementations, they aren't going to give a shit about adhering to standards, open or not.
This is as true for Free Software authors as it is for Microsoft.
[ think about it: if Mozilla was the _only_ web browser to exist, do you seriously think they _wouldn't_ start making extensions/modifications to the standards that would be adopted as the de-facto new standards? (although likely they'd document them properly and keep them open, as well as putting them through the proper standards processes eventually) ]
---
DNA just wants to be free...
> Heh look, there are people out there BREATHING
> for free. Dammit, I want to develop an AIR
> product and sell it, but all of this free air
> stuff is narrowing consumer choice and stifling
> innovation in the air market.
That argument reminds me of Gates' infamous "Open Letter to Hobbyists", which ushered in the current age of proprietary software.
---
DNA just wants to be free...
there wasn't this trial, if these companies that are now creating web appliances based on other operating systems than Windows CE such as the iToaster and whatever AOL is cookin' up, would have had the wherewithall to avoid toeing the MS partyline. With MS wrapped up in the trial, the cat is away and the mice will play.
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
There is a difference between "predatory pricing", and free software, and I think you are falling into the trap of being confused about this.
/choice/ .
Linux is free as in freedom of speech (and free as in price). Linux is not owned by a monolithic company that has tried it's damndest over the last decade or so to foist it's garbage onto the world as THE one and only True Standard. The Linux community is not bullying the IBM's, Compaq's, Dell's, etc. by threatening them with OEM sales price increases. The Linux community is offering these companies liberation from that Redmond company's stranglehold. We aren't forcing IBM to adopt Linux - the IBM's etc. of this world are doing this - yes, for commercial reasons (they are a company after all) - but also because they have been given this
No one - be they governor, lawyer, or any other official in power could in their wildest imaginations be able to justify a statement to the effect that Linux is introducing "predatory pricing" to cut off all other competition - how could they?
The thing to remember is that during the time frame in question, Netscape "owned the market" because there wasn't much of a market. Their competition at the time was basically Lynx and Mosaic -- then when MS decided that they should have a browser, they illegally used their dominance with the Windows platform to crush Netscape like a bug. IANAL, nor do I play one on TV, but I've been reading as many comments from antitrust lawyers as I can find during the trial and most of them feel that the DOJ has adequately demonstrated that (1) Microsoft has monopoly power and (2) Microsoft has abused that monopoly power to expand into new markets.
Biggest hope: Jackson will rule that Microsoft must fully disclose (1) file formats, (2) APIs, and (3) protocols -- and that the disclosure must continue until he decides that remediation has been accomplished. This will treat Windows as the "essential facility" that it is and allow competitors to compete on an even basis, while preventing Microsoft from immediately releasing Office June 2000 with All New File Formats to eliminate the hard work done by, e.g., the Wine development team.
Biggest disappointment: Judge Jackson, unaware of the magnitude of the economics at play, finds that Microsoft has done all the Bad Things they're accused of, and settles the issue by fining them the "massive" sum of 5 or 6 billion dollars. Business as usual, profits take a one-quarter dip.
Biggest fear: Microsoft is found not to possess monopoly power, and Judge Jackson thanks them for their generous time and apologizes for their inconvenience. Linux suddenly vanishes from the pages of the ZD publications. OEMs regretfully announce that their sales of machines with Linux just aren't high enough to justify the cost of supporting them and therefore Linux will be discontinued as an option. Microsoft integrates every program ever written into their flagship operating system.
As for the author who felt disturbed by the fact that so many people think this trial is nothing more than "IE or Netscape, who runs the Web?", one should never forget that most people have the brains of week-old banana pudding and for them, active involvement in civic life means spitting on the grass in the park instead of on the sidewalk.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Assume if you will that 3 different companies started making Windows. Assume Microsoft is, for example, split into 3 groups with the same intellectual property that all have access to the same source code.
Now assume that one of those companies wanted to make their OS not compatible with the others. Do you think everyone will flock to the new incompatability? Would it be advertised as "New! Can't run old programs or any existing programs, but we'll sell you some new ones!"?
No. People wouldn't buy it, and the company would suffer-- they know this already. Instead, companies would have to compete by finding ways to increase stability, efficiency, and *standards* support without breaking legacy code. That effect is the desired one. Competing products tend to converge until they are difficult to tell apart, not diverge.
Don't believe the "support nightmare" FUD-- for it is just that. In the end, any small (And I do mean small-- the Windows children could not be vastly different from each other or else they wouldn't sell) extra cost would be worth the immesuarable value of the freedom we attain and the value of the better code bases.
The three (or more, but at least three) seperate-but-equal groups with the same IP solution should be the solution that the government goes for. Another solution -- say, splitting off the apps from the OS -- would only cause the two monopolies to collude with each other and continue their practises.
No, it is their fault. They *allowed* the buddy video drivers to run in supervisor mode/at the lowest level, bypassing all of the protections of running it in user mode. So when a driver crashes, the machine dies... So sorry. Press the reset button and buy the upgrade.
A real microkernel cannot do this. Odd how people run around claiming that NT is a microkernel? Well, it's not. It's a layered kernel -- but that doesn't have the same buzzword compliancy!
Not really an exaggeration, but yes, definitely a typo!
I meant "mixed command/free market" system. Sorry for the confusion.
This IS the system. We protect corporations with intellectual property and copyrights. For that protection, we expect companies to play by certain rules. Breaking those rules has consequences.
There is no such thing anymore as a true free market in a successful capitalist country. We have a command/control economy, just like every other successful "free" nation in the world.
Having a monopoly in and on of itself is not illegal. Trying to be more profitable is not illegal. But trying to increase those profits by temporarily taking a loss in order to kill out all of your competetion IS illegal. 'Accidental' monopolies are fine and just, but taking actions to actively secure that monopoly by killing out all of your competitors is not just... and should never be just. I daresay that without GNU/Linux/FreeBSD/BeOS etc the country as a whole would truly be in a great deal of trouble-- for even if the government takes great action against Microsoft, what other platforms are out there to run programs? And who would want to run one of them?
And no, MacOS doesn't count. It can't run on our machines.
Don't be. Microsoft should keep on writing whatever code they want to, no matter what the gubmint says. So should the rest of us.
Fuck Slashdot
I vote they go after Microsoft again. (For the cameras: just kidding)
Believe with me, my saplings.
Microsoft will be declared guilty as hell, given an award for going above and beyond the call to create wealth for the United States at the expense of everybody else, everybody involved will go out and buy Microsoft shares, and then they'll all get over it, because that's how everybody (I was going to say all Americans, but thought the better of it - I'm not feeling that naughty today) solves their differences with companies they dislike these days.
(bitter, bitter, bitter)
- B
Believe with me, my saplings.
An improperly written user-mode driver can bus-lock a machine just as easily as an improperly written kernel-mode driver. Running in user-space only lets you catch certain classes of errors more easily.
Woohoo! Another MS flamewar!
This is a trial in which Microsoft has had every opportunity to prove that they were not breaking the law.
Except that the law is excessively vague and over-reaching. The best evidence for this is that Microsoft is not arguing that they did not do the things that they are accused of doing. They are arguing that what they does not fall under the bounds of the law. In other words, they are not asked to prove their innocence. They are asked to prove that the judge should interpret the law in their favor. This kind of "flexible" law is a recipe for tyranny.
The Sherman Act is full of phrases like "combinations in restraint of trade" and "attempts to monoplize." This is Orwellian doublespeak: government lawyers can twist this to apply to pretty much anything. The interpretations change with every judge and every prosecutor, because there is no rational basis for deciding what is and is not a crime. Basically, it boils down to prosecuting any company with a large market share who does unpopular (not necessarily unethical or otherwise illegal) things.
So "proving" that Microsoft did not break the law is impossible, because strictly speaking, every large corporation breaks antitrust law simply by trying to maintain their market share. Companies are punished not for specific acts deemed illegal, but for being large and unpopular. It's a blank check for the DOJ to harass pretty much whoever they want.
"Libertarian socialism" is a contradiction in terms. If you want to preach your anarcho-syndicalist theory, go right ahead. But the term "libertarian" has already been claimed by the movement you call "libertarian capitalism." "Libertarian socialism" bears *no* relationship to actual libertarianism--which is a philosophy of limited government, individual liberty, and capitalism. So please--get your own name. Don't drag the good name of Libertarianism through the mud with your socialistic nonsense.
I don't see how any of these actions violate the rights of their competitors. no one has a right to write Windows apps, and no one has a write to make OS's for any particualr computer. So I would argue all these should be legal.
This made sense when the laws were drafted, because markets can change rapidly and we don't want to rewrite large laws like this every year to take into account market changes and entirely new markets.
OK, how about this: let's write a law that reads: the government shall have the power to punish people who do bad things. Then we never have to write any laws again. Our all-knowing DOJ will simply decide who does bad things, and punish them.
This is the heart of the problem: even if I accept that the above practices should be illegal, there was no way for Microsoft to know they are illegal. Apple does many of the same things, yet no one is going after them. It is arbitrary, which means that it gives the DOJ nearly unlimited power to harrass successful companies for things that were not previously considered crimes.
Like many other laws, the question is ultimately the intent of Microsoft, and I don't think anyone at this point can argue that Microsoft's intent was only to have a good, clean competition and provide the best products for their customers.
The intention of microsoft is irrelevant. If they did something wrong, whether they did it for "good reasons" or "bad reasons" is irrelevant. When's the last time you saw a murder defendent argue he meant to perform "good, clean" murder? Law should limit actions, not intentions.
I'm not sure that the rights of MS competitors are exactly the issue here. It's more a question of ensuring a level playing field for competition and encouraging a free market, rather than deciding exactly who has a right to do something.
A "field for competition" would seem to be a right held by MS competitors. And a free market is a market without gov't interference.
No one has a special right to write a browser for Windows, but everyone should have an equal opportunity in the market to distribute their browser and let the market pick the best one.
How has this been violated? Anyone who wants to is free to download Netscape and install it. It is true that Microsoft has given its browser a lot of publicity and support, but so what? Netscape has a right to write and distribute their browser. They have not been prevented from doing so.
If Apple is acting illegally to create a monopoly, then it should indeed be prosecuted. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, so I'm afraid I can't come up with an example here.
Well, Apple has a monopoly on the Macintosh market, and has "bundled" MSIE with Mac OS as the default browser. Is this monopolistic? I see no principled difference, excpept that Microsoft is bigger, so it is ok to beat up on them. Furthermore, its subsidiaries create a word processor, (Claris) a database program (FM) etc. Are these illegal?
I would argue that under antitrust law they are, but that the DOJ is not prosecuting them because Microsoft gives them more publicity. The fact is, that if you combine all the justifications that have won antitrust cases in the past, you could convict literally any major corporation. It is bad law.
Of course we don't want a law to "punish people who do bad things." That is an over generalization of what I said. Throughout U.S. history the courts have interpreted the laws (as is their function under the Constitution) and they will continue to do so.
But the difference between "people who do bad things" and "combinations in restraint of trade" is only a matter of degree. They are not specific actions, but class of actions, and no clear test is provided to tell which actions fall into that class. So a clever lawyer can find actions by pretty much any successful company that can be twisted into a "combination in restraint of trade," just as you can arrest pretty much any individual that "does bad things."
This history of case law and decisions sets a precedent, and the precedent is taken into account in future cases and as new laws are written.In some cases there are arbitrary laws, but they are refined over time by the precedents set by trials such as this one and as new laws are enacted as a result of those trials.
This is a bad thing, because it is simply Congress shirking its responsibility to define what is and is not illegal. Courts enforce the law, they should not have to write it. Obviously, courts should interpret minor points that were accidentally left unclear, but major points should be laid down ahead of time to make it clear. Courts usually follow precedents, but they also sometimes break precedents and decide that a whole new class of actions is illegal. When that happens, a bunch of businesses will suddenly find themselves criminals, despite the fact that what they did was legal when they did it. This is what antitrust advocates like to call "flexible" law--law that can change to fit the circumstances. What that means it that it gives the courts the power to convict companies for things that were not previously crimes.
So *any* law that must go through the process you describe is bad law. It is the job of Congress to clearly spell out what is and is not illegal, and if they don't they are creating an opportunity for oppression.
You reveal a great deal of passion and not a lot of thought. Think of the worst possible scenario. In the case of Microsoft, this is them taking complete control over the OS market and producing lousy products. This is the *worst* that can *possibly* happen. You will always be free to go to previous products, run a free OS, etc.
Now consider the government. Imagine for example if the government wins its case and sets up a "software review board" to make sure that MS lives up to its obligations. This board restricts the content of MS's OS. After a while, MS complains that its competitors have an unfair advantage, and so the board is expanded to regulate all OS's. Now you have a *permanent* stagnation of the OS industry. You tell me: which is scarier.
The fundamental difference between a government and a corporation, is that a corporation can never force you to do anything. If you simply refuse to accept its products, it can't do a thing to you. Only government can be described as "Orwellian" because only government can act like Big Brother. Corporations can make lousy software, and might even make it more difficult for you to get a competing product. But there are *always* alternatives.
Thus I am willing to accept a great deal of "monopoly" from MS before I sanction government action. I have a Mac, and Microsoft can't keep me from using it or keep Apple from making new hardware or software. The government conceivable could. Therefore the government is the only entity whose actions can properly be called "Orwellian."
I wouldn't worry too much about any predatory pricing claims against Linux. Successful predatory pricing claims are extremely rare.
Essentially, the government (or plaintiff) has to prove that the price you're selling your product at is less than it costs to make it. So if my widget costs $5 and it takes $10 to make, it's bad. But you ALSO have to show that the pricing is calculated to drive the competition out of business so you can raise the price of your product above the market rate. (You need a reasonable chance of success for a conviction. IIRC the leading case in this vein is Matsushita, but Antitrust is a faint haze right now.)
Because of the GPL, Linux will always remain free (as in beer). It would be impossible to charge a monopolist's price for Linux, as long as anyone else could take the source and distribute it for essentially nothing.
The only way I could see problems in the far future is for value-added companies developing proprietary elements that become essential to businesses. But all of Redhat's products are pretty much GPL'ed also.
Disclaimer: IANAL (yet).
The biggest fallacy of capatalism is that unrestrained free markets lead to optimal effeciency and competition. Unrestrained markets ultimately result in monopolies which historically have been grossly ineffecient and overpriced and which generally use their dominant position in their market niches to prevent new competitors or innovations from entering the market. (Sound familiar?)
This dichotomy in the capatalist model is akin to the "egalitarian" fallacy in communism, which ignores the inherent power that those administering the "giving according to ones abilities and taking according to ones needs" process have over those doing the giving and wishing to do the taking. In the west, the rather fundamental flaw in the economic system which tended to result in less competition, more and bigger monopolies and thereby undermine the entire economic process has been addressed through anti-trust legislation. The east was less fortunate -- an authoritarian, centralized government doesn't have many avenues of feedback available to tweak a broken system and make it work.
If we take away those tweaks which have enabled our economic system to function so well these last several decades, we will have the dubious pleasure of watching capatalism begin to crack beneath its own internal contradictions in much the same way communism did. While perhaps interesting from an intellectual point of view, for those of us participating in the economy in question it would really, really suck.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Of course anti-trust laws are regulations. Thoughtful regulation is not inherently bad, *overregulation* is (as is poorly conceived and/or implemented regulation). The fact that bad regulation exists, or is possible, does not inherently imply that all regulation must therefor be bad.
Anti-trust laws were passed to fix an economic system which was becoming increasingly dysfunctional as monopolies and trusts continued to form and abound, destroying the very competition and built in price and quality controls which a free market is expected to promote, and upon which the success of capatalism is dependent. The laws were not designed to eliminate all monopolies (although one can make very strong arguments that laws which would disallow monopolies could, if implemented correctly, be a very good thing), but to curb what monopolies do and to limit the methodology whereby monopolies could be achieved. The result has been less monopolies, more competition, and a more robust economy. It isn't perfect by any means, as the current state of Microsoft demonstrates, but it is far better than nothing at all.
Government is a powerful and dangerous thing, I agree. Alas, as things currently stand, an unrestrained marketplace is not only ultimately dysfunctional from an economic perspective, but also fraught with dangers of its own, including but not limited to anti-labor and ecological excesses, and some very nasty implications with respect to individual rights and liberties. (Just thing what an unregulated employer could coerce you into doing, simply by threating your livelihood. A person will do many things they otherwise would never consider to prevent their family and children from starving, and not everyone is as employable as we are.)
A very interesting discussion would be what kind of non-governmental framework could be devised to replace governmental regulation, which would have the following characteristics:
1) "democratic" feedback mechanisms which would allow concerned individuals as well as concerned interest groups/corporations to participate and effect the outcome (The free market succeeds here initially, but fails miserably in the long term, as once a monopoly is in place the consumers ability to effect change is reduced to zero, especially for critical items such as food, water, housing, etc.)
2) neutral stance, not favoring one corporation over another (again, an unregulated free market fails as it favors large players over small players, and ultimately favors monopolies over everyone else)
3) redress - a mechanism whereby a party which has been wronged can seek redress. Examples would include companies from which property (intellectual or otherwise) has been stolen, which have been the victim of unfair trade practices, or targets of unethical coercian a la' the Mafia, could obtain financial recompense from the offendors, or individuals harmed by gross negligence (health problems due to toxic waste dumping, etc.) could be redressed. Obviously, an unregulated free market has no mechanism in place to address these issues.
4) Protection of individual rights against corporate coercian. This includes labor issues, but also free speach issues ("you say anything but what we want and you'll starve!"), and so forth.
5) Is not a government -- or at least, not a monopoly of power, which arguably any government currently in existence is.
6) Facilitates free trade, by discouraging practices which limit competition and providing a framework which allows businesses and individuals to enter into contracts with one another with confidence and enforcability.
7) Protects individuals and business entities from fraud, overt coercian such as protection rackets, and so forth.
8) Provides equal access to education opportunities (arguably government fails miserably here, at least in the USA where higher education is an expensive privelege rather than a right).
I'm certain there are other desirable characteristics I have overlooked.
Disgovernance is an appealing notion (it certainly appeals to me), but trading away a democratically elected government for a rampent corporate oligarchy isn't really a very pleasant solution. On the other hand, if individuals could "subscribe" to the government of their choice (or some other framework which provides for justice and protection of individual rights) would be an interesting alternative. However, designing something with these characteristics is by no means a trivial excersize, and simply leaving the details to a free market without serious consideration of the consequences, and a method for dealing with dysfunctions as they arise is a recipe for disaster.
I am not against disgovernance, or against government regulation per se. Neither is a panacea, and both have serious implications along with significant dangers which need to be very carefully thought through.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You are, of course, missing the point. The point is that the REVIEWERS and early adopters saw it, and spread the word that Windows didn't work with DR-DOS.
Because they are reviewers and the bleeding edge types in companies, their views were at least heard by the PHBs who make the decisions.
Another fantastic marketing stroke of genius by Micros~1. (Hardly the first, and certainly not the last)
--
--
The Internet is the Suppository of All Knowledge. You get it in the end.
I'll believe "'support nightmare' FUD", because thats what exactly what companies did with DOS. In the end Microsoft had 80% of the market, despite cheaper compatible products being out there.
/MBR)
For example, here's an exchange I had with technician in about 1993:
Goon Tech: "You're running IBM DOS on your PS/2. Only MS-DOS is 'supported' here." (Starts to type FDISK
Me: "What do you mean 'supported'? Everyone here runs IBM Microchannel machines, and the MS EMM386 doesn't even work right on Microchannel! It crashes and won't recognize all of the memory!"
Tech: "Orders is orders. Ooog." (SYS)
You think it would be any better with off-brand Windows? IBM-brand Windows?
(And don't start going off about the DR-DOS detection code. It was in the Windows 3.1 BETA only. Not many saw it. Many folks successfully ran the Win3.1 with DR-DOS. There was a nice "Thank you for upgrading from OS/2 to MS-DOS 6.0 message", though.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I'd guess the "Buy MS-DOS, get Windows for $5, the only catch is that your AUTOEXEC.BAT has to end with WIN" deal probably had much more effect than the Windows 3.1 beta.
It's not like Windows 3.1 was a highly anticipated product by techies, who by in large saw it for the crap that it was. Most end users started using it in companies in open revolt against the MIS staff.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the parties that brought the original action already consider that their aims have been met. The actual outcome of the trial may well be irrelevant.
Consider: by bringing the action lots of companies and individuals have been a) made aware of a lot of interesting facts and b) been given breathing space because MS is temporarily shackled.
C-x C-s
While I don't like a lot of Microsoft's code, this isn't all their fault.
If Micron can't write a decent graphics driver (and it's possible, as lots of other graphics drivers _do_ work), that's Micron's fault, not Microsoft's.
A lot of the faults I see (as a tech support person) relate to buggy sound, video and printer drivers provided by 3rd person manufacturers.
Microsoft is nowhere near perfect, but they aren't to blame for _everything_.
Samael
My Journal
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Rather than breaking up MS, which doesn't really help us consumers at all, why not simply require MS to publish a price list to OEMs. Allow no discounts (or "co-oped advertising") beyond volume discounts. Require them to sell Windows to all OEMs at these prices. Let OEMs add whatever value they'ed like to their package.
Lastly, I like McNealy's idea of barring them from making an aquisitions for the next 5 years
The catch with linux is that there's nobody to file suit against. Linux isn't 'owned' by any one person. Trying to file suit against Linux is somewhat like a house builder trying to sue Habitat for Humanity. Not only would it not work, but it would be ludicrous too.
-Cheetah
If you call it a feature they will. Isn't this how it worked for web browsers? Remember, we won't be talking about a totally incompatible new system, just one with new Baby Bill ActiveSomething!
Splitting them up into multiple smaller companies with the exact same products won't work nearly as well as it did for Ma Bell, because there's no way to restrict the baby Bills to separate geographical markets. We would just end up with three smaller clones, but since they can all tie their Windows to their apps, either one of them will eventually become a monopoly again or the government will have to do some intrusive regulation of Microsoft's business, just like they do for the local phone companies now.
Separating the apps, internet, and OS components of Micros~1 would work better because it would break up the quasi-vertical monopoly that MS has in several different software arenas. Also, this would force their products to fully disclose their APIs, and then other companies could compete and be sure that their apps are fully Windows compliant (remember DR-DOS?). Besides, part of the case against MS (the most important part, IMHO) concerned their use of an OS monopoly to try to gain a web browser monopoly. Splitting up MS along product lines would prevent this sort of monopoly-spreading.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I'm not sure that the rights of MS competitors are exactly the issue here. It's more a question of ensuring a level playing field for competition and encouraging a free market, rather than deciding exactly who has a right to do something. Microsoft's actions don't just attack their specific competitors, they also destroy the free market and reduce consumer choice, which is bad. It doesn't really matter if IE or Netscape wins the browser war, but the winner should prevail because they offer a better browser and the consumer preferred it, not because they are made by the OS manufacturer. So in a certain sense the Sherman Act recognizes a "right" to a free market for all competitors in that market. But this is just as much Microsoft's right as it is Netscape's right. No one has a special right to write a browser for Windows, but everyone should have an equal opportunity in the market to distribute their browser and let the market pick the best one.
Your second argument has a very good point: if Apple is doing the same thing, why aren't they being prosecuted? The answer to that is twofold:
Of course we don't want a law to "punish people who do bad things." That is an over generalization of what I said. Throughout U.S. history the courts have interpreted the laws (as is their function under the Constitution) and they will continue to do so. This history of case law and decisions sets a precedent, and the precedent is taken into account in future cases and as new laws are written. In some cases there are arbitrary laws, but they are refined over time by the precedents set by trials such as this one and as new laws are enacted as a result of those trials. If the law is too arbitrary, it will be thrown out by the courts, but at least so far the courts seem to feel that the anti-trust laws are constitutional and thus that the law is not too arbitrary for a law-abiding corporate citizen to follow correctly.
You have a point as far as intent goes. Although in some trials intent is a significant mitigating factor, you are correct that it isn't necessarily one here. This is because normally intent matters when a crime could have been committed accidentally, or it could have been committed in cold blood with malice aforethought. However, I don't see how Microsoft could have accidentally taken the actions that we've heard about during the trial, or how Microsoft could have taken those actions believing that they would be in the best interests of free trade. Their intent was to use their desktop OS monopoly to become a monopoly in the web browser market, they abused their monopoly power to act in the restraint of trade, and they knew they were doing it. So in a way their intentions are the important factor here, because if they didn't have intentions to act illegally, they wouldn't have just accidentally done so, and we wouldn't be having a trial.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
A "field for competition" would seem to be a right held by MS competitors. And a free market is a market without gov't interference.
Not quite - MS also has a right to an even playing field. In this regard there is no difference between MS and any software company. And a market without any government interference is going to be full of monopoly pretty quickly in most cases. Businesses are not people; they are allowed to exist and do business at the sufferance of the government and ultimately the citizens. Government needs to broker disputes between businesses just like it does between people, and it also needs to make sure that business doesn't take unfair advantage of the citizens who allow business to take place. If you don't agree that some amount of government regulation is necessary, then I don't think that either of us are going to convince the other.
Netscape has a right to write and distribute their browser. They have not been prevented from doing so.
They were prevented when MS made deals with OEMs only if they did not include Netscape on their desktop, for example. Since when should MS be dictating anything like that to OEMs - they are clearly using their dominance in the Windows market (which the OEMs are dependent on, because there is a monopoly) to increase their dominance in the browser market. Sure, anybody can download and install Netscape, but we both know that those actions are beyond many users. Microsoft was smart to try to get onto the startup screen; their only mistake was using their Windows monopoly to do it. If Microsoft had made the case for IE solely on the basis of the features and cost of IE, then there would be one less argument against them.
So a clever lawyer can find actions by pretty much any successful company that can be twisted into a "combination in restraint of trade," just as you can arrest pretty much any individual that "does bad things."
I'll agree that a good lawyer could make it look like that, but that doesn't make it so. It is the court's job to determine whether a combination in restraint of trade really occurred, just as it is with any other trial. Sometimes laws are found to be so vague that they are unenforceable and are thrown out of court - for example, some Internet censorship laws meet this fate. Anti-trust laws can suffer the same fate if the courts think that they are too vague, but this has not happened yet. Therefore, the court system feels that there is enough specific information in the law to divide companies into two classes of illegal monopolists and legal ones.
Courts usually follow precedents, but they also sometimes break precedents and decide that a whole new class of actions is illegal. When that happens, a bunch of businesses will suddenly find themselves criminals, despite the fact that what they did was legal when they did it.
There are two different issues here. You normally cannot be held accountable for actions you took which were legal when you did them. Nobody has changed the wording of the anti-trust laws behind Microsoft's back, and even if that had occurred they would not be legally accountable for their (now illegal) actions that were made before the law was changed.
On the other hand, you make a good point that the interpretation of the law can change, so that at one time someone may be found to have followed the law and later a different person may be found to have broken it for doing the exact same thing. Unfortunately this could happen with any law; for example (and I use this only as an example, I don't want to argue about this here) the laws concerning abortion continue to be reinterpreted and sometimes completely thrown out by the courts (Roe v. Wade, etc). Three things affect reinterpretations such as this:
You argue that the anti-trust laws are too vague, to which I can only reply that they have not been vague enough to be thrown out by the courts yet. I say yet, because there really hasn't been a huge number of past antitrust cases for precedent in the U.S. The law has only been on the books about 100 years and there certainly hasn't been one case a year since then, has there? This isn't much of a precedent compared to murder cases, for example. So it is possible that the interpretation of the law will change. However, the DOJ attorneys have done fairly well at showing that MS actions fit into what the laws and the prior precedents describe as illegal behavior. It is to the disadvantage of the DOJ to try to set a new precedent; it is much easier to bring a case under the current interpretation of the law because the courts really don't want to reinterpret if they can avoid it.
It is the job of Congress to clearly spell out what is and is not illegal, and if they don't they are creating an opportunity for oppression.
It would be wonderful if Congress could do that now, and it would have been astonishing if Congress 100 years ago had made provisions in the antitrust laws for the kind of business deals which companies are making today. However, business isn't static and so the interpretation of the law must also change to keep up. If the laws become too out of date, they will be thrown out by the courts or updated by Congress.
It's not that I'm necessarily in favor of vague laws, but rather laws which don't have to be revised every time there's a new way of doing business. The antitrust laws are more detailed than just "combinations in restraint of trade", but they don't need to describe every possible action that you could take, just like a law about murder doesn't describe every way you could kill someone. All that matters is you did it, you knew you were doing it, and you had every intention of bringing about the outcome that occurred. Here's a hint: if you negotiate with OEMs and the public on a basis of the price, quality, and features of your product, you're usually doing OK. If you negotiate on the basis of fear of your competition, your strength in other markets, and deals that are "too good to be true", then you might have some problems. I can't believe that one of the richest companies in the world doesn't have enough lawyers to tell them that bribing OEMs not to include Netscape might be over the edge.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
OK, I'm in.
Whoa there. There is a different (as many other posters here have kindly pointed out) between the ways that different corporations can maintain and improve their market share. Remember, it's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to gain monopoly power by illegal means, or to use monopoly power (even if acquired legally) to act in restraint of trade. With that in mind, let's consider some legal ways for companies to increase market share:
Here are some illegal ways:
I'll admit that the anti-trust laws are not the most clear-cut in terms of what is legal and what is illegal. This made sense when the laws were drafted, because markets can change rapidly and we don't want to rewrite large laws like this every year to take into account market changes and entirely new markets. Like many other laws, the question is ultimately the intent of Microsoft, and I don't think anyone at this point can argue that Microsoft's intent was only to have a good, clean competition and provide the best products for their customers.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
This has been the equivalent of the OJ trial for nerds.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
(Disclaimer: Dammit Jim, I'm a geek, not a lawyer.)
This would actually be pretty difficult to argue. The reason the "predatory pricing" argument is used against Microsoft is because of the government's (perfectly reasonable) argument that pushing IE onto the desktop was a good way to enforce dependence on Microsoft and their retail products. If Microsoft had just ceded the browser market to Netscape, people might have started moving to other platforms which Netscape supported, which would have been disasterous for MS.
The interesting thing here is that the reverse of the argument doesn't apply to Linux. MS hopes that if you're using IE, you'll stick with Windows, and drop a bundle on the MS stable of products (including Windows). Linux distribution companies - Red Hat, Debian, etc. - can make money off their manuals, recoup the cost of distribution media, and sell tech support, but they can't actually charge for the OS. The ancillary costs for the consumer are all tech-support costs, something which just about every major software company charges for at some level.
In other words: when a company engages in anti-competitive practices, then violates a consent decree they signed to stop doing it, the answer is to let them make billions off of it, because sooner or later they'll get clumsy and not be able to do it anymore.
I'm not sure I buy that.
As fashionable as it may be to declare the immanence of the dawn of a post-political era, it's worth keeping a couple basic things in mind. (Warning: strong personal bias follows)
All the DOJ is doing is trying to uphold the laws we have, and the consent decree that Microsoft signed four years ago. You call it an example of top-down government. I call it the state reminding MS to follow the rules it agreed to.
Huh? When you say "didn't have two" do you mean it would be better if there was just one, or if there were more than two?
I hope you mean the latter. The more browsers you have, the more likely they are to follow the standard. There used to be a time when one browser (Netscape) had a very dominant position, and that is when everyone started breaking standards left and right, by relying on Netscape extensions.
I'm actually glad that Netscape and MSIE are somewhat incompatable, because it forces a lot of web authors, who want to cater to both camps, to stick closer to standards. Maybe those authors are doing it for the wrong reasons (and they'll still use extensions that Netscape and MSIE both support), but in the end, it still makes things easier for me, since I tend to use standards-compliant but non-mainstream browsers, like AWeb.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Agree 100%. The original argument that they should be allowed to continue their behavior until they fall on their own is completely ridiculous.
I mean, who needs police? We should just let criminals steal anything and everything they want, and someday when they realize how horrible society is like that, they'll change. Uh-huh.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Smoking's bad, umkay!
- JB
I became a Linux convert the day that NT crashed five times on me.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I believe (AFAIK) that the government is not allowed to use MS OSes anyways. Something to do with security and POSIX compliance I believe. Yet, wouldn't you know it, government agencies still go against the law handed down to them and buy Microsoft.
If that ain't a monopoly, I don't know what is. When the government feels there is nowhere to turn, and breaks its own laws because they believe nothing else exists in the market, THAT is truly a monopoly.
But hey, who cares. Regardless of the ruling, the trial has done more for the technology world than anything else in the past 10 years. Notice that since the trial began, all sorts of technology has been booming? Wonder what would have happened to all this cool tech if MS had not been hindered by a trial...
Take a guess. It's an easy question.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Let's all hope you're right.... I sure do!
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
Yes, I know how OSS works - I'm trying to illustrate that know-nothing men in suits can damage pretty much ANYTHING if they put their minds to it. What if a "freedom tax" forced Linux users to pay a penalty for using it? What if Gnome got classed as a public utility and was "for its own good" taken into the hands of a government committee? (If anyone's wondering, each of these things has happened to real products in the past.)
My only message was that governments (and other coercive monopolies) generally do a lot more harm than good. If you look to them for help today, don't be surprised when they start taking away your freedoms tomorrow.
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
I'm as happy as most Slashdotters at the thought that Microsoft might get slapped on the wrist, but contain your enthusiasm, guys - years down the road, you could be next.
Imagine it's 2008 and everyone uses Linux, which is free (as in beer). Imagine some entrepreneur raising a case that this "predatory pricing" prevents him developing a new OS and narrows consumer choice. Some bureaucrat might just go for it... and once again we'd have know-nothing governmental noses in our world.
I'm no coder, just an end-user who's switching to Linux because I finally got tired of the proprietary brittleness of Microsoft's stuff. (With a lot of pain, of course, but with gain too.) Government action against Microsoft isn't the answer to anything. The answer is to LET the Microsofts make their billions - let them become fat, stodgy and arrogant. Because this sows the seeds of their own destruction. Resulting in their ideal target buyers, guys like me, becoming dissatisfied and escaping when smarter, more creative people build something like Linux. And the Microsofts start to die.
In a webbed world, top-down government is unnecessary, and relying on it to "solve" our problems just perpetuates this outmoded system known as politics. Let's hope it's not many more years before the mass of people realise this, and strip back governments worldwide into the minimal scraps of social plumbing they should be.
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
iToaster
cpeterso
That's an analogy for something, but I forgot what it is...
After seeing a "government wastes money on MS products" article on Linux Today a few days back, I'm starting to think that the single most effective and least disruptive remedy would be to simply forbid purchase or use of any MS product by any government agency.
That would be a huge "fine" on MS in terms of lost revenue, and a way of paying back the public by means of more cost-effective use of your tax money, and -- most important -- it would virtually break up their monopoly, since no one could any longer assume that "If I use the MS embraced/extended standards, I'll be compatible with everyone who matters."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I have to address one of your statements:
.... They have not been prevented from doing so."
"How has this been violated? Anyone who wants to is free to download Netscape
Netscape, I must point out, no longer exists. It is now a subsidiary of AOL. *That* is the point. Microsoft's business practices wrt web browsers made their competitor go under, in effect making themselves a monopoly in this market. To do this, they used their OS monopoly, and "forced" their way into the browser market. That is what the trial is all about.
Here's my guess:
Microsoft will be found absolutely guilty on all counts.
However, since their business and product is seen as very important to the world economy, their penalty will be a trivial slap on the wrist (a fine that to Bill Gates would look like a couple of bucks to someone like me), and an admonishment to clean up their act, which, of course, they will ignore.
However, Microsoft's days as an all-encompassing software monopoly are numbered, and this trial is only one small part of the reason why.
I believe that the average computer literacy of the general populous of the world has finally reached a level where Microsoft can't just bullshit people with any lie they care to spread anymore. The trial has laid bare some of the ugliness within Microsoft, so it has contributed to their demise.
However, general enlightenment of the masses is a more important factor. With the instantaneous conveying of information made possible by the internet, Microsoft's heretofore most powerful weapon, FUD, is severely diluted. With the 'net, as fast as they can dish out the FUD, enlightened people can refute it.
In addition, the 'net, for the most part, has clued in a lot of "Joe and Jane Average's" to the fact that Microsoft DID NOT invent the computer operating system. In fact, they've rarely done anything but sloppily copy something invented (and done better) by someone else and then slickly marketed what they copied.
Through the enlightenment of the computer using public, Microsoft's days as an overwhelming monopoly are truly numbered. Oh, they'll be serious contenders for many years, but with maybe 75% of the OS market, not 99.9%.
The trial is only one small part of the crumbling of the dynasty, nothing levels the playing field like enlightened consumers.
Gratuitous if obscure B-5 Reference noted. . .
7) You will cooperate with the state with the good of the state and for your own survival. Cooperation will be rewarded. Insubordination will be punished. You will be released into society after confessing your crimes. Do you have any heart conditions I should be aware of?
Hmm. . . then who's the Drazi stooge ???
Still, I'm surprised that Windoze doesn't have the motto of "What do you want today ???
...n separate companies, all with access to the Windows source code. There would then be n companies competing in the Windows OS market.
I don't know how/if this would work. I have no clue about businesses, economics etc, I'm just a software engineer. It's an idea I read somewhere, and I thought it sounded interesting.
Well, Microworkz, as a result of this trial, has appeared on the low end market selling competitors to Microsoft, and Microsoft can't do much of anything to stop it. The reasons are the same that IBM faced when it lost it's computer monopoly. Soon, it won't just be the wealthy who can put together enough money for a computer, we will be seeing them sold for $300 and $200 dollars.
Bullocks, you say. No bullocks. Since Microsoft can no longer enforce its monopoly through dirty tactics, as that would cause it too much grief at the trial, new competitors, like Linux, BeOS, and the hardware manufacturers who sell them have all benefitted. It's surprising Apple hasn't regained more market share than what it did with the imac.
What makes this possible? Well, the simple answer is the two biggest bullies, the Government and Microsoft, are duelling, and doing it on the Governements terf. I'm not predicting a first round knock-out, in fact, no knock-out at all. But while Microsoft's legal (bully) department is locked up in the trial, that's less time to make mayhem for the competitors. That they bribed Richard Shmaleese with $200,000 and forged tapes, and even continued some "questionable" tactics while the trial was going on, all hurt the case. Microsoft doesn't want to lose the case, but it also can't win it unless they stop bullying people around, thus losing market share. The biggest effect of the trial, in America's messed-up justice system, is the fear of losing everything t o sustain the trial itself.
Also, since Microsoft's pathetic Operating Systems took up WAYYY too much CPU for what it did (which was always Window's biggest disadvantage) better OS systems like Linux and BeOS can easily make affordable boxes for the rest of us. And without having to pay an arm and a leg to get it.
-Ben
> The interpretations change with every judge and every prosecutor, because there is no rational basis for deciding what is and is not a crime.
That's right. Let's create a formal language based on algebra to formalize the law.
Example:
foreach c1: company ( ((exists c2: company) and (exists p1, p2: product) and (makes(c1, p1)) and (makes(c2,p2)) and (kind_of_product(p1) = kind_of_product(c2)) and (exists p3: product) and (makes(c1,p3)) and (integrates_into(c3, c1)) and (date_of_release(c2) date_of_integration(c1,c3)) and dominates_market_segment(c3,market_segment(c2))) implies must_be_punished(c1) )
Is this formal enougth?
Please, any TEX fan?
> The interpretations change with every judge and every prosecutor, because there is no rational basis for deciding what is and is not a crime.
That's right. Let's create a formal language based on algebra to formalize the law!
(this time rigth)
Example:
foreach c1: company ( ((exists c2: company) and (exists p1, p2: product) and (makes(c1, p1)) and (makes(c2,p2)) and (kind_of_product(p1) = kind_of_product(p2)) and (exists p3: product) and (makes(c1,p3)) and (integrates_into(c3, c1)) and (date_of_release(c2) date_of_integration(c1,c3)) and dominates_market_segment(c3,market_segment(c2))) implies must_be_punished(c1) )
Is this formal enougth?
Please, any TEX fan?
Anarcho-Capitalist
Only in a world where people give away something that has created its largest fortune does such a concept make sense.
"Contradiction? Me? Nooooo."
+&x
Hey, maybe if you took the time to register and made some decent posts, YOU could be a moderator. But you hide behind the AC wall and therefore your opinion matters not.
And it wasn't flamebait, I think they'll get a slap on the wrist (albeit a hard one), but not for four years, at which point in time the question will be moot. Why? B/c the next gen. of children know computers and can learn a real OS (like I'm doing right now) as the ultimate form of corporate rebellion. Blah, blah, blah, it's Friday.
+&x
No, I think Microsoft has actually been using it's monopoly in a predatory way against it's competition. There is nothing wrong with the government moderating this. This is one of the few exceptions to the rule where the government should meddle in the business of others. Don't get me wrong, I don't think what Microsoft has done in the past is "wrong". The end justifies the means to them, and they think they are saving the world of computing. They are computing zealots... but they are hindering change and the evolution of computing which to me is the most important thing.
>There is no such thing anymore as a true
>free market in a successful capitalist
>country. We have a command/control
>economy, just like every other
>successful "free" nation in the
> world.
Isn't this a *teensy* bit of an exaggeration?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well, monopolies per se are not illegal. Microsoft is not in court because it is a monopoly, it is in court because it abused its market power.
Legal: Crushing your competitors and establishing an unassailable strategic position though better products, service, distribution and aggressive pricing (provided you make a profit).
Illegal: Crushing your products by threatening their distribution channels with retribution, effectively "cutting off their air supply.". Using your monopoly position to scare off potential customers with vaporware. Buying the competitors is also a no no.
Really, it's not asking too much, IMO. The law simply requires that you don't do things expressly for the purpose of cutting off your customers' access to competitors; the customers must be free to decide what is the best product for them.
The "free market" is not some kind of a benevolent god put there for our protection; it is simply a computational mechanism for setting prices and distributing resources. Like any other mechanism, it only works when used within certain parameters. That is to say, the market only operates freely when its users are constrained to work within its operating limits (example: forming a cartel damages market operation). Saying DOJ should back off of Microsoft is like some DOS weenie saying that you are limiting his programming freedom by not allowing him to write into another program's address space. Literally, it is true, but nobody with any sense really wants to live in a world like that. A good operating system shoots down proesses that misbehave, for the good of the other processes on the system, and for the ultimate good of the users and programmers of the misbegotten process.
To say that the "free market has a nice way of settling this stuff out" is naive because the "stuff" in question damages the operatoin of the free market.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The OS marketplace is changing rapidly. Computers as we know them will become less important as appliances like iToaster become available. The real future is in embedded systems. MS already grabbed a significant portion of this market from Sun by wooing Xerox (now all Xerox copiers run on NT instead of Solaris). MS will simply take its money and run to new markets: cable, satellite, maybe a TV network or movie studio. Instead of having MS in your face (and on your computer screen) it will be in your copier, set-top box, TV, car, movie theater, telephone, etc., etc., and you won't have any choice because you won't even know it's there. The market is moving so fast that any punishments will only affect dying markets, not new ones.
Sig? I don't need no stinkin' sig!
The OS marketplace is changing rapidly. Computers as we know them will become less important as appliances like iToaster become available. The real future is in embedded systems. MS already grabbed a significant portion of this market from Sun by wooing Xerox (now all Xerox copiers run on NT instead of Solaris). MS will simply take its money and run to new markets: cable, satellite, maybe a TV network or movie studio. Instead of having MS in your face (and on your computer screen) it will be in your copier, set-top box, TV, car, movie theater, telephone, etc., etc., and you won't have any choice because you won't even know it's there. The market is moving so fast that any punishments meted out by the court will only affect dying markets, not new ones.
Sig? I don't need no stinkin' sig!
you'd know they are trying to stop it.
Home-ed isn't sexy enough for FUX.
Here's some freebies:
http://www.educate.co.uk/homeed1.htm
Read it youself to find the rest.
Monopolies use commie take-away-production schemes. That''s why monopolies are bad.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Since when has the average consumer stopped being a moron? Hell, since when has the average human stopped being a moron? People are and forever will be sheep and desperately want someone or something like Micros~1 to show up and tell them that everything will be ok, that they don't have to think for themselves any more. People will always gravitate to people with wealth and power (eg Gates), and people will always root for the dog on top.
The real secret to success is understanding this universal axiom and finding some way to bilk it for what it's worth.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
.. and you knew where to get your OS."
ftp.kernel.org ?
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
TRIAL OF THE CENTURY COMING TO AN END
"Screw You All," Sputters Angry, Defiant Bill Gates
WASHINGTON, DC (AP) - After a flurry of controversy, dismissed jurors, televised fiascos, and general debauchery, the "trial of the century" between Microsoft and the Justice Department appears to be coming to a close. And while it looks as if Microsoft is gearing up to lose this one, nobody is quite sure of the outcome of a trial that has had so many interesting moments.
The biggest wild card in the trial was undoubtedly Ed Muth, the explosive Microsoft expert witness who raised several questions about the software company's predatory business practices. Grilled by government attorney F. Lee Bailey, Fuhrman vowed under oath that he had never used vile and offensive language to refer to Microsoft competitors.
"Have you ever used the phrase 'Macintrash' in the past ten years, Mr. Muth?" asked Bailey dramatically, to which Muth responded "No, I have not." Bailey then asked the question differently: "So if anybody says that you have used the word 'Macintrash', that person would be lying, wouldn't they, Mr. Muth, sir?" Muth affirmed the question with a simple "Yes, that's correct."
However, it was subsequently shown that Muth was lying when the defense played audio tapes of Muth's conversations with screenwriter Laura Hart McKinney. The tapes contained vile and often explicit language, condemning anybody who would dare to attempt competition with Microsoft. "This is a bombshell!" shrieked lead government attorney Joel Cochrane. "The jury must be allowed to hear these tapes!" In the end, Judge Thomas Penfield Ito allowed the jury to hear selected excerpts from the tapes. Muth later plead the fifth and apologized to the public for his comments. "My immature rantings with a screenwriter were never meant to be heard by anybody but the two of us," said Muth ruefully. "And I am ashamed."
But perhaps the most dramatic moment in the trial came when the government had Microsoft chairman Bill Gates attempt to place a piece of shrink wrap that had been found on the grounds of Sun Microsystems on a Windows 98 box. Gates had difficulty wrapping the material around the box, and clearly mouthed to the jurors, "It doesn't fit." Microsoft attorney Bill Neukom triumphantly told the jury that this was evidence of the company's innocence. "If it doesn't fit, the product's shit!" he proclaimed. But the jury appeared to downplay any effect the episode had on the case's outcome. A juror, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Associated Press: "What a ridiculous-looking bowtie that guy has."
The trial was not without its lighthearted moments, however. For a period of three days, surfer dude and Gates house guest Brian "Kato" Kaelin was on the stand, offering testimony on Microsoft's viscious stranglehold over the Solitaire market for personal computers.
Ziff-Davis contributed to this report.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
If the DOJ wins, it sends the clear message the US citizens have no rights, and exist only at the whim of thugs and their sycophants.
Yes, that's correct. If the government is successful in its case against a predatory company that is in obvious violation of existing anti-trust laws, we can expect to see the tanks rolling down Elm Street any day. Better throw down your guns and start waving white hankies!
Give me a break. If Microsoft broke the law, they must be held accountable. You can't picket the courthouse and scream "But I like that chatty paperclip!" and expect to get them off the hook.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Such as that we _want_ Microsoft to start engaging in the sort of healthy competitive practices that encourage excellence, efficiency, and a better product should not be lightly made. I rather prefer the bloated pre-80's IBM of a company Microsoft is today. After all, it's easy to sneak up on a brontosaurus.
-- The Sage does nothing, and nothing is left undone. --Lao Tzu
... by the fact that my parents and I had to purchase a Microsoft OS with our systems, when competing OS's existed (2 pentium laptops, P2, 486 Dx4/100, 486DX33 laptop, 486 DX 33). I was harmed, as was the rest of the industry, by the stifling monopoly effects on innovation. I was harmed by the fact that in order to make money in this industry, I have to develop for an inferior platform.
Fact is, nobody but Microsoft has gained from their monopoly tactics in the last five to ten years.
... of the trial and associated appeals process are huge. Microsoft will be highly unlikely to unleash their anticompetitive tactics while this process continues. IBM, Compaq and other OEMs and M$ "partners" (see "Barbarians led by Bill Gates" about this word) will be allowed to provide their customers with choices so long as M$ is in court.
There have been claims from Microsoft's lawyers on the subject of remedies. They have suggested that no remedies are necessary, because Microsoft has changed its behaviour. What really must be asked in light of this comment is how much can we trust a change of behaviour in the middle of a trial? Do you really believe that if M$ gets off, that it won't go back to its old practices?
Perhaps the best remedy in this case is to continually keep M$ in the courts. They have proven that they can't be trusted while they're not in the courts. They've also shown that they are willing to temporarily adjust their tactics while in trial, so as to look better in the eyes of the court.
So what it all comes down to is this. Take every opportunity while Microsoft is embroiled in this case to promote your choice of operating system. Stand up and publicly support Linux, BeOs, *BSD, whatever. Take advantage of the fact that Microsoft's FUD guns are cooling their heels in court. Read the Linux advoicacy HOWTOs. Use them to support your OS. Do something to attack this unhealthy monopoly.
Firstly, the DOJ case... I believe that Microsoft will lose this. I don't believe, however, that there will be a sufficient remedy applied. As stated in another thread, I believe the best remedy here is a long drawn out trial and appeals process. That said, I believe the damage to MS has been done, and will become evident within the next six months.
The marketplace has been made aware of the myriad options available to them. They've been made aware that they don't _all_ have to use the same OS. Windows 98 was released, buggy as all hell. NT4 SP 4 and 5 have been released, buggy as all hell. Due to code bloat, we have no reason to believe that W2K won't be just as buggy as hell. From the stories I've seen on the W2K release candidates, we're looking at a 60-40 split in backwards compatibility for W2K. Further, we're looking at a W2K release right in the middle of the time when most of the big money is Y2K frozen.
So what's going to happen in the next few months? My suggestion is simple - W2K is released as a buggy pile of $#!+. MS doesn't get the big dollars from Y2K-locked businesses. MS gets desktop customers pissed at them for bugginess. W2K's numbers are disappointing. MS shares drop as shareholders lose confidence and head over to Red Hat, which is increasing in market share. Red Hat's share price climbs, adding attention to Linux, increasing Linux market share.
I've always found _American_ beer to be swill...
... Microsoft hasn't yet legally been found to be a monopoly. That is one of the things that DOJ has to establish (and I believe they will). The other thing DOJ has to establish is that Microsoft used/uses illegal product tying prohibited by the Sherman Act. So no, it's not a question of a bunch of whiners making up rules. It's Microsoft broke preexisting rules. They are finally being taken to task for it.
Habitat for Humanity actually _is_ a single legal incorporated entity...
Naw, just strip them of their fortunes and make 'em work in soup kitchens.
Or, since we should probably distinguish between what the corporation has done and what certain people at the top of the hierarchy of that corporation have done, we could always break apart Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and, oh, say Ed Muth (nice try at the trial, Ed) into several parts. Then, as is happening with AT&T and the "Baby Bells," years later we could see some sort of Frankenstein-like combination of Bill, Steve and Ed come back to terrorize the peasants ...
Uhh, on second thought, let's not do that =)
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
guilty as sin and gets off scott free. actually, i'm kind of bracing myself for this, since i have this weird notion that life should be fair -- something i'm trying desperately to overcome.
what we have here are two opposing forces -- the necessity to ensure freedom & the necessity to protect the innocent. what is the government supposed to do? laws aren't made to limit your actions, they're made to protect others. i don't care if what MS has done kills apple, netscape, AOL, or any of the ISVs that have gone away because of them. if that happens in a vaccum, then fine, i don't care. but it's an issue that's a lot more complex than just a company going about their business. in general, when it comes to computers, you have to treat the general public like they're minors and you have to look out for their best interests because at this point they're not capable of defending themselves -- most aren't even capable of making informed decisions on the matter.
Who on earth would you sue for antitrust? There's no corporation here. There's not even one person at the helm of it all, except for Linus, and he is more a figurehead at this point than anything else. (Not that he doesn't code or anything, but he's hardly the head honcho.) This is the action of a number of hobbyists from all over the world working in their spare time. The government wouldn't stand a chance - they wouldn't even know where to start.
"for even if the government takes great action against Microsoft, what other platforms are out there to run programs? And who would want to run one of them?"
Lets see other OS' other than an GNU OS or BeOS? Lets see, there is: IBM-DOS, PC-DOS, Novell-DOS, Caldera OpenDOS, Sun Solaris 7, Novell Netware, SCO Unix, and OS/2 just to name a few.
There's 8 there plus you add in GNU OS's that comes out to be 12 OS's(That I can think of at the moment) that run on an Intel x86 CPU arch.
To answer your question, "Who would want to run them?" Not to many people, that's why MS is where they are. It's plain and simple, people want an MS OS, if they didn't they could just go choose those other 12 OSes. There's a reason why people choose a MS OS. It's very easy to get rid of MS, just go and have everyone install OS2 on their machine and by-by MS. Just for SOME reason people choose a MS OS over OS2 or any of the other 12 OSes. When there was MS Windows 3.1 and there was OS2 people STILL choose Win.31 over OS2 and OS2 was a surpior OS. If more people would have switched to OS2 maybe MS wouldn't be where it is today.
Just put it this way, You don't like MS? Then go use one of the other 12 OSes and shutup.
--snipped from WSJ---
Part of the reason Microsoft may want to talk settlement again has to do with the way Judge Jackson structured the endgame in the trial: He has said he will issue an initial finding on the facts in the case before a final ruling. If that first ruling finds that Microsoft may lose on key points, as seems increasingly likely, the software giant will have a strong incentive to settle before a final judgement comes.
...
In settlement discussions so far, Microsoft has said it is willing to accept new restrictions on its business practices in order to end the case. But the government has countered that Microsoft must go further and says the evidence of Microsoft's monopoly that has come out in the five month trial demands a sweeping and air tight remedy.
--snip--
Hopefully they'll be much more air tight than the first two attempts.
My god... where do you live? I must ask! Sorry!
Do you honestly think that the average joe will want to use linux vs a flashy os like windows or beos? BeOS will win virtually every battle against linux in the home market and could do serious damage in the business market because it takes virtually no time to train employess how to use it compared to linux. By the way, here is a little news about the iToaster
"Microworkz is shipping a $299 consumer-oriented machine on a slimmed-down piece of hardware called the iToaster, running a customized version of BeOS based on Be's new IPAD (Internet Personal Access Device) strategy. Despite reports to the contrary from MSNBC and CNET, these machines run BeOS only; there isn't a scrap of Linux code inside (at least not for now). Be's Benoit Schillings coded the iToaster interface in just a few weeks, and assured me of the total absence of Linux code in the current iToaster implementation. " from beoscentral.com
---Got Coffee?---
1) Microsoft did, in fact, produce Windows.
2) The Sun rises in the east. Or is that the west? In either case, it makes Java.
3) Bill Gates is a gigantic prick. But hey, so is everyone else in the biz. Go Woz!
4) If you're a high executive at a major corporation, it's a good idea not to write emails with any meaningful content. Ever.
5) OJ did it.
6) Corporate types in the computer biz are like corporate types everywhere else. Cute and cuddly!
7) You will cooperate with the state with the good of the state and for your own survival. Cooperation will be rewarded. Insubordination will be punished. You will be released into society after confessing your crimes. Do you have any heart conditions I should be aware of?
-
I don't think that is the real problem, though. So Microsoft is charging a pittance for their software? Linux is free. The issue is one of control. Prior to the DoJ trial, Microsoft had a fair degree of control over many software and hardware vendors. If Microsoft didn't like you, you were in bad shape; they'd charge more for their products, which you needed to have. They can't get away with that any more by a long shot -- now Compaq can put whatever they want on their desktops. And hardware vendors can package some machines with Windows and some with Linux without fear of retaliation and without having to pay for MSWin licenses for the Linux boxes.
If Microsoft wants to keep charging less and less for its stuff, let it. Because I think it's a pretty sure thing that the Linux community can do a better job producing software that costs little or nothing than any corporate entity ever could.
To look at it another way, there are basically two monopoly-related dangers:
(1) Microsoft will charge little or nothing for software until everyone else is dead and then return to overcharging for it.
(2) Microsoft, being a monopoly, will throw its weight around by threatening to stop providing what only it can or by charging more for it.
The first, I believe, is impossible with Linux and the *BSDs around, since the developers of these _never_ intend to make any money (directly) off of them. Netscape is different -- they did intend to make money but couldn't with MSIE being given away for free.
The second is no longer feasible since anyone Microsoft threatens will just blow the whistle on them.
I have this strange ling-er-ing feeling that only a few things positive will come out of this trial:
1) Willy Gates and the Chambers of Secrets
by J.K. ROLFing
2) Little White OLE
by Janet Fetch
3) DODGE WARS: Episode B2.01
by Terry Brookin
4) Oh, the judges you will know!
by Dr. Sues
5) CERTain Pray
by John Standford
6) We'll Meet Again, DOJ!
by Mary BillGates Clark
7) Harry Potter 2.0 and the Coder is Stoned
by J.K. Rolling
8) The Girl Who Loved Bill Gates
by Stephan King (who uses M$ software to write his books)
9) The Testament
by Bill Gates
10) East of Redmond
David GutterSun
- P e g o With a wealth of knowledge around you, you start to feel like you're in intellectual welf
Sounds like one of the East Asian "Dragon" economies.
9) Remember...
Do not bribe DOJ with "Disney Dollars" and free soda.
> And perhaps most importantly, the trial has educated the public to Microsoft's tactics. The public no longer takes it for granted that Microsoft products are best, or that Microsoft controls the future of computing.
Not necessarily. I've talked with several people who feel the gov't is just bullying a successful company that innovates and is at the forefront of technology.
They also believe that MS controls the future of software (or at least will be dominant). I know this because they were bragging how an internet start-up business signed a contract with MS saying that MS would not do 'another development like this one'. Apparently Joe Sixpack doesn't care about the trial, or the facts it's brought to light.
OK, usually, I hate 'me too' comments, but with all the talk of 'users are getting smarter' and 'people saw the real MS in the trial', I just have to agree with the above poster.
To the optomistic posters: What fantasy realm do you live in with all these sophisicated users? I don't want to be 'elete' here, but it's a fact that most people don't have a clue when it comes to computers.