Slashdot Mirror
Judge Jackson Orders Final MS Case Summaries
Richard Finney writes "The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge Thoms Penfield Jackson has ordered Microsoft and the Department of Justice to present their versions of the 'facts.' This is a step forward to a final verdict: 'GUILTY!' I hope. Yahoo! News has the story here."
Guilty of what? Trying to make money?
Nobody cares about reliability, security, speed, or memory/disk space requirements. What people really want is an animated paperclip on their desktop, an HTML file as their wallpaper, a web browser they can't ever uninstall, and a purple screen of death. Would it make any sense to let people customize the BSOD if they were never going to see it?
Well, well, the old "we owe our jobs to Microsoft" argument. This is such a b******t argument! I don't owe my job to Microsoft; in fact Microsoft has run me out of several businesses. I had a shot at those "millions" but Microsoft's "lowball the competition out of business and then run up the prices tactics when there is no more competition" did me no favors. If Microsoft is so benign, why are they the big sponsors of the H1-B legislation? Microsoft is fundamentally anti-programmer. Screw 'em.
Hey if they broke the law they should be punished. Just like Kevin Mitnick. M$ is not above the law.
War is necrophilia.
Were it not the witnesses who were lying? Did you never, ever lie? I did lie for sure. That happens. Says nothing bad about the law as it is, in my opinion.
It like buggy software. Yes, it does not work.
It is a lie. Yet, we still write it.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
By the terms of the per-processor clause MS would have had a prima facie case against any OEM that did not fork over a license fee for every PC sold, whether it actually had Windows on it or not.
To which second dude replied:
And any PC manufacturer is free to forego selling Windows and thereby avoid this liscence. They can't survive without Windows, you say? Well, that's their choice. If Libux is so great, they can start an all-Linux company, and then they don't have to pay the MS tax.
I'm not sure if what the first guy said was correct or not, but if it was it'd mean that OEMs would have to pay the "MS tax" whether or not they used Windows, without the option of saving cash by using another OS.
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
Man if M$ is so powerful that they can cause a worldwide caos and a global collapse of economies then they have no business claiming they don't have a monopoly. If Bill G. had that much power then I'd be first one in line to put a bullet in his head.
War is necrophilia.
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy Microsoft products
Yes they do. They very fscking do force us. They have OEMs by the balls. Even if you by a Linux system from Dell, you pay for acopy of MS Windows - they charge per CPU. We bought
10 Dells - we paid 1K extra - it was never installed - can you, wise ass, get our money back? Do not think so.
Our group ditched that NT crap and uses Linux and Solaris. Yet, when our company (government) pays for MS Shmoffice or NT Workstation - they force agreement per employee.
You can stuff your bullshit up your ass, Mr. Coward. You LIE.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Don't forget such notable items as:
Xenix(way back when)
WinCE
Windows 3.x (definitely a different beast from Win1-3
Windows for Workgroups
Are we counting WinNT Terminal Server as a different OS? Is the actual kernal different, or are the differences higher level?
Anybody want to draw um a nifty little "MS family tree" to properly identify all these monstrosities?
I think you've set up a...whatsitcalled...a false dichotomy here. Most people would not agree with the statement "Government should regulate (foo)" or the statement "Government should not regulate (foo)" (foo being microsoft, the internet, what have you).
Rather, most people (correct me if I'm wrong) would agree with something like the statement "Government should regulate when it makes sense for it to do so." (which seems rather tautological...oh well). Just because it does not make sense for government to regulate one aspect of technology does not mean that it automatically also does not make sense for the government to regulate some other aspect. Each case must be considered independently. It is not a display of hypocrisy for one to say that government should prosecute Microsoft but not tax the Internet, since other than both being technology-related these two examples of government activity bear very little resemblance to each other.
In regard to this point, it must be stated that empires take a bloody long time to fall naturally. If there's any quicker method to safely get rid of an unpleasant or abusive empire, then it's certainly not a bad idea to use it.
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
You might do well to look at the performance of the government with respect to business matters. Tiem and again they display their ineptitude. They broke up Standard Oil again and again to keep oil prices down. Uh huh. And they broke up AT&T so we could have competition in the phone business. I still can't get any local carrier than Pac Bell.
The "capabilities" you quote are asserted by government, but widely challenged. The government operates on a deficit: illegal for a business to do so. The government has committed acts of malfeasance in management (i.e. SSS) for which executives of private corporations would be jailed.
In a word: YES it is incapable of making any rational judgment about the operation of the software industry.
At last check, Windows was the only OS for which no secondary purchase authorization was required in the FedGov. Level playing field? Hardly.
--- Bill
I would not eat a Microsoft Burger ...afraid of the occassional Blue S*** Of Death.
How about ActiveFurnature? According to the MS Marketdroids, it dynamically adjusts to provide maximum comfort. Sure, some people have complained about beeing strangled by their chairs, but such talk is "anecdotal".
MS Interstate Explorer - i'm imagining a nightmarish little micro-stationwagon that "conveniently" remembers how to drive to your house and unlock your front door - oh look, some script kiddy broke into your kar (by hitting ESC), drove to your house, and cleaned you out. Microsoft will fix that b^H^H^H^H^H^H modify that feature with the next service pack.
Release early, release only crap* is not tolerated in other industries. I don't want to have to deal with it in any software I use. That's why I hate MS (although, IMHO, the current DOJ case is unfounded).
*The actual line is "Release early, release often", but MS's idea of "often" is orders of magnitude slower than our reality.
The government also mandated long ago that public corporations have a responsibility to make a profit, and to plan for their continued profitability. Failure to do so leaves the officers of said corporation liable for charges of mismanagement. Charges which could lead to prison terms for the execs.
Before the gov't freed me from phone company tyranny, I had never experienced the failure of a telephone. No hardware failure. Ever. since then, I have lost count of the telephones I have bought, but I would reckon their half-life at as much as two years.
The government is indeed the only one to rein in a monopolist, but they started twice before, both times with valid cases, and they blew it. Now they have an invalid case, and thousands, if not millions, are cheering them on.
The present case is bogus. The previous cases were real, but were dropped. I will not cheer for a "victory" in a bogus case, as it reduces my own freedom.
--- Bill
Forcing competition out of business by using monopoly position in desktop operating system to subsidize their illegal tactics in gaining new markets: like browsers and office suites.
IMNHO, the government should stay out of the whole mess. The system will self-regulate. Take a look at history. All empires colapse at some point, either because they get to big for those in power to maintain control, or because they are too big and slow to deal with a rapidilly changing situation. This is exactly what will happen to MS.
Why do you think their products suck so much? Is it because their programmers are all idiots? No. It's simply because their leaders (BillG and friends) aren't always in sync with thier developers, testers, etc, etc. Why do you think BillG gave up leadership and went back to help make things better? For this exact reason. But it's probably to late. The empire has already started to crumble and will continue to do so.
Also, Microsoft is faced by small, quick moving enemies on all sides. PalmOS, Linux, network appliances, BeOS, and just a changing landscape in the computer world. They're not quick enough to react to all the threats, and they will fall. We should let it happen and not have the government step into it.
Deepak Saxena
Project Director, Linux Demo Day '99
Deepak Saxena
"Computers are useless, they can only give you answers" - Picasso
Saying that we want the laws of the United States upheld fairly? This does not violate the First Amendment to the Constitution which we hold dear! If you don't like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, then write your Congress man.
Windows bombs out so much because they've spent all that time and money on six(*) separate operating systems instead of starting with a single good design and refining it.
;) It also counts as separate the time, money, and planning they spent on OS/2, of which NT was originally derived -- but much changed. And, the final obvious error I see in this analysis, Win2000 is derived, to a lesser or greater degree, from NT -- but it may be changed enough to qualify in spirit and implementation as a new OS.
They are: (1)DOS, (2)Windows 1-3, (3)Windows 95-98, (4)OS/2, (5)Windows NT, (6)Win2000.
(*)Note that this arbitrarily counts DOS and the original Windows as two operating systems... which is technically incorrect. (Of course, by using a strict definition of operating system one may disqualify DOS, Windows 1-3, and Win95/8 as well.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
-- Maybe Linux would win this challenge, however most companies would probably go with the "reliable" Microsoft. --
What surprises me is that Microsoft software really *isn't* reliable. Like, at all. In our office, the workstations all have NT on them, and what do we do? We all ssh to a Linux box, and have five or six terminals open and work remotely.
Yet we have to have Microsoft compatibility in a BIG way, because that is demanded of us by everyone else, because so many people have no idea how you would live outside of Windoze...
This is where nice-looking front-ends come in: much as I really, really despise Gnome and KDE (I am a cut-down wm, usually fvwm, person myself) they look *reassuring* to exactly the kind of people that wouldn't think, oh, I should really be using Linux. If a window manager looks like Win95, then, much as hardcore people (like meself) scream and rant, it's not us it's aimed at.
Horses for courses. (TM)
Well tell me then, why giving 30,000+ people their livelyhood, making a quarter of them millionaries is bad?
I don't care how many people BG employs. He imposes an involuntary tax from a far greater number. Are you offering the extreme wealth of Microsoft as proof that they are not evil? Hey, I got some tobacco stocks for you man.
You bash for bashing's sake
You honestly don't have a clue why people dislike Microsoft? Honestly?
Let me paraphrase your post:
Finally, you say
Tell me how many mouth had the open source community feed?
Well, there are a lot of people saving money by not using Microsoft. I guess the savings could be converted into foodstuffs, or be spun back into the economy to do useful work. As opposed to fattening some multimillionaires in Redmond.
Well, I'm no expert ... but .... :) IBM and the DOJ esentially fought eachother to a stale mate. But the objective was still accomplished, and the IBM business computing monopoly was broken. IBM was bundling application software with their hardware .. total solutions. Independent software developers were pretty much locked out of the market. The alligation was that IBM had a hardware monopoly, and were extending it into a software monoloy. The result of the trial and pr (not the final decision), was that and independent software industry started to thrive. This independent software expertese also help fuel the mini computer industry (DEC, Wang, Bourghors, and others). And IBM no longer had a monopoly .. in anything. It has been frequently reported about the lawyers monitoring the day to day business decision making at IBM during the case, making it near impossible to get things accomplished. This is really the core of the stealth strategy here. The case stimulates the presence of lawyers in the target system. Then, naturally, it self destructs.
I thought we had a character limit on how long comments could be? Oh wait, it's in preferences and mine's set at 4096. Well, that's going to change real quick...
They are so blatantly guilty to just about anyone without a vested interest.
Maybe some of us are still unconvinced of their bad nature. I remember my turning point: several years ago Microsoft tried to buy out Quicken because Microsoft Money was not good enough. When asked by a reporter how badly this would damage competition, Bill Gates claimed, that on the contrary, it would improve competition. Up until that time I was a Microsoft customer, but I was shocked that such a powerful authority as Gates would tell such an arrogant lie and expect people to believe it. It was a frightening moment, because you know that most everyone would believe this, since they are computer illiterate.
From that point on, I vowed to boycott and oppose them. Certainly everything about them since that time has only confirmed my decision.
I hope that the DOJ extracts the maximum penalty from them.
Corporations do not have to become governments in order to have that power. In addition to the intellectual property arguments made by other responses to this comment, corporations write laws and pay congresspeople to pass them every single day in the USA. Beyond the obvious things like writing laws and donating to candidate's coffers if they "support" corporate causes, companies mire up the enforcment of laws they don't like in the courts, they get around fines (especially within the EPA) by stalling and "negotiating" with the government. William Greider has written extensively on this topic, I suggest you check him out. I recommend 'Who Will Tell The People' for a good intro to his work.
I agree that they should be prosecuted, and that there are reasons for which they should be sanctioned. Unfortunately, the present case is not one of them.
If the DOJ could get their act together, there are plenty of things for which I would cheer them on. This just doesn't happen to be among them.
When the government designes our computers, I well revert to a note pad and pencil.
--- Bill
Of course, a verdict is nowhere from the end. This'll drag through the appellate courts for another couple of years.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
...but I remember when CNN announced that a verdict was expected to be announced the next day.... that was a month ago. They retracted that comment about 2 and half hours later, I believe. ;)
But Microsoft said it will argue it doesn't charge prices as high as a monopolist would, and its massive spneding on research and development of new software ``makes no sense if Microsoft had durable monopoly power,'' the lawyer said.
If they spend so much money, why does Windows bomb out all the time?
Then again I am, unlike Jon Katz, a libertarian. Those who support a more activist government may likely disagree.
-- $SIGNATURE
I really don't see your logic there... Before the DOJ, the typical thing you would hear from a hardware vendor asked to sell you machines with Linux/FreeBSD/BeOS/Whatever insted of Windows was that they were afraid of what M$ would do to them. Do you really think this has not provided "air cover"? You've got to be joking.
Even if Microsoft eventually wins, years from now as long as they are under pressure from the government it allows the OEM's to have a little freedom and offer other operating systems with 'less' fear of Microsoft retaliation.
I am sure all this news frenzy around Linux and Open Source would not have been as intense had MS been able to FUD back even harder that it is.
You would not have seen all the investment by OEM's and others in Redhat.
You probably would only have seen Corel's support and Microsoft would have found a way to put the nail in the Corel's coffin. Now they are restrained from banging nails into coffins and if it drags on and on it will become a moot point if Microsoft wins or loses.
Ken Broadfoot
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
May go through the appellate courts, but all those unvested programmers are not going to be happy if MS loses, and the stock price drops.
In addtion, the Fed Gov could stop purchasing MS products, or make it extreamly difficult and time consuming (why do yo need this, how come, is there a different solution, we will get back to after we get through with the 6 month backlog).
And if this comes out at the same time as Win 00, and win 00 has problems, then short MS stock.
Yeah, it also precudes them from dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, making fraudulent claims, and hosts of other things that would enhance their profitiability.... What's your point?
My point is that the management of public safety is an altogether different matter, as is fraud.
Deciding what features may or may not be included in any software product (whether an OS or an app) is not the rightful domain of the government.
Throughout the history of this country, competitors have driven one another out of business. It's intrinsic in the capitalist model, and no company has the "right" to be in business.
Staying in business depends (or should depend) on delivering a needed product at an attractive price, with an acceptable level of quality.
If BeOS thrives, and Windows dies, so be it. But let it be determined by consumers, not by bureaucrats. And if it swings the other way, likewise, let it be determined by the market.
We who live in the world of small business live by our wits and skills. Let M$ and Netscape do the same. Without the "benefit" of unjustified government intervention.
--- Bill
Re: MS regulation and destruction of consumer choice. You just don't care, do you? Under the per-processor license clause, MS sought to make Uncle Sam, the enforcer of contracts, a complicit party in their exclusionary scam. These contracts frequently included minimum buyins that exceeded what could sold throughout the term of a multiyear contract. Some minimum. The overage would be rolled over into a new contract, with another exorbitant minimum! Who's harassing whom ? The judgement against the exclusionary per-processor clause only apliwed to WIndows95 and did not apply to NT since that is a product in a category where MS had no monopoly. So this is horrible, overreaching and intrusive antitrust law? Seems downright thoughtful to me.
Can you see the absurdity of statements that include can't survive without Windows and that's their choice? Here on my planet we call that no choice and sometimes extortion. My friend who runs the corner bodega can't survive economically (or otherwise) unless he pays protection money. But that's his choice, right? He should pay the money and if the police ever ask him he should shut up about it. Right? By your principle, the cops would come collect the money from him on behalf of the local gang. The meaning of inalienable as in inalienable rights means not only that these rights cannot be taken away, except by the State and then only through due process, but also that they cannot be given away... to anyone. You can't choose unfreedom, that's a given. Never underestimate the importance of this meddlesome restriction in the preservation of liberty.
What better way for America to emerge from the "Second Guilded Age" than for a return to to progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt. America needs protection from Robber Barons like Hearst, Pew , Rockefeller and now Gates. Too much monopoly power hinders the free markets, stifles competition and hurts consumers. It's time to either break Microsoft up or restrain their illegal actions. It's time to resurect competition for the business and home desktops.
The company apparently hopes to capitalize on a potentially embarrassing slip by government witness Franklin Fisher, an economist. Fisher told Justice lawyer David Boies in January that Microsoft's behavior ``on balance'' hasn't harmed consumers ``up to this point.''
Whoops. But when you really get down to it, I don't think it has hurt home consumers to an extent that the company should be [disbanded|split up|fined|whatever]. It's impact on business, security, and so on is another matter. I think it is in no way clear cut that the DOJ will win, and ALSO it is in no way clear cut that the DOJ should win.
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
'blue' screen can pop up for other low level errors, such as a disk missing. it's common for one to show up if the OS still exspects a CD or zip disk. you can just hit escape and clear it
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
In this case, the prosecution can point to the facts and ask for punishment relying on a strictly legal reason (violation of the rights of MS victims, be they corporations or not) and also a utilitarian, economic reason (several MS actions sought to prop up and extend their monopoly by taking away economic choice from consumers), and also on a prudent, valid political reason: allowing MS to behave in this way is bad policy --they have entered into legally binding settlements with the Federal Judiciary rather than face trial and sentencing, and deliberately chosen to abrogate these solemn agreements later on. The first two are the standard arguments that apply, but this last will not be overlooked, either, I'm afraid! And it should not be.
You bring up a good point. It takes time for an OS to mature. It takes time to ferret out all of the bugs and to find all of the design flaws. Unfortunatly the bar has been lowered and the general public has grown to accept an OS that pretty much works, instead of demanding a product that is rock solid. So why should MS care about really getting it right when own the market with %80 right? I have no doubt that MS could get it right if they wanted to. Unfortunatly they are driven by revenue and not by quality so the need to pump out new products overides the need for quality.
I always wondered why MS built NT with any backwards compatability. This was there chance to do it the right way and they started out behind the eight ball from the start.
MS can't even get the bug fixes right. At me company we are afraid to install the latest SP for NT becasue everytime we install one it fixes a few bugs but breaks some things that were working just fine. Why would you want to introduce new *features* in a bug fix. Why do they have to make things that should be simple such a pain in the ass.
I'm not sure that even if they loose the case against the DOJ that it will make any difference. I really have a hard time believing that the judicial system knows what to do.
Just remember. Anytime you say, "The government needs to stop Microsoft" Replace the word Microsoft with your company name. The U.S. government NEVER stops where it should. It always goes ten steps beyond. Less government is always better.
I think IE5 is the better browser than Netscape 4.6. It renders pages faster, seems to load faster, and just generally feels slicker. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who has used Linux for 4 years. Netscape feels clunky with its slow bug ridden Motif based code. Maybe Mozilla will change all this. But so far I'm not impressed. Only time will tell.
geez. that was a perfectly legitimate comment. quit being so stupid!
To play devil advocate. What about the spin off effects from MS? They are more than just 30K. I would say an entire industry with billions of dollars. The MS empire is absolutely gigantic. This will ensure them regardless of what verdict comes in the future that they will continue to live for at least another 20 years.
usually, the ignorant ms supporters post one of two things:
a) how can a company be so bad if it makes so many
people rich?
So, rich people are inherently good, and
poor people are bad. obviously, this is
false. Many rich corporations break the
law and must be taken to court, convicted
if guilty, and punished appropriately.
Rich corporations are no different than
rich people, the law is the law, it's just
that the rich entity has a better legal
team.
2) I don't like MS, but I'm not really sure they
broke the law.
You also don't know your history. M$
settled out of court with Stac and
Borland, once it the outcome of the trial
was clear.
With Borland, they violated several
corporate raiding laws when they targeted
their upper level coding staff.
With Stac, they signed an agreement to
ship Stacker with DOS 6, and obtained the
code to Stacker. They then violated the
agreement by shipping doublespace instead.
Oh yeah, they copied parts of Stacker into
the code. MS was going to lose, and
settled.
There are other horrid things they've done, with IBM, Apple, etc. but a lot of that was merely unethical or misleading, not criminal. M$ never had an interest in the net until netscape took off, then they ramped up and killed them.
Obviously, their latest tactic is the free pc/telecom investment strategy, designed to kill the little ISP's. Yes, I dislike AOL too.
IE 3 was pretty bad, it didn't support tables, witch really sucked, I don't think anyone really used it. 4.0 was better then anything netscape as ever done, period. infact I only upgraded to 5.0 about a week ago. (I don't notice much of a diffrence between 4 and five, exsept for offline browsing).
The only reason IE is ahead is beacuse of AOL, if they swaped IE for netscape, netscape would have over 50% of the market share.
I still use both IE and netscape (4.0 and 5 as well as netsape 4.06, I hear netscape 4.6 really sucks)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Or taxed or regulated someone? They never have. They're not a government. Not even close.
why do you think it's called the windows tax? compaq pays them $700,000,000 a year, probably more then they do the government...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Sierra Leone is a small contry in africa, founded in the 1800' by freed slaves from the United States.
it currently has no working government, a while ago, a general's army stormed the main city freetown, and took over. there leader was killed, now tenagers, usualy high on holucenogenics run rampant. they routenly kill and mutilate people
it's not a happy place, but it is an example of what can happen when the most powerfull get to rule
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
In an exclusive interview with The New Yorker's Ken Auletta, Gates said, "We've always wanted to settle this thing.
...
...
But, Gates added, the settlement had to be of a type that would allow Microsoft to continue to be an innovative technology leader.
...
http://www.nypostonline.com/business/ 1406.htm
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Man.. that's too man damn cool.. ROTFL.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Except the fact that no-one else is offering to open a nation wide television station and if they did ABC/NBC/CBS couldn't give a hoot.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I know I'm late into the post so I'll keep it short. This is an issue of IP rights. Microsoft has manipulated a generally BAD system into millions of dollars but done nothing legally wrong. IP laws used to be solely about copyright. An artist's right to control the distribution of their creation. This stemmed mainly from the beleif that all people are not creative. That there are a talented few who have a right to control how we appreciate them. I debate this (as any good anarchist will) but that's not what I'm here to say. Copyright was introduced because of its economic benifits. That is: It supplies the creator with food and a monopoly. The monopoly part is what the founders of Copyright law had in mind. In a monopoly economy you try to sell to everyone. You set your price high and sell to those who beleive it is worth that much until they stop buying. Then you lower your price and sell to the next consumer bracket. Eventually you get down to the people who will pay very little for it and finally you give it away (like putting it in a library). The result is that everyone gets a look at your latest creation and you can move on to creating new stuff. It gives you the incentive and the public gets the benefit of your artistic creation.
It doesn't work. It used to work, with books, but some funny fellow came to the conclusion that computer programs are art. A lot of us coders would agree.. our code does have some artistic merit, but the appreciation of that art is at the sourcecode level. To compile it is to destroy that art. Maybe the user interface has some sort of artistic quality to it.. but no-one seems to mind if you copy the look and feel of an application. It's difficult to classify Windows 98 as art.
So what is copyright now? It's a monopoly without a social good. The "artists" it "feeds" have more than anyone else on the planet and not everyone can get ahold of it. In fact, most of the time, no-one can. As more and more things become covered under copyright (genetically engineered food is copyright.. that's right.. it's illegal to grow certain hydroponic tomatoes that you get from the store) we may see this pattern more and more.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The national broadcast media (abc, nbc, cbs) need to be trust-busted... nowhere is that in the public debate. These guys are owned by huge corporations that have stakes in subverting democracy and exploiting this country. You guys talk about small beans like MS while the people that tell you what to think go unpunished. What a bunch tools you all are.
...is a way to limit the number of lines (like counting the <br> tags)...
-ElJefe
Note that "biggest competition" doesn't mean that more than a handful of people used it. (It was also the only competition, AFAIK.)
Regards,
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Go astroturf for microsoft somewhere else ,slimeball
I expect appeals, etc. to drag on for years. That's OK--the main thing is, the DOJ is now providing "air cover" for competition, Linux included. Assuming Microsoft is found guilty, they will be like the prisoner on probation..."yes, Bill, you can continue to run your business, but you'll need to check in every Tuesday, and we'll have to shut you down for 2 days at a time if you violate your parole." Windows will have to compete primarily on inertia (people don't like to change) and its own merits (ouch). That's all Linux needs to bust out of the established beachhead and start rolling back the MS Empire :)
Unfortunately for IBM, what they didn't know was that Microsoft was working *heavily* on Windows in the meantime, and was using OS/2 as a decoy, to throw everyone off, so that they could use their preload power to dominate the OS *and* applications markets.
Some more OS/2 info (subject to the limitations of my memory): OS/2 1.0 was CLI-only, and was released in 1987. OS/2 1.x, released in 1989(?), introduced the Presentation Manager GUI, which was similar to the Windows 3.x interface. Early versions of OS/2 had a 16-bit architecture, and were released in two versions: one specifically for PS/2-based machines, and one for standard PC-compatibles.
OS/2 2.0, introduced in 1992, was partially 32-bit, and was the first IBM-only release of OS/2. It introduced the Workplace Shell, the object-oriented GUI you often hear old OS/2 users (like me) rave about. It also introduced the Win-OS/2 subsystem, which allowed the use of 16-bit Windows programs under OS/2.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
A friend of mine spent several thousand dollars for the Microsoft OS/2 2.X Software Development Kit. Shortly thereafter they ditched their plans to release Microsoft OS/2 2.X. They also kept the money from the sale of the SDKs.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
"...that the government will stop wasting all this time and tax money by making a mess."
The person recieving the money doesn't consider it wasted.
Allow me to embelish(sp) my last post... Try to think of money as water. It is not being "wasted". It is being circulated. Nothing is created, nothing detroyed(not really true with money, but bear with me). The problem is that it is not being circulated through your (or my) hands. If I left the faucet running, people would say "You're wasting water!". How??? where did it come from? where's it going? You could say I'm wasting the petrol being used to move the water, but the water supply has remained virtually the same for 4.5 billion years. In this court case and many others, I think someone just left the faucet running. The taxpayer perhaps??
-I don't do coke for the high, I just like the way it smells
Microsoft (god, is that freudian, or what) is not a gov't protected monopoly. (unlike the railroads, oil companies, phone company, etc.) Nobody forces us to buy it. They can predate(prey?) all they want. I can use something else. I do use windows. I like the pretty colors. I use linux(I pronounce it LIE-nix, like linus and lucy (van pelt)) also. And I'm learning how to make pretty colors with it, too. I'm thinking of putting 3.1 on my p133 just to watch it boot real fast. I bet it would be real cool at 600mz.
What??? and cut off all those lawyers from the bottomless money pit??
"Do unto others what has been done to you"
No no no...it's "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you"
You already have such a system...it's called capitalism. Vote with your dollars, not with the barrel of a gun.
They pobably won't have to be involved.
Any ordinary fad in the computer industry would have subsided by now, but Linux isn't an ordinary fad -- it just keeps rolling along. Last year everyone went wild when Oracle, Informix, Sybase, and IBM announced ports of their relational database systems to Linux. This was big news, and it got a lot of coverage in the mainstream computer press. This is when all the PHBs started hearing about Linux.
Now almost a year later, we have Intel, HP, and SGI working on getting a 64-bit version of Linux running on the Merced processor. It wouldn't suprise me to see IBM eventually throw in the towel on their Monterey project and use Linux instead. Meanwhile, back at Redmond, MS is still struggling to bring their next 32-bit version of Windows to market.
That's on the commercial side of things. Upcoming products from Corel, Amiga, and Loki will probably go a long way toward erroding Window's share of the home market as well.
So even if the government does find MS guilty, it really won't matter. By the time they decide what to do about it, MS will just be a shadow of it's former self. Last year this would have seemed an overly optimistic view by a /. poster, but now even the mainstream media is beinging to entertain the possibility.
TedC
From what I read months ago, Jackson can bring this right to the US Supreme Court and bypass Micros~1 from bringing it to the Appellate Courts. Jackson was burned a couple of times when Micros~1 questioned Jacksons judgements through appeals. The Supreme Court can decide not to rule and assign it to an Appellate Court if they wish. This is what I've read and I am NOT a lawyer or even close. Thank goodness. In a nutshell, the case could end pretty quick should the Supreme courts get the case and decide to hear the case.
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Doah! :)
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
On the "..gonna cut off their air supply.." quote:
Maritz denied making the comment, and on Sunday, The New Yorker reported, in its edition on newsstands Monday, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates' reaction to the alleged quotation:
``A great lie! An unbelievable lie. Did anyone utter those words? Our e-mail, every piece of it, has been searched.
I clearly remember sitting in a company meeting around the IE 2.0 days where either Ballmer or Gates himself spoke those very words. The crowd went nuts - "We're gonna KILL Netscape!!"
It's sad really - few of the Microsoft apologists remember moments like these... Of course, I was never called to testify. Nor were any of the other ~500 folks there, to my knowledge...
- AC for a reason.
I'm adamant about government by government, as opposed to government by large powerful companies and dictators
What's that supposed to mean? Are you seriously saying that Macrosoft is on the verge of becoming a government? That your freedoms are in jeopardy because they make crappy products and use aggressive tactics to market those products? When's the last time Microsoft arresyed someone? Or taxed or regulated someone? They never have. They're not a government. Not even close.
A government by definition is an agency with the power to force people to obey its edicts. If you break the law, men with guns come to your house and arrest you. That's what governments do. Private corporations cannot do that.
So unless you can point to examples of Microsoft arresting Mac users or Linux users, or throwing people in jail or otherwise behaving like a government, stop making overreaching and innacrurate generalizations. No matter what Microsoft does, it will never be anywhere near as threatening to our freedoms as the government.
Over the past year Microsoft has reorganized their divisions into 3 separate groups. When I saw the reorg announcement it seemed clear to me that they were preparing for a split up as the divisional lines were right where I saw separate companies existing. However, I suspect that the split up will be voluntary. The company will divide on their own terms. After the announcement of the split, the DOJ will be somewhat at a loss as to how to proceed next and the lawsuit will be dropped. I'm sure the DOJ will declare victory, as will the Linux community. Split into smaller companies, Microsoft will actually be in a stronger position than they are today. Able to concentrate and focus their energies on the different markets, instead of the haphazard approach they've been doing. As long as Gates holds majority shares in the smaller companies, he's not going to care if they are separate companies on paper. Ahh, we'll see...
Gee, just like the Amiga.
The distraction idea is interesting, but let's be clear: Commerce saying "no" allowed the competition. Thus, it in spite of Gates.
I'm sure I.G. Farben also employed huge numbers of people and made many people rich. That doesn't change the fact that it was a morally degenerate and evil cartel.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
It's the conditions that made their monopoly possible. Right now there's a slavering pack of Ellisons, McNealey's, Jobses, and the like who would love nothing more than being the next Bill Gates. If we remove Bill's mponopoly without preventing another just like his, the whole point of antitrust is lost.
Please, don't babble about Linux rolling back the Microsoft monopoly. I would rather hope there will be an open world of open standards for comm protocols, APIs, and the digital infrastructure. Allow any and al OSes to compete on their own merits in this world of open interfaces. In that case it would matter not: Linux, *BSD, BeOS, GNU/Hurd, whatever you choose.
If choice wins we all win. If another product becomes a dominant and exclusive standard, then it's all pointless and why even bother.
-M
No, every companies goal is not to "eliminate the competition!" In a healthy market, a company would try to capture a percentage of a market.
Monopolies don't do anybody any good, except for the monopolizer, unless you figure in karma of course.
domc
The IBM antitrust investigation dragged on for years. During those years, IBM became very careful due to the level of Government scrutiny. In effect, they behaved because they were watched. By time the DoJ called off its dogs, it was al moot anyway.
It's obvious from several posts here that some wish the same basic result result. I can't entirely disagree.
-M
Time to short MS stock yet? Maybe that E*Trade
account will be good for something after all.
The problem I see with MS Windows' presence is that it's the only way to execute Win32 apps, and that falls back to Microsoft's presence: Without Microsoft Windows, you WILL NOT be able to run the most popular applications sold on the market. That is a monopoly.
Essentially, I'd like to see the judge force Microsoft to release the Win32 API (source code and all) for free to the general public. No, I don't want to see Microsoft have to release the source code for ALL of Windows, just the API. The developing public could port Win32 to other platforms. This would cause Windows to become a simple "front-end" for the API -- which would have to compete with all the other front-ends (window-managers / windowing systems?) that would pop up..
And then -- Hey look! Microsoft has to compete! Isn't that what we want MS to do, compete? (But knowing them, they might find a way around that as well..)
They've already got 90% of the desktop, and most likely can't pull the 10% their way; Instead, they advertize to KEEP theiy monopoly
This is true - psychologiest have pointed out that seeing an ad for a product you have already purchased validates and reinforces that decision, helps keeps people loyal to the brand and from jumping ship. People also put up with a certain amount of defects, hide and cover them up as they wouldn't want to admit that the purchasing decision was a mistake - "I decided to go with Microsoft® products because they're a great value proposition [opps, ignore that error message]", and they start using political dodge's like blaming crashes in the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on lightning, static, hackers, etc.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Dell chose to accept those terms from Microsoft. Your company chose to accept them from Dell. You keep choosing to work for your company. Your fate is, and always has been, in your own hands. No force is being used.
Q.E.D.
Did you even read my post?
-- an Ayn-onymous Coward
Just pointing that out.
Move along, nothing more to see here.
I think reaction to Microsoft is in part responsible for the current influnce of the Open Source movement (of course, we should all remember that VisiCalc, which made PCs useful for many business applications, was open source. I don't know if we'd be where we are today without VisiCalc, and jump starting an entire industry sure "fed a lot of mouths.") Why? Well, in my case I resent having to use Microsoft products! I preferred the idea that there was a company that did one thing (like Netscape, when they were an independant company, or Wordperfect) but did it well as opposed to one massive polyglot monster that does many things to the absolute minimum level of adequacy possible. (I also don't care for Windows, but that's beside the point.) The other thing about Open Source is that to learn from code you have to be able to see it! If it's kept under wraps you end up creating the same thing over and over and over again.
I think, though, if people hadn't been convinced by Microsofts actions that they were never going to be allowed to make any money using the proprietary model because M$ would either buy them out (not why I want to be in this business, to be a glorified Wallstreet paper pusher) or make an exact dplicate of their product and run them out of business. Microsoft needs to quit whining, they did a bunch of horribly self-absorbed things out of greed (including breaking the law, I believe) and now they are going to suffer for it. I'm sorry that they brought the government into the computer industry (though the government would've come in in other ways and for other reasons, anyway), but they did it by being ruthless and by pushing the law as much as they could get away with.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
For that very reason. Companies are willing to find an alternative if they feel like that are getting gouged unfairly. IE is NOT simply a better browser and more compliant. It is compliant only to Microsuck standards. Netscape and Mozilla are the companies who participated in setting the standards as committee members. Microsoft has chosen to set it's own proprietary standards against the rest of the world. Linux is NOT given away with the expressed purpose of crushing Microsuck. There is no monopolistic company behind Linux that is trying to crush Microsuck and take over market share. Linux is owned by the people through open source and is freely available. The only way Microsoft could model itself this way, would be to release all their product source code as open and unlicensable and fold their company. Yes, I would love to see Microsuck do this. This would be the only way to improve their product.
VisiCalc
Quote: "Yet for all its brilliance and simplicity, the spreadsheet wasn't an idea that Bricklin attempted to own. In fact, he made far less money from the spreadsheet industry than any of those who successfully built on what Bricklin had pioneered."
Gee, it's sure not the M$ model, eh?
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Deciding what features may or may not be included in any software product (whether an OS or an app) is not the rightful domain of the government.
No, it is not their rightful domain. However, they aren't in court to decide what features should be part of a browser or OS. They are in court to determine whether MS integrated their Browser to destroy the market for a competitor. If they can prove that that was the intent behind the integration, then they have a valid case.
Throughout the history of this country, competitors have driven one another out of business. It's intrinsic in the capitalist model, and no company has the "right" to be in business.
Driving another company out of business by creating a better product is one thing. Driving another company out of business by making customers buy the same product as a condition of getting another product is something else altogether. Make no mistake, we pay for IE. It's just another one of those "value added features" that ensures that the price of Windows never falls the way all other prices in the industry do. Our government set up the rules for business. Anti-trust laws were determined to be a necessary part of maintaining a balance between the interests of corporations and the interests of the people who give the corporations their power in the first place.
Staying in business depends (or should depend) on delivering a needed product at an attractive price, with an acceptable level of quality.
Sure, but what if you sold widgets. Everyone wanted to have a widget around the house. Then some huge corp comes along and declares that you must buy their widget if you want to buy their thingamajig, which is virtually a necessity for 90% of the country. Since nobody else is allowed to make thingamajigs, what choice do you have but to buy the widget from them?
People can rationalize what Microsoft has done 'til they're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that they have lied, cheated, and stolen from all of us. These are known facts that many people don't seem to care about. For some reason, companies are thought to be exempt from ethics and, in many cases, the law itself. When will people get tired of companies attempting to deceive them? Btw, the "but everybody does it" argument doesn't work here.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Microsoft has two things going for them that plays a major role if the DoJ wins this case. First, MS has a sizeable cash reserve built upon a large profit margin. Secondly, the valuation of MS stock is the largest in America. Both of these give MS a huge margin to manuever. OTOH, if the general public loses confidence in MS and starts dumping their stock, then this can lead to some interesting things. Obviously, MS would not have as much cash to toss around. Secondly, those MS workers with stock options would not be very happy. In fact, they will be rather pissed offed. If the programmers then start to bail out then this will obviously have an impact on the development and maintenance of their software packages. Finally, BG will be really pissed off and may start to do some strange things. Fortunately, one group of people will benefit from a major ruling against MS. These are the politicians who will see a major increase in campaign donations from those associated with MS. This will lead to more intelligent policy decisions by those in Congress. Of course, if you believe this then I have an old bridge in Arizona to sell you. craw (don't feel like logging in)
What about WinCE? :)
The US tried Libertarianism: you could buy opium and cocaince down at the local store, the borders were open and if you had capital, you could do whatever you wanted. We wound up with Robber Barons, just like Bill Gates, with too much power and a subjigated middel class. If you want Libertarianism, go move to middel of the Amazon jungle, you can do whatever you want to there and the goverment won't interfere with you.
What if they gave an Open Party and nobody came?
Seriously, Linux and other OSS OSes are serious contenders because people care enough to work on them in their own spare time. Would we see the same level of public enthusiasm with an MPL'ed Windows?
Besides, an MPL'ed Windows would ahve all its source goodies hanging out long enough to be photographed and have it's best bits reverse engineered W/O and MS code. BSD is Unix but it's System V free, but it hapened because enough people looked at the AT&T code. Similar developments could happen if the MS cat got out of the MS bag. Maybe they would RE the whole thing, but maybe they would RE enough to turn some heads.
I can't see BG letting that happen unless forced. If forced then they'd have to keep it open. Then there'd be nothing stopping the copyiers and Reverse Engineers. Maybe this would be a good thing?
Just an opinion.
-M
and I am NOT a lawyer or even close. Thank goodness
..her at SlashDot? Law is the most Open Source
industry of them all, including even natural science. Every rule, ruling, piece of evidence is available for your review. You get paid for your commitment to study and work and for your talent. And you get paid a lot for that, not for your posseion of some patented knowledge that you counterpart in court does not have.
That would a good model for the software industry, do not you think?
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
The truth of the matter is that Microsoft does wield its desktop OS monopoly as a means of destroying competition. We all know that.
Now, it's possible that Java or Linux or The Browser Platform will defeat Microsoft despite this. I certainly hope so -- but as a software user, I don't think it'd hurt to have a more level playing field.
--
Your argument is akin to stating that the government shouldn't prevent embezzlement because it has no business in the private contracts of individuals. It's not that the government should be in the product design business. Rather, it's that Microsoft did many many things for the purpose of destroying another company which posed a threat to its monopoly. Some of those things that Microsoft did included product designs. Thus, to lay out its case, the government has to talk about product design. But the government also talked about squeezing OEMs, keeping API's secret, illegal proposals to divide up market segments and a whole bunch more.
1. A typical software license restricts more than copying. There are also restrictions on how it may be used, such as the # of concurrent sessions coming into a server. There may also be restrictions on customizing or modifying the software, benchmarking it, or even reading it (by "decompiling"). Last I heard, the government will enforce a license containing such items. "Law", "license", or "contract", Microsoft is able to decide which actions will or will not get you thrown in jail. The baker who sells me a loaf of bread is not similarly empowered; there's no "per slice" toasting license pack, or restriction on making sandwiches made with that bread.
2. "Just don't use MS products". I don't where I can possibly avoid it. However, I still have plenty to worry about (I'll omit that discussion here; search for 'monopoly' elsewhere).
3. "A can do B" does not equal "only A can do B". I didn't say that _only_ large corporations can have their copyrights protected, though it sometimes happens that way for financial reasons aka the "golden rule".
4. I don't remember saying that licenses were evil, just that their strength originates with the government. As I recall, the original idea of the US patent office was that they'd grant a limited monopoly on an invention in exchange for the public disclosure of that invention. "Intellectual Property" by itself is an oxymoron; it is only through *government* that it acquires any substance. With I.P. laws come antitrust laws, and I don't see why a corporation should be able to pick and choose between them.
5. What's that silliness about RH taking over the world? Of course they can't. How did you deduce that from my posting? The only reason I used the example of Debian was to show that the restrictions on the use of software originate with the author rather than the government, even though the government is the enforcer. Maybe I should have said FreeBSD instead. I'm not saying that we can do without these laws, though that may happen some time in the future.
It's expected that by the time the appeals
are done with, we'll know the fate of MS in
2001. That's *3* years, and in the computing
industry, 3 years is several generations
of product development, and by then, the
whole point of this case "browser integration"
might be well accepted (as it is, there's no
prove yet that the browserOS combo is
viable for users.
IM, as previously taked about here), and
any punishment on MS will be null and void.
Someone else mentioned education and advocacy as
a way to fight the juggernaut. The problem
is, MS has about as much money to send in
those same areas as nearly all competitors
combined. Why does MS continue to publish ads
about Win98 and Office and NT and whatnot?
They've already got 90% of the desktop, and
most likely can't pull the 10% their way;
Instead, they advertize to KEEP theiy monopoly,
mindwashing the users that MS products are superior, and as long as they can put the
money where their mouth is, things like Linux
and MacOS and other programs can only dent the
MS shell, and certainly not breach it.
The US needs a court that would be strictly for
handling monopoly cases like this, only because
the speed of business is several times faster
than the speed of the judical system. A system
where you have a month to prepare your case,
and a week of court time, maximum, and that's it.
If an appeal is to be made, it should go to the Suprieme Court, with no other layers in between.
I know that it sounds strict, but the fact is that
many businesses already wiggle their way under
the law, so why not make them more accountable
and with more haste?
If this happend with MS and DOJ, we'd already have a Supreme Court decision (whether a decision
of the case, or not hearing the case at all and
letting the lower court judgement stand), and
that's it.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Although I feel that Microsoft has long engaged in unfair practices, and that they continue to do so, I have mixed feelings about this case. Twice before, the DOJ approached an attack on Microsoft, and both of those had, IMHO, merit. Twice before the DOJ dropped the ball.
This time, it seemes that the DOJ is likely to be successful but I fail to see the merit in their case. Much as it pains me to say it, BG is right on the browser issue: government has no place in matters of product design, or even bundling.
We in the US live in a schizoid mindset. We applaud success, and deride big success. As most of us would like to be rich, and are not, we are underdogs, and must cheer other underdogs. But we perceive the king of the hill as the enemy; the reason we are underdogs.
I don't object to governemt intervention, but it has to make sense in the context of a capitalist democracy, and this one does not.
Microsoft should have been punished severely for predatory practices. It seems the only folk unaware of the reality of their execrable history in that regard are the lawyers in DOJ.
If the precedent is established that the government has a role in adjudicating appropriate features and bundling, we all lose. I cannot think of any group less well equipped to evaluate business decisions than a government.
--- Bill
I wasn't really paying attention to computers when IBM got into trouble with the government. Whatever happened with that? Didn't that cause serious problems, despite never reaching a verdict? I'm just asking because a lot of people say that this doesn't mean anything since it will be appealed, but didn't in mean something for IBM? Someone enlighten me!
News for nerds? Over the past serveral month, I really started to wonder rather this is a news site, or is it just a site for the serveral people who runs this site's agendas.
You bash for bashing's sake. You say that Microsoft is evil. And you say that they are guilty.
Well tell me then, why giving 30,000+ people their livelyhood, making a quarter of them millionaries is bad?
People live to earn in the current system. Tell me how many mouth had the open source community feed?
None.
...when a company that has talked internally of starvinng/squelching/destrroying competition through price gouging AND who posesses >95% of a product market is not restrained as a monopolist?
It seems that our anti-trust laws punish only after the damage of a monopoly, rather than preventing the damage in the first place. In essence, the gov't may lose this case because it didn't wait long enough to file it (had they waitted until netscape was dead in the water, the case would have been much stronger.)
If this is tuly what the laws say, then the laws need to be ammeded IMHO.
My $0.02 American, worth only $0.0134 after internet tax.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
"I hope this doesn't affect Windows2000, the most powerful operating system to ever exist. I don't want to be stuck in crusty old and slow as molasses unix/linus land. I want a powerful operating system, the likes of which that can only be developed by Micorsoft."
score-1, troll??? was someboby's humor codec not loaded?? Even if it wasn't meant to be, it sounded funny, but then I think farting is funny. In fact, I'm laughing(farting) right now.
Slashdot has no coherent anti-MS policy (if at all) that I can see - the original article (submitted by a A HREFRobert Finney), the one which hopes for the GUILTY verdict, is not by a slashdot chap at all. Hmm. Looks like you have your knickers in a twist over very little, if not nothing.
As to MS employing people, great! Why not? As to the open source community, they can do what they like, or are you objecting to that?
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
...
Germans chose Hitler. Russians chose Bolsheviks.
Nobody wanted them to be dictators. Once they became dictators, both nations, maybe, would have want to remove them. Too late. That is the monopoly of power.
You, Mr. Coward, are either rather brainwashed, or you chose to be a liar. The point about monopoly - yes, they are chosen initially. Then, the choice dissappears. Any OEM has to sell some Windows, on at least part of their machines: because too much of software run only with MS. Now, Microsoft uses this monopoly to force predatory agreements. There is no choice now. The only way to stop them is to force them out of this practice. (No, I do not advocate forcing them out of business)
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
is why in the world foreign goverments allow for use of Microsoft products? I remember Windows being used on machine in Russian nuclear research facility. Secret and what not. It was before networking, but now it seems they should be concerned about backdoors and other problems. Remember Chernobyl virus in Asia?
Sure every single copy of MS crap was pirated in that place I mentioned. I guess you would never be able to sell software, rather than support, in Russia, unfortunately... Not that I am proud of it..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
--
What has MS really done? I use Linux, Unix, Informix, Windows98/NT, and I happen to like what MS does! They are the leaders in consumer Operating Systems because 1) good marketing and sound business practices (let's face it, isn't it every company's goal to eliminate the competition!) 2) They are able to offer HIGH QUALITY (for mass consumer use) products at low to no cost! Sure for everyone Windows may not be the best way to go, but as far as teh average consumer is concerned what is easier to use and faster to learn - Windows. My grandmother couldn't figure Linux out, let alone Unix! I couldn't imagine it!
All I'm trying to say is "Stop being ignorant and look at it from the point of view of the average consumer who doesn't care what they are buying as long as it runs the INDUSTRY STANDARD software, and is easy to use"! Every company tries to do what MS did, stop competition. Every company says what MS execs did (ie "We need to kill Netscape."). If you think MS is blood thirsty, yes they are, but so is Sun, Texas Instruments, Texaco, Ogden, Gateway, anyone that really wants to do business!
Capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are
determined mainly by competition in a free market
+&x
Um... no, the law you broke was the government's law. The government has a law that says you cannot make unliscenced copies of someone's software without his/her permission. It's pretty strange to argue the corporation is given "legislative power" since the only "law" they have the power to make is "you will be punished if you copy our product. That's hardly a threat to abyone's liberty. Just don't use MS products, and you don't have to worry about it.
And it is simply not true that only large corporations can have their copyrights protected. The reason you are allowed to copy Debian is that its authors have (I assume) GPL'ed it, thereby giving others the right to use it. In fact, if you were to take Debian, make some changes, and then sell a closed-source version, you *could* be prosecuted for violation of the GPL. It cuts both ways. The evil microsoft can make software licsences, but so can the Open Source movement. Are you afraid that Red Hat is going to take over the world?
What you are talking about is predatory actions, and it is wrong when it is done by a company with a monopoly. At least, that's what the law says.
I rather suspected at the time that Bill Gates had a plan behind that purchase, and it involved the commerce dept saying "No". It had something to do with distracting attention from something else, but I can't remember all the details of that time period. At any rate today Money is as good if not a better product than Quicken. So ultimately it did help competition. :)
The problem with Microsoft's 'voluntary' split is that it gives Windows and Office to the same division. MS used their preload advantage to take over the apps market, and that's just plain wrong. A truly corrective breakup would place Windows and Office in the hands of two companies that have no incentive to keep them locked to each other.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
What's just like the Amiga?
I hope they are found guilty. I had a dream where I was talking to a girl I went to high school with. Then Steve Ballmer busts in screaming at me for talking to her, and threatens "Bill won't be happy about this". Pure evil.
If Microsoft controls the market, why are so many companies suddendly jumping on the Linux bandwagon? And if Linux is an open source project maintained by volunteers, then how is Microsoft going to "beat" it? Concerning IE vs. Netscape, IE is simply a better browser. It's faster, much more standards compliant, far more stable. If you don't think it's illegal to crush companies by writing better code, I don't want to live in a world where you have any power. If you think it immoral for them to give it away, then I hope you don't run Linux or any other free software (software given away to crush Microsoft is no different than software given away to crush netscape).
Well tell me then, why giving 30,000+ people their livelyhood, making a quarter of them millionaries is bad?
Actually, MS has only made a handful of it's employees millionaires.
THE STOCK MARKET has made the rest, NOT MS..
Relative to what it makes, MS doesn't pay it's employees very well at all (look at the fight of the "temp" workers.) Looks like you've been taken in by the "MS Millionaire Myth."
Actually, no. IE didn't "make" since it was bought from another company (who, I believe, only recieved moneys for the purchase of IE). I further doubt MS spent anything on "debug"ing... Marketing or packaging, on the other hand, is what they do best (at all?).
Okay, so this is really off-topic, but ..
..
.. nothing was left. Dennis Hopper had completely cleaned us out. The front door was still wide open.
When I was in college, I had a dream that my roommates and I were watching Speed in our living room (it had just come out on video.) We were really getting into the movie, when suddenly there was an abrupt knock on the door. One of my roommates answered the door, and lo and behold, it was Dennis Hopper, right there in our apartment.
Well, needless to say, we were very excited to have one of the stars of Speed right there in our living room. We got him a beer, and we sat down and started watching the rest of the movie. Pretty soon we all got around to asking him for his autograph. He graciously said "Sure! Why don't you guys go back into your rooms and get something for me to sign?" And so we did. Then we came back
The fucker had ripped us off.
Everything was gone. The TV, the VCR, the stereo, my PlayStation, all of our CDs
To this day I have no idea what that dream meant.
But I want my fucking TV back, Dennis.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Following this path of reasoning leads to the conclusion that they should be found guilty this time, whether or not the facts warrant it, just because they meet the "killer" criteria.
"killer" criteria? They had a smoking gun! Witnesses. Fingerprints. The works. They had all the evidence they needed. That's why the consent decree happened in the first place. The difference is that a killer can't get off by promising not to do it again. A real killer would have to put up the best defense possible and accept/appeal the decision. Microsoft can just sign a decree saying that they won't do certain things anymore. There is such a thing as the spirit and the intent of the law. Microsoft disregarded these. Many of our laws are pretty well defined. You probably can't talk your way around them. Then again, many are not. Many dealing with issues such as anti-trust are intentionally vague so as to allow some flexibility due to changes in markets and technology. Microsoft took advantage of the wording of the decree to get around what they knew to be the intent.
The DOJ just didn't realize who they were dealing with. Bill wasn't appropriately scared into submission. He just got a few words changed here and there. Presto! A worthless consent decree. He walked away laughing. He bragged to the press. The DOJ looked like a pack of idiots.
THE FACTS DID WARRANT A CONVICTION. Unfortunately, the facts had nothing to do with the decisions made before. They got off because of a stupid loophole that the DOJ was clumsy enough to let them insert into the consent decree. The DOJ was stupid enough to let Microsoft reword the decree so that they were able to get around the intent of the decree. Then they defended the decree against Judge Sporkin, who said that it was not strong enough and that it would be ineffective. He was right. They were wrong.
Large corporations seem to be somewhat immune to the real effects of their actions. They can afford to put up all kinds of defenses against the law that normal people could never use. How many of us can afford to buy grass roots campaigns? How many of us have enough money that we can get political support? How many of us can afford a team of 20 lawyers? That tells me that the law is not the same deterrant to them that it is to regular people.
Doesn't that make it right to try them again from another angle? Why not? They are still pointing to at least some, if not all, of the real problems. They just needed something everyone could understand as the central point. It's certainly not the most important point. If I was making a case that I knew would be heard by someone who understood the technology involved, I probably would have left out the browser thing. It was tangential to the real case really. If they addressed and fixed the real problems, the browser issue would cease to exist anyway. Unfortunately, that's not the way our courts work. Lawyers can't count on the judge understanding everything involved in the case. Nor can they afford to get negative press because other people misinterpret or misunderstand their arguments. It's not just a legal battle. It's a public opinion battle. It's a political battle. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. As long as corporations can use these avenues to help their own case out, the prosecution must use them as well in order to keep their own case strong. So, the DOJ holds up Netscape as an example. Everybody knows Netscape. People can understand the arguments. The judge can understand the arguments. There was quite a bit of evidence showing the intent behind the integration of IE. It was a fairly decent case. But they didn't let that stand on its own. They piled on every other incident of Microsoft breaking the law or engaging in anti-competitive behavior. They needed to show the broad scope of abuses. The Netscape part seemed to be a show they put on. We probably won't get to seeMuch of the real meat of the case since it's all declared classified by Microsoft or one of the other parties. That information might have a bigger impact on the judge's decision than anything we heard in court. I think the case is worthwhile. I think the DOJ is doing the right thing. As soon as the consent decree was signed, Microsoft went right back to its old tricks. This is what was supposed to stop after the last case. It didn't. Therefore, Microsoft deserves to be prosecuted for its actions again.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Regards,
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
"Yes, they SHOULD have the right to sell anything they like, at whatever price they like, and if they want to include a web browser why shouldn't they? "
Do you remember a while ago when the DOJ acting on the complaint of several US chip manufacturers took Japanese chipmanufacturers to court over "dumping"? In that case the japanese were found guilty of selling their chips below cost to gain market share and were fined and ordered to charge a fair market value for their products. So you are wrong when you say they can charge whatevet they want. IE took a TON of money to make, market, package, support, debug etc. It did not cost M$ nothing.
War is necrophilia.
"I would much rather have a company as a "big brother" than the government."
This kind of thinking really gives me the creeps. Really scary.
War is necrophilia.
...but I remember when CNN announced that a verdict was expected to be announced the next day.... that was a month ago. They retracted that comment about 2 and half hours later, I believe. ;)
yeah...... a good majority of cases (esp. big ones like these) take soooo long to resolve. and why?
because, apparently, either the sides of the case aren't prepared.. or they're just dawdling along, wasting money, money, money.. that stupid government of ours) (or... I don't know)
either way, it's a waste of time, effort, and by the end of it, i'm so disgusted, I'd just rather lock everybody up (i realize this is rash) and just get on with life...... esp so that the government will stop wasting all this time and tax money by making a mess.
Insert mind here.
Such a system would give a huge advantage to the prosecution. They could go about preparing a case for years. The defendant is then only given a month from the time the case is filed? This seems like an awfully powerful stick to swing at any target they choose. (Keep in mind that politics play into anti-trust decisions as much as actual violations of the law.)
I'd much rather see the government on a short leash than companies.
I love Micros~1 as much as the next slashdotter, but they have many good points here. Yes, the competition DID go running to the DOJ for help against mean old MS. Yes, they SHOULD have the right to sell anything they like, at whatever price they like, and if they want to include a web browser why shouldn't they?
However, there are a great many reasons they should be prosecuted. Unfortunately, the DOJ did not focus enough on legitimate issues such as their restrictive agreements with hardware vendors designed to make it literally impossible to make money selling an alternative OS to OEMs.
And then there are the other reasons to hate them which, while technically legal, are obviously slimy. For instance, their marketing practices of raising a huge fanfare for a new collection of bits, then charging outrageous amounts for them. Then pushing the release back a long time and releasing a still buggy product. Then actually charging the public for a package of fixes. And the practice of denying that bugs exist, either saying they can't duplicate them so they're not there, or calling them 'features'.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
It always bombs whenever I touch it; Netscape is much more reliable than IE. Maybe you are running of those Microsoft Service packs that attacks Netscape. Reinstall netscape and your java virtual machine from www.java.sun.com and you'll be alright.
My mother's store is about to use a completely OSS "solution" to put her internal network online (this will allow her to work at home, which will save her money). Later, she plans to phase in a real-time e-commerce system. She'll hire three people to set that up, and then a bunch more to do things like shipping/receiving, system admin, inventory control, buying, etc. And this is going to be done completely non-Wintel (Linux/AMD/Via for those of you who are curious). OSS will start feeding more people real soon.
Could an MS system have done the same thing? Sure, by all means. In fact, mom would probably need to hire even more people to take care of a Windows environment since it wouldn't be as stable. But on the other hand, she would need to pay more money for the software and hardware, so maybe she wouldn't be able to hire anyone at all. Her budget is pretty tight, and using OSS will allow her to get off the ground with very little up-front costs.
So dig this possibility: if it wasn't for OSS and low-cost/free software, she wouldn't be able to expand her business, and the opportunity cost in jobs would be at least a dozen people. Assuming this is the case, you're now more than wrong.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
They tried to promote proprietary architectures like the PS/2, after having already promoted the open standard PC. The mainframe guys in the cash cow division tried to kill the PC revolution and failed.