Slashdot Mirror
Close out to Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
duder writes "It appears that both sides in the Microsoft anti-trust suit are filing the closing arguments according to the Washington Post. " It doesn't look any surprises-CNNfn has an additional update as well. The DOJ and MS have filed sharply contrasting legal briefs-Microsoft claims there's competition, citing Sun and Red Hat, the government claims they have a monopoly. And give the US justice system, I'm sure we'll see the end to this case sometime shortly after Rob actually finishes reading Cryptonomicon.
The resurgance of Apple and the Linux explosion has no bearing on the case whatsoever. These developments are inadmissable as evidence for two reasons. First, the evidentiary period is over. Secondly, the government did not have an opportunity to rebut this statement. However, this hasn't stopped Microsft from trying to do just that, by asking Judge Jackson to take "judicary note" of these recent developments. Frankly I think it's a blatent ploy to cloud the issue that Micorsoft violated the Consent Decree.
As a previous post said, the government could argue that the only reason why linux is starting to get support from OEMs is because Lord Bill has to watch himself right now. As soon as the trial is over, Lord Bill's Army of Darkness will return en masse. But the government doesn't have to, afterall a trial intrinsically deals with the past, not the present.
FYI: The iMac was introduced LONG after the trial started.
I follow the San Jose Mercury News's coverage of the trial. So should each and every one of you!
> I think, for example, that RMS was absolutely
> clear on that one.
Can you give a reference to that claim? It is quite contrary to what he say in other occations, so if he made a cliam in that spirit to the court, it would be quite dishonest.
Or are you trolling?
I am not a lawyer, but...
First, I believe that given their current track record in Judge Jackson's courtroom, Microsoft will receive a ruling against them. However, the really interesting part will be seeing WHY this ruling was made.
Microsoft will, no doubt, appeal the case. The details of the ruling in Judge Jackson's court will play a large part in determining how well they do in the appeals court. Right now, Microsoft feels that Judge Jackson is very biased against them (side note: gee I wonder why?). Therefore, their strategy is to assume that they will lose this round. They say that they are attempting to build a good basis to defend themselves in an appeal.
So back to my original question: when do you label something a monopoly? Well here's one definition:
MONOPOLY - This word has various significations. 1. It is the abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the detriment of the public.
All combinations among merchants to raise the price of merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly.
A monopoly is also an institution or allowance by a grant from the sovereign power of a state, by commission, letters patent, or otherwise, to any person, or corporation, by which the exclusive right of buying, selling, making, working, or using anything, is given.
(source: http://192.41.4.29/def2/m138.htm)
Well let's cross of the 3rd one - that's easy, since the government does not say you have to buy Windows.
By the first definition, Microsoft COULD be in trouble. No, they didn't sell ALL of the operating system software, or browser software. But at what percentage do you draw the line? And can you prove it was detrimental to consumers? That's the tricky part.
The second definition COULD be used against them also. Once again, it is tricky to build this case, though. Did Microsoft use their monopoly to cause a price increase? Hmm. Do you include indirect profits? (e.g. give away a free browser, or sell your OS for cheap, then turn around and charge big server prices, since your Windows machines need a Windows server). Now, that's not necessarily true of course - just an example though.
Notice throughout this definition, though, that the word monopoly is really unrelated to whether or not you hurt your competitors. You can play dirty all you want as long as you aren't hurting the public, and you do, in fact, have competition.
Don't get me wrong - I think Microsoft's business practices are dirty, and they flex their muscle too much. But other companies (AOL and Sun, for example) can and do play the same way, given the chance.
Microsoft will probably lose this round with the DOJ, but I think in the end, after all the appeals and such, it will be very difficult to win a case against Microsoft, stating that they are a monopoly.
Signed,
SEAL
The links I gave were to identically configured computers in all ways except OS and support.
Perhaps you can point out which components differ? I see none.
Why is the OS not selectable? Well, to get to Linux based systems, you need to choose the Linux based Dell. Why would you choose a different OS when you already told Dell which OS you wanted?
The Linux system is configured differently because they probably expect most Linux users to choose more powerful computers. These pages are set to default for what they consider the average user to choose so that they have to do less configuring.
It's paranoid to think that this is some ploy to make Linux appear more expensive.
Tell me. When you shop for a car, do you only look at the retail price? Or do you consider the options as well?
And as I pointed out, shipping the computer with Windows 9x still makes Linux $175 cheaper than the identically configured Linux machine.
Hmm.. it appears that the configuration changes after several hours back to a default configuration.
So, I take it back. Those links do not point to identically configured machines anymore. But you can still configure them identically and see the price difference.
Or that perhaps, folks with pathetic laptops/systems had no choice. Why did Y2K fixes come out so late. Why is 95 not getting the benefits of CE. By gum, by driving out obsolete PC's, you increase new sales, and new OEM licences, especially if you create support uncertainities. The 'hurt' is felt more in non -US contries that levy a stiff tax on hardware. Having a monopoly on maintenance says a lot... So can I buy CE for my old 486? or am I expected to turf it. Linux is the answer.
I'm sorry, but that's just plain silly. You are a whiz bang programmer, you write an application that everybody buys and uses, your competition doesn't like that, they complain to the DOJ. The application that you poured $$$ and sweat into becomes public domain??? That is pretty much anti- everything that free enterprise represents. Now it's public domain...people no longer have jobs, your company might as well shut the door because your market share no longer exists. Your scenerio is basically putting the government in the position of running and regulating the economy. That my friend, is what is called COMMUNISM.
Monopolies do not stop people from making competing products. They stop people from being able to successfully market them. Microsoft has done a good job of this until the antitrust trial. Why is Linux gaining popularity? Because large companies like Intel are supporting them. Why is that happening? Because Microsoft, on trial for antitrust, can't afford to attack companies that support Linux. The trial is what makes Linux marketable today; it was basically unmarketable before the trial began. Yes, distros did exist, but not from any true economic perspective.
And the 90% marketshare applies ONLY to desktops--Windows NT is actually a MINORITY in the server market. Remember, 70% of all Internet servers, for example, are Apache (OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!) and that means they are running either Unix or one of its various clones. Even in LANs, Novell and Unix beat MS hands down.
Desktops are enough! Note that Microsoft is using their desktop monopoly to populate the server market. They work hard to make sure that you need Windows NT servers to run networks of Windows 9? machines. They are also using this monopoly, with Internet Explorer, to gain control of the Internet, by embracing and extending HTTP and HTML until the best way to communicate with Windows browsers is with Windows Web servers.
Finally, if Microsoft IS punished, this could be a nightmare for the industry. One, it means that the industry will have to be VERY careful about innovations, because they will have to be looking over their shoulders to make sure the DOJ isn't there watching their every move. Declaring the browser as part of the operating system isn't that farfetched--including Netscape on the Caldera distribution for instance, with a Caldera logo on it no less, is practically the same thing.
The precaution against bundling is not a problem for the rest of the industry. It is specifically a problem with Microsoft, who signed a legal agreement not to bundle as part of the resolution of a previous antitrust trial.
Look at from a car perspective: if the DOJ says that MS can't bundle IE with Windows, how much of a stretch is it to say DaimlerChrysler or General Motors can't bundle, say, an Infiniti sound system with their cars? If DaimlerChrysler or General Motors controlled the automotive market, there might be good cause to limit their ability to bundle certain stereos with those cars. Since they do not, however, consumer choice is safe.
Monopolistic corporations require more legal restrictions than other corporations, because other corporations are restricted by the marketplace itself. The point of antitrust law is to step in with legal laws where the consequential laws of a capitalist market have failed.
--The basis of all love is respect
Actually, increasing the price of the older product is a pretty popular way of making sure your customers buy your most recent stuff while you continue selling older things for a couple of years This is more of a "we paid XX for it, we're not going to sell it for less" economic effect, even though a newer product may cost less for many reasons
(mfr costs, lower shipping costs, actually being a cheaper part, etc). Old Stock items frequently end up in corners of warehouses because the part that replaces it is bigger/better/faster or is touted to be better than it's predecessor, and no one wants last year's model in their zippy new computer.
He who dies with the most buzzwords wins
Even if they don't allow Bill to have investment in the "baby bills" (I hate that name), he will still be the world's richest man. It won't hurt him and the government can't take that away from him. My feeling is that Bill will throw himself in with the OS division if it does happen. That is where all the research happens - at least for all the gee-whiz stuff they like to talk about. My $0.02 worth.
First off, one has been able to buy a personal computer without Windows or MSDOS on it since...umm...personal computers came out.
I believe he was talking about x86 "PCs", not just personal computers in general. The PC is the standard and has been so for quite a while. Yes, you could buy a mac, but then you get a proprietary OS AND proprietary hardware.
Choices included Apple, Amiga, Commadore, etc.
None of these are "PC compatible." They are all proprietary and 2 of the three are basically defunct.
Hell, you could of gotten OS/2 from IBM.
You still can get OS/2 from IBM when you buy a system from them. You simply can't get it pre-installed and you still have to buy Windows whether you intend to use it or not.
What you could not buy -- and still can not buy -- is a Windows-based PC without Windows. Nor will you ever be able to. Because that simply does not make sense.
Sure it makes sense. I want to buy a PC with an Intel processor from one of the top ten OEMs in the country. I plan to run Linux on it. Therefore, I don't need to purchase any OS with the machine. Can I buy it without paying for Windows? Well, I can now... from a couple of them anyway. But at the time the trial was beginning, I couldn't have bought a system from any of those companies without paying for Windows. Even if I didn't have any intention of running Windows on that machine.
Neither you nor you and any number of others (e.g., government) have any right whatsoever to force me to build a PC the way you want it.
So what gives Microsoft the right to pressure these companies into limiting my purchasing options? They fear Microsoft because Microsoft happens to own the most-used OS in existance today. They need to be able to offer it because many customers DO want it. That shouldn't have to mean that their other customers have to get the shaft. Microsoft allows them to offer it providing they get paid for every desktop system that ships, regardless of whether or not the customer actually wants the OS. This means that the OEMs can't offer systems running competing OSes at a competitive price. This severely limits competition, which in turn harms consumers. We have anti-trust laws to protect consumers in situations such as this. That is why Microsoft is being prosecuted. They wouldn't allow their products to compete solely on merit. They had to do everything possible to kill the competition. That's bad for everybody except them. That's not the way our system was designed to operate. The DOJ will hopefully fix the problem.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This argument is flawed. If in 18 months one can create reasonable competition and bring down a monopoly, it probably never was one!
There isn't reasonable competition yet. Just a couple of OEMs that have managed to shake some of the chains off. You still can't buy a computer from most of the top OEMs without paying for Windows.
Secondly, it is unjust to say that linux or any other OS somehow became viable because of the DOJ proceedings...
Why is it unjust to say that? I think the DOJ suit is the primary reason why any of the major OEMs are even considering offering another OS on their machines. Surely, if Microsoft didn't have to curtail its anti-competitive behavior during the trial, the OEMs who dared to offer a competing product would have been slapped down hard.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
During the trial, Microsoft actually tried to claim that it faced competition from its own products. They must really believe us to be buffoons. When Windows 98 came out, they raised the price of Windows 95 to a point substantially higher than that of Windows 98. It's not too hard to compete with a product when you can control its price. That would be like Coke being able to make Pepsi charge $1.00 per can while Coke charges $.50. They call that competition? The same thing was done with Win 3.1 and Windows 95, as well as with DOS and early versions of Windows before that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Two points:
/.) that he was not inclined to support the radical remedies being proposed here. That is, some type of breakup of Microsoft (and perhaps not even making "Windows" public domain).
1. Even if Judge Jackson finds in the Justice Department's favor, the appeals courts have already shown a decidedly different bent. The appeals process will probably take years and the result may quite likely be in favor of MS.
2. Quite sometime ago, Judge Jackson gave some strong indications (also cited here on
Realistically - I think the former is our best option, because it forces MS to play the game with a bit more circumspection. Those that think they altered their ways completely during the trial have not watched some of their competitive actions .
I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but among the average human, -Windows- has a steep learning curve (not to mention computers in general).
The way I see it, the lurning curve for windows is quite flat at first, then rises sharply when you actually want to find out what it is doing without telling you. This is because you can never truly know what a M$ OS is up to. There comes a point when windows has filled itself with so many problems, often with no prompting from the user, that it's just a case of reinstalling now and again to get back to a known state.
On the other hand, the learning curve for Linux and *BSD systems seems quite constant, everything in general works as it should. Maybe this constant learning curve is slightly higher than the start of a windows system, but if you work your way up that curve, you'll be able to carry on climbing rather than hitting a brick wall of problems that you are unable to solve.
You can find any information you want, and there is at least some relevant information for most problems available.
The problems that do occur are nearly always ones that have been created by a user doing something wrong, rather than the OS doing it just for the hell of it!
asher@cuckoo.org www.cuckoo.org
This argument is flawed. If in 18 months one can create reasonable competition and bring down a
monopoly, it probably never was one!
I disagree. Remember that 18 months is a long time in the computer industry. Here's a silly example: right now Microsoft has a legal monopoly on sales of Microsoft Office. If (by some incredible leap of legal logic) the government decided to rescind that monopoly, do you really think it would be more than 18 months before other companies started selling their own Office CDs? More like 24 hours if you ask me...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Ok, now I will need to surf until I find the passage in which RMS said that "these people have no business using a computer." I think he was referring to people who were unable to either install or compile an OS or a kernel. As soon as I have recovered the url, I will post it.
I think the advent of all those MS "competitors" amounts to little more than to holes in Swiss cheese.
What bothers me much more is that, even if MS is found guilty, the verdict will be way too late. One of the big arguments against MS is that they are exploiting and magnifying network effects, meaning that since everybody is already using MS products and they supposedly work well together, since it's more efficient to write applications for a big installed base etc. they have a much easier sell than their competition.
The current antitrust laws are horribly inadequate since they concentrate on punishment, way after the damage has been done. It's similar to shutting down the fire department and diverting all the funds to convicting arsonists. You'll get the guilty at the cost of a lot of charred houses.
A more proactive set of laws would be much more useful. Forcing open standards on software companies to ensure vendor-independent interoperability would be a possible start. Instead of punishing improper business practices, much more attention should be paid to emerging network effects and to keeping the impact of these effects as small as possible.
Possible solutions might violate the spirit of a free market as it is understood today, but would surely increase the common good for society. After all, free markets aren't a natural phenomenon. A free market is what our laws define it to be.
Actually, splitting MS is the least likely possibility according to most analysts. Nor is the monopoly abuse of power a proven case. Much as people here would like to dance on Microsoft's grave, the DOJ has to satisfy the legal requirements for an anti-trust suit:
1) The company has a monopoly
2) It abused that monopoly, resulting in economic harm
Neither has been proven to the point where it is obvious.
MS shot itself in the foot when its witness, Richard Schmalansee, said that there is no competing product at the moment. (To top it off, he made truly idiotic remarks such as the one about MS writing their sales figures on paper and not using PCs). OTOH, the govt. witness made a big blunder when he said that no economic harm had been caused to the consumer (which will be a crucial point).
But then, the judge is known to have fallen asleep frequently during the trial and is not a big fan of MS, so it's pretty much a toss of the coin.
L.
I got to thinking about that. I thought, why restrict this reasoning to just computers?
So I picked up a blue Bic ballpoint pen in my hand, and I am declaring it now an integral part of my body. I am obviously not Homo Sapiens any more, since I am now distinguished by my ability to write indelible marks on certain surfaces without the need for any additional, separate tools. To paraphrase Microsoft's argument:
There are several ways to create marks on paper. One way is to use a pencil or a pen. Because that is the choice most people make, it's commonly accepted that a pen is a separate tool. But the writing-related abilities in my new body comprise many elements, including the muscles in my hand and forearm and the clicky thing on top of the pen that I can make noise with. Depending on the context, it's common for me to use the term "pen" to refer to any one of these elements, but this does not mean that the pen in my hand is a separate tool like the pens that other people use. Although I have other pens which I loan to people sometimes, there is no identifiable "pen" which can be excised from my body without degrading my basic capabilities: if you remove the pen from my hand, then I lose the important ability to create marks on paper, and the pen is useless when removed from my hand. I got this pen from a K-mart at the same time as I got some deodorant and potato chips, so it's obvious that this pen is simply one element of a larger plan which affects my entire body and how I interoperate with other people. Rather than view this Bic as a pen that sits in my hand, it is more correct to view my hand and forearm as an advanced writing implement which is capable of many various tasks. My psychiatrist contends that people universally regard pens as tools and not as part of the human body, but he offered only anecdotal support for that "proposition" whose relevance is dubious anyway.
Look guys... I would think that most of the people reading this page would have heard by now the legal definition of monopoly under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is NOT the same as the common sense definition people keep arguing under.
A monopoly, in legal terms, is simply having enough market share that you can exercise a profound influence on the entire market. There have been succesful cases where the "monopoly" was only about 40% of total market share -- don't even try to tell me that Microsoft doesn't meet that definition!
Also, being a monopoly is perfectly legal! We have all kinds of monopolies, and they are completely legal! However, when you are a monopoly, there are certain things that you are not legally permitted to do. For example: you cannot use your monopoly power in one market to strong arm your way into other markets or engage in predatory pricing.
The question here is not whether Microsoft is a monopoly: it is obvious that within the terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act they are (all this "we have competition" talk is just a pseudo-populist smoke screen). The question is whether they (a) used there monopoly in the OS market to get into the browser market and (b) engaged in predatory pricing in the browser market.
That's all -- did they do those things??? If they did, then they should be found at fault in this trial to the full extent of civil liability. That's the law, if you don't like it change it. But we don't have ex-post facto laws; they are still responsible for their actions prior to any change in the anti-trust laws.
FWIW, IMNSHO they are guilty as sin and should be brought to task for the above and for their deliberate attempts to subvert the american political system. I think these attempts border on sedition. But that's another question.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I can't imagine RMS having made such a statement. He cares about freedom, which includes the freedom for anyone to use computer programs. This does of course not translate into him caring whether people who don't view computing the way he does find software to hard to use or not, but I don't think he is actually opposed to software that "normal" people find easy to use, he just doesn't care much about it. Or maybe he does care about it, I don't know. But I've never seen him state they don't have any business using computers, and it doesn't seem like something he'd say. IMHO, of course, I can't speak for him, because I'm me and not him.
I find you and the poster you were responding to to both be lacking in evidence. He/she made allegations without offering even a single example or shred of evidence. You attempt to shoot down his claims by saying you have looked for proof and didn't find any. Where did you look? What did you find? How long did you pursue the matter? Seems rather pointless to discuss the whole thing without even basic information.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No wonder it has only been tried 3 times in 70 years previously, and actually executed only once.
Thought it had been used to good effect at least twice. Once with Standard Oil, and once with AT&T.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I've followed the Register's Microsoft coverage, and unless they were blatently biased, Microsoft shot themselves in the foot on every conceivable occasion; a guilty verdict cannot but be far behind.
But if that's the case, what happens next? Splitting up Microsoft seems to be the most favoured option, but while that'll stick it to Bill, I can't see it doing anything to encourage MS to move towards the light side.
The real issue, is what market are we talking about?
The flaw in your argument is that you consider the "OS market" (whatever you mean by that) and the "browser market" to be separate markets.
Microsoft was able to define these markets just fine. They spelled it out in some of their internal documents. They knew who the competition was (what little there was of it anyway) and they knew what the markets were. Microsoft referred many times to a "browser market" and an "OS market." They have been contesting this in court, with their pet economist stating that you can't define the markets. This after he just got finished defining those markets in another case in which he was testifying for Microsoft (they won that case, btw). He got around this little problem by simply stating that he had realized that he was mistaken. Well, gee, who could argue with that? Too bad he didn't realize his error until after he had mislead another court into buying into his crap. I'm sure he sleeps well at night though, comforted by Microsoft's significant compensation for being their mercenary economist.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
One of the biggest things they could do to make Microsoft play fair is to make them publish a price list for all OEMs. There should be no cash changing hands for the various marketing agreements and such. There should be no discounts or other price changing factors allowed. They give Microsoft way too much leverage over everyone else. Example: One company won't agree to ship only Windows on their machines. So, Microsoft raises prices by 30% across the board on their OEM pricelist. They then proceed to give all the OEMs, except the rogue OEM, a 30% discount on everything. They've effectively raised the price for just that one OEM.
Making Microsoft stop using their financial clout to destroy the competition and harm any company who would make competing products available would go a long way towards bringing competition back into the OS market. I don't think this is the only remedy that is needed, but I think it would be a good start.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Things have been going badly for Mr. Gates ever since Monsieur L'Entarteur, Noel Grodin, made him a present of a tasty cream pie. First the antitrust suit, then the arrival of Linux on the public consciousness and rapid exponential gain in popularity. In true Sumo wrestler style, he's tried to fend off one attack with another, pointing at the rise of Linux as a reason why he can't be a monopoly.
But the case isn't about what's happening now; it's about whether Microsoft had behaved illegally prior to February 1998. The DOJ can silence this line of argument with one simple suggestion:
"You only now have competition *because we're suing you*. You behaved illegally, so we dragged you into court. Now you're having to behave yourself to stand a chance in the trial, it's not as easy for you to tell people "you'd better buy our product because all our rivals are doomed", and competition is returning to the marketplace. But if the court allows you to get away with the way you used to behave, you'll be back to the usual FUD, lock-out, and illegal monopoly behaviour faster than you can say 'not guilty'. Your honour, I put it to you that this behavour can only be brought to an end if we THROW AWAY THE DAMN KEY!"
Anyway, I'm sure it won't matter. They've *really* pissed Judge Jackson off, and now Microsoft are going to lose so badly your head will spin in two directons at once. And they'll find it very hard to appeal the decision - especially after they jail Mr. Ballmer for perjury...
We keep winning, don't we?
--
Xenu loves you!
Dell is offering Linux on server machines. Not desktops. Microsoft doesn't have a lock on the server market. Compaq, IBM, and others have always offered other OSes on their servers. Microsoft *DOES* have a lock on the desktop market. You don't see Linux, Beos, OS/2 or anyone else getting onto desktop machines at any of the top-tier OEMs without Microsoft still getting its cut.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Exactly. Which doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. It simply means that they have a legal monopoly. Now, unfortunately for Microsoft, it doesn't matter how you got the monopoly, once you have it, you play by a different set of rules. These rules are designed to make it possible for competing products to gain access to the market. Microsoft has used every trick in their book to prevent competitors from gaining any access to customers. They did this through contracts with the major OEMs preventing them from selling their hardware without paying Microsoft for the software, whether the customer wanted it or not. They did it by buying up some of these companies and quietly disposing of the technology or incorporating it into Windows. They did it by spreading FUD to make people fear the other options. They did it by giving away products they had formerly charged for, simply to run competitors out of business (otherwise known as dumping). They did it by duplicating others' technology and tying it to their monopoly product.
I know there are other methods that I can't list off the top of my head. The point is that even though Microsoft gained their monopoly legally (though this is still a debated point for many), they are in court because they used that monopoly in illegal ways.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Open standards are good, but non-voluntary compliance??
Right. I don't think compliance should be mandatory. I think that companies should be able to make what they like. I DO , however, think that the government should not contribute to the proliferation of closed standards. Closed standards are not in the best interests of everyone. We, as a people, should have full access to our government's information without being required to purchase software from a specific company. Nor should the government use our tax dollars to purchase software from a single source when other sources are available and more in line with our interests. (i.e. the other choices are much cheaper and allow the government to contribute something back to the community rather than take from all of us to give to a very small group of companies). Purchasing from a single source actually is illegal for government agencies unless they give a justification for doing so. There have been several cases lately where a government agency has purchased software from Microsoft for their entire agency (or certain sites) without providing a "Sole-Source Justification." They would take their entire existing network and replace it with all Microsoft software. They got a little hand-slapping by Congress and everyone went about their business. That's not the way it should be.
If the government would just mandate that all government agencies (or anyone using government funding) must use only open-source software when such software is available and suitable to the task, we might have less trouble with proprietary standards running rampant. The language they use would probably have to go into much more detail, as the words I used could be interpreted in wildly different ways.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The DOJ must indeed insist with the court that Linux is no competition to Windows.
...
Linux is nothing more than a job protection programme for nerds, who insist on the idea that every computer user types in stuff like: gcc -La.out -vi -OMyThing.o -kMyProgram.cpp -1 -2q
... Or else stay away from computers. I think, for example, that RMS was absolutely clear on that one.
That's why I believe that Microsoft must be split up into at least two companies, one for the Windows, and one for applications. Furthermore, Windows must be regulated as an essential utility, until there is sufficient competition on the desktop.
I would say, as soon as Windows has a market share below 50%, this arrangement may be reviewed.
When this whole lawsuit thing began, or even before it, MS definitely had a monopoly. But that was so long ago. Now look at the changes that have occurred since the beginning of this craziness: Red Hat has become huge, AOL bought Netscape, Apple's stock practically doubled in the face of its new products (was the iMac introduced before or after this trial started?), and countless other changes have occurred.
I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't still have an unfair advantage, but I'm wondering what time frame this trial is supposed to be considering. Is the question, "Does Microsoft have a monopoly today?" or is it, "Did Microsoft have a monopoly in 1997 (or whenever this thing began)?" They are different questions, and I think we need to know which one is being asked (as does the judge) before making a decision.
rooooar
Tried to post this previously, guess I misfired or something.. I forgot what I did with it. heh. Anyway.. For brevity's sake: I never kept track of MS views. However, contradicting themselves like they did is still not very brilliant. Then again, who ever accused them of being brilliant?
Why I don't like Sun's trademark terms: If I wanted to have a Red Hat and a Sun logo on my site, I'd have to a) keep RH logo same size and make Sun logo smaller, thereby making Sun logo illegible and dumb looking or b) blow up RH logo, thereby making it dumb looking. That's not much fun.
I noticed the text-writeable boxes too. Pretty funny stuff. They are also the work of a company I wouldn't want to buy anything from. I don't think they figured out the Web design thing just yet.
~ Kish
I suppose DOJ is treading lightly around the pre-load and per-processor licensing issue because they fear MS successfully appealing any such case based on double-jeopardy. It would be very close to what they were tried on before, enough so that an ambiguity would arise whether or not MS was being tried a second time for something they had previously been "acquitted" on. All a dirty mu-fukkin ratbastard needs is a little ambiguity. They can march to Moscow in the wintertime under the banner of ambiguity. Man, do I hate the law.
That's my guess anyway.
Well, it's difficult to purchase a PC without windows, because, in all honesty, up until this year MAYBE, there hasn't been a viable alternative for OEM's to install.
Even today, because of Microsofts tactics in foreclosing the market with it's licensing practices, most customers demand Windows installed on their PC's. So, OEM's ship PC's w/windows pre-installed. And they get bigger discounts if they purchase windows for an entire product line rather than on a box by box basis.
My guess is that there will be drastic changes in how microsoft is able to sell their products, such that:
1 - they publish their prices, which all OEM's must pay, with the only variation being for volume. (so that OEM's don't face punishment for installing a competitors software)
2 - OEM's being allowed to install and deinstall whatever pieces of Windows that they choose, in order to allow for product differntiation and customer demand.
Actually, increasing the price of the older product is a pretty popular way of making sure your customers buy your most recent stuff while you continue selling older things for a couple of years (which is required by law or your own promises). Just ask for a quote on... say... processors or hard drives from an HP distributor (I work for them but the competitors have similar pricing). A 10K RPM drive may cost 30% LESS than the same size with 7.2K RPM. A CPU with 8 MB L2 cache costs about 25% LESS than one with 4 MB cache /same MHz/. Go figure.
And too bad that Redhat hasn't achieved financial success in terms of actual sales. They possess a large market capitalization due to the perception that Linux could one day stand on its own against Windows and therefore Redhat will be at the front.
This is another case of Microsoft doublespeak.
When people compare their own irrational market cap, they deflect the question by staying that the combined sales of their rivals (Sun, IBM, Oracle, AOL, formerly Netscape) dwarfed their own sales.
Now, they're no longer talking of Redhats spectacular sales, which maybe 1/500th of Microsofts. Instead, they've changed the focus back to stock valuations, where Redhat is valued 1/50th of Microsoft's value instead...
Nice how they turn arguments around like that. Now people should start asking how they've survived so long on such a high PE ratio if they indeed face as much serious competition as they claim.
I don't think that customer rejection of proprietary hardware is what caused Apple to lose market share. Especially since most Apple home users never open the case, and the design users demand sophisticated hardware, proprietary or not.
What hurt Apple was that their reliance on proprietary hardware meant that they couldn't increase manufacturing capacity fast enough when it counted. For most of the late-80s and early-90s, demand for Macs outstripped supply (forcing prices up, to the delight of management). When the PC market grew by an order of magnitude, the WinTel parts bin was able to scale up, and Apple wasn't able to build enough custom ASICs and strange motherboard form factors and so on to meet demand.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Just in case anyone wants to check out the Shermann Act, prosecuted by the DOJ, it can be read here.
--Coke
I continue to be amazed at the cavalier tendency of /.ers to propose punishments for Microsoft with little regard for Micrsoft's rights, little sense of proportion, and no consideration to the long-term effects of their proposals.
/.ers would be thrilled at this prospect, but the fact is that a lot of people still rely on Windows to do things that they couldn't otherwise do. Imagine an OS that was as user-friendly and well-maintained as other "regulated monopolies" like phone and electrical services.
Even if we accept that Microsoft is guilty as sin and deserves anything we give them, "regulating Windows as an essential utility" is a terrible idea. Government regulations tend to be immortal, and they tend to protect their own interests. The moment the government nationalizes Windows, that will mean the end of Windows as a useful OS. Now I realize that a lot of
As long as Microsoft has the freedom to design its own product, there is a chance that they will clean up their act and produce better software. And as long as we have a free market, Microsoft *will* pay for producing crappy software-- Linux, Mac OS, Be, or some other OS will take market share. All the "unfair practices" in the world cannot stop people from buying alternative products, and as soon as enough people do this, OEM's will start selling computers pre-installed with that OS. However, if Operating Systems become "essential utilities," then a regulated Microsoft will be able to bellyache about "unfair competition" from unregulated competitors like Apple and Linux. The government will then likely want to "level the playing field" by regulating other OS's as well. I think we can all agree that that would be a bad thing.
Some people will protest that this is not what they are advocating, and that they only want to regulate the monopolistic companies. But that's not how governments work. Government officials like power, and the moment you give them a little bit of power, they start pushing for more. You *can't* just regulate the bad businesses. If you want the government to regulate Microsoft, you have to accept the risk that the government will impose the same regulations on others in the computer industry.
And government regulations seldom benefit the little guy. Think about it: policies are typically determined by lobbying efforts, and who can hire more lobbyists than Microsoft? The result will be that the "Microsoft regulatory commision" will be transformed from an organization designed to limit Microsoft into one that helps Microsoft keep new entrants out.
Microsoft has broken an obscure law whose definitions change on a yearly basis. They are doing things that, while they are certainly sleazy and underhanded, have never been considered illegal. Antitrust law is so vague and overreaching that pretty much any action by a large corporation can be considered to be "anticompetitive" or "in restraint of trade." Perhaps they need to be punished, but an action as drastic as splitting them up and then turning them into a regulated monopoly is not called for. I don't think they have done anything wrong, but even accepting that they did, many of the solutions proposed are excessive.
I sure hope they're not developing mission critical software. If even a dimwit like myself can install different distros of Linux or *BSD on different types of hardware, someone with a CS degree, who writes software for Unix for a living should be able to do it without thinking.
Oh sure. Selling a 4 year old company that started with almost nothing for 14 *BILLION* dollars is such a loss.
AOL wanted Netscape. AOL made them an offer they couldn't refuse. Netscape was not forced to take AOL's offer. They did so becuase they WANTED to.
As an example. West Publishing (the clear, nearly monopoly provider of legal books) was purchased by Thompson Assoc. (Third in terms of market share) for a huge amount of money.
West made massive profit and was in no danger of going out of business, yet they allowed themselves to be bought anyways. Why? Because the execs made millions on the stock deals.
If I recall, the judge can force any appeals directly to the Supreme Court if he so desires.
I don't know the legal basis or requirements for such an action, but I think that if he saw that appeals would delay justice he might just pop it up to the head of the class and we'd see a final resolution in a year.
Anybody know the precedent or circumstances that might allow Judge Jackson to do this and spare us the agony?
On the other hand, the learning curve for Linux and *BSD systems seems quite constant, everything in general works as it should. Maybe this constant learning curve is slightly higher than the start of a windows system, but if you work your way up that curve, you'll be able to carry on climbing rather than hitting a brick wall of problems that you are unable to solve.
I wouldn't say that Unix systems have a constant learning curve. I'd say it has a very high Initial curve, then a somewhat lower constant curve.
Basically it is a very steep jump to get into the Unix "mentality" and once there things become much easier to grasp.
For example, Under windows it will typically warn you before you do something catastropic (such as deltree *.*) while under Unix, it will blindly do what you tell it, even if that's not what you meant to tell it.
1. Is the US really going to hurt their stranglehold on the international software market, by attacking MS?
/I/ were to go into a court, and be found to have produced BLATANTLY FAKED EVIDENCE (the videos, remember?) I'd be thrown _very, very quickly_ into jail... And yet, people (O.K. mainly microsoft spin machines) still question Ms's guilt. Money talks. If MS wasn't so rich, the case would be over by now.
2. If
If linux wasn't around, microsoft will find some other operating system or product that they would try and pass of as competition. It is clear that microsoft have now got their backs to the wall when the issue of "competition" crops up. For example, microsoft would say that AOL is competition... despite they don't have an operating system. What I could never understand is how microsoft and others could say "but there is competition" pointing at the take over of netscape by AOL. Neither of the two companies made operating systems, office applications etc. At the moment, on the desktop, linux is no competition, there's not enough people using it... there is something like 0.2% of people using linux to browse the internet.. not much competition is it... yet.
force M$ to publish and document any API and file format which relates to something they have monopoly in (i.e. windows API, office suite file formats, ...).
such solution should be far easier to control and also did not deny M$' "right to inovate".
on the other hand, breaking M$ can make havoc above their customers and can result in making the situation no better than now.
hany
Uhhh... Read Slashdot or ANY technology news lately?
Sun just released a free office suite that reads and writes Office files. This product runs on Linux, as well as Windows.
I think with all of this free Office software out there that will read/write the older Office formats, there will be more standardization on the older formats. I would also expect to see conversion from the new Office formats soon.
Another thing to consider is the fact that Office 2000 is distinctly underwhelming in it's new feature list.
The home PC market is nearly saturated, or if not saturated, that's not where the big growth is. The big growth is in Internet applications and appliances. Linux has a huge growth potential here.
Linux will also seriously be cutting into Windows NT Server deployments, which is where MS makes a lot of their money.
Here's a news flash for the people who seem to be saying "Microsoft is invincible, just wait and watch." Microsoft is in financial trouble. Sure, they made $4.5 Billion last year. They paid, on paper, $18 Billion in stock options. If any of the above forces begin to cut into their stock price or futures, look for a huge cashing-in of those options that could bankrupt the company.
A point that a lot of people are missing from the original Comment that started this thread. It's not because the DOJ has had MS in court that MS has been in trouble. It's because MS has had to "play nice" during this period that has MS in trouble. When MS stops with the anti-competitive practices (bundling, dumping, buying out small competitors, etc.) they suddenly have problems.
While those who have a vested stake in the Microsoft status quo are hoping against hope for a favorable outcome in court, almost no serious observer believes that Microsoft won't lose and lose badly.
If the case is dismissed, watch every OEM backtrack on their commitments to Linux in fear of retaliation.
You give the reason yourself why Microsoft will lose in court. EVERYBODY knows that Microsoft used illegal tactics to make absolutely certain that there was no competition in the OS arena, and the DOJ has proved this in court.
Didn't Apple make the same mistake when IBM was just a start-up company? Thinking there was still lots of business in the mainframe market while IBM dove for the PC market and became the standard, leaving Apple to content themselves with being second best?
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Yeah, Apple's moves around 1911 were horrible, and really hurt the company. I know my great-grandfather got hit pretty bad for investing in Apple stock around that time.
They should have opened up their Abacus design and allowed clones, but no...
-
technologies like: ...
- MS windows 3.1 - MS DOS GUI priced as whole OS
- MS windows 95 - 32 bin GUI over 16 bit OS - MS windows 98 - more bloated w95; someone can also point out "overpriced win95 bug-fix"
- MS windows NT - 32 bit OS still mostly functioning using FAT from good old DOS (see recent CNET's article - sorry, do not have URL) which is not very secure and/or stable even on native NTFS
- MS windows 2000: some branches are just more bloated windows9X, some branches are just more bloated windows NT with far more "features" which masquerades underlaying bugs (like automatic repair); not mentioning licensing issues (does not we alredy pay them enought for BETA software to at least receive just w2k at some more reasonable price?)
- new MS' digital music file format - cracked few days after release - MS Office - interoperability with other office packages at almost 0 level (not 0 mostly thanks to support of proprietary MS office format in other offices (and mostly reverse engineered))
-
the only explanation to me is: MS have monopoly in computer market.
you argued about "which market": well, i think the whole computer market. why? people are making markets (they are key elements of them; when there are no people, there is no market). thus if almost all people think that MS windows + office = computer i consider it MS has monopoly in computer market. ...)
(did you ever try for example to explain to "comon user" the diference between PC and windows? did you ever convince such "common user" to use something else to just turn lights on/off in his office than PC+windows if the lights have label "can be controled by computer"?
hany
Market cap means nothing in context of this argument. Redhat's valuation is based on the fact that ONE DAY linux could pose a serious challenge to desktop windows. Just like Amazon's and EBay's market caps... They're not based on what they're worth today, its what people hope they'll be worth tomoroow.
:)
$$$ sales mean much more, which Redhat lacks.
Given that RHAT's product is free to copy and download, we'll go by seats it's installed on and still conclude that it's a far cry from actual competition for Microsoft today. Tomorrow could be a whole other issue, but we haven't gotten to tomorrow yet.
One day at a time (and no, if you're curious, I'm not in recovery, or anything!
Funny that in Germany IBM was able to get just a couple of OEMs to preinstall OS/2 and OS/2 today is still very popular in Germany. There has been competition in OS/2, Netscape, Java, and others but MSFT has the ability to threaten anyone who doesn't play the 'Windows everywhere' tune. Linux and OSS is confusing the hell out of MSFT and that is the only reason why it hasn't been squashed. They are trying (Mindcraft...).
When you say there hasn't been any competition you might want to look a bit deeper. How do you like the fact that MSFT has to pay people (AT&T, TCI) to use WinCE. A product they have spent $$$ developing and yet again, choice is being eliminated as one monopoly is buying its way into creating another monopoly.
In my opinion, we might have slightly higher software costs if we had 2 or more dominant OS's to chose from but we would have far better application interoperability among diverse products. All those companies with crossplatform C++ frameworks would still exist today and it wouldn't be MSFT tools verses the fringe. Technologies like OpenDoc would be standard and computing would more then installing another MSFT OS or office suite or bug fix month after month. IMHO
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Suppose Congress created a Federal Internet Commission and the FIC's Office of Software Development began regulating Apache, Sendmail, Bind, Perl, Gcc, the FreeBSD kernel, and the Linux kernel as "essential utilities". I mean, the Internet is pretty important to the national economy, eh? Too important to leave to those scruffy hackers writing whatever they want whenever they want to. Why just last week somebody broke binary compatibility with sysinfo(2), an essential public utility! That wouldn't happen if the government ran the CVS repositories. Microsoft and Network Solutions would be glad to contract out for some of that work, I'm sure. The right place to beat Microsoft is in the market place.
>Well, it's difficult to purchase a PC without
>windows, because, in all honesty, up until this
>year MAYBE, there hasn't been a viable
>alternative for OEM's to install.
What about no operating system installed?
Don't say that the OEMs need to install Windows to test the hardware; There are self-booting floppies that do this job.
There is demand for systems with no OS, for some reason or another some people already have a spare OS license. Selling a machine without an OS lowers the cost by >$60, which would look nice in the newspaper ads where they already sell computers without monitors. Stores will already swap and/or remove just about any part the customer requests if it will sell a computer except for the OS. The explanation that makes the most sense is the one that people get when they call up the OEMs and ask if they can get another system or no OS installed:
"Sorry, we can't do that. We have a contract with Microsoft."
Secondly, Microsoft isn't legally a monopoly in the first place. Lets not change the definition of a monopoly just because we hate Microsoft. A 90% market share alone does not make a monopoly--you have a control entry into the market place, for one. This means that you can block other people from entering the market.
Sorry, that's not the legal definition of a Monopoly. The ability to control prices makes a Monopoly.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
You start off right (about monopolies), but then lose it with you supposition about markets. The real issue, is what market are we talking about?
All computing? Home computing? (note this would include things like console games) All Operating Systems? Consumer Operating Systems? Just x86 compatible Operating Systems?
Whether Microsoft dominates a market depends upon how you define the market. If you limit it enough, like say to consumer PPC Operating Systems, then even Apple is a monopoly.
The flaw in your argument is that you consider the "OS market" (whatever you mean by that) and the "browser market" to be separate markets. To me, they both flaw into the realm of "Consumer Platforms". Netscape openly bragged about how they were going to make the browser the new platform and make the OS irrelevent. Microsoft was perfectly justified in adding the browser feature to their platform to compete with Netscape's platform.
FWIW, IMNSHO Microsoft is on the side of the angels and they should sue the DoJ for harrasment.
Remember, 70% of all Internet servers, for example, are Apache (OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!)
and that means they are running either Unix or one of its various clones.
Just because your running Apache doesn't mean you're running a *NIX. I use a version of Apache
that runs on NT at work.
The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
what problem? if you are compiling kernel, you can mak it as /usr/src/linux/README sugests: /etc/lilo.conf; lilo, etc.)
make {config,manuconfig,xconfig,oldconfig} (depends on what you prefer and need)
make dep
make {zImabe,bzImage,zdisk,zlilo} (depends on whether you want boot disk or normal kernel and how big will be that kernel)
make modules (if you want modules)
make modules_install (-"-)
some other steps (like vi
if you know what you are doing and if you are doing something not that commnon as described in mentioned README, you can do a lot diferent steps in order to make kernel
hany
but
if the case is about present (side question: presnet meant by case start date or present by right now?) situation, then MS can be found innocent.
if the case is about past, then MS should be found guilty.
that's the diference mentioned by Evro.
also i have to express that i think MS will kill itself. it just takes IMHO too much time (about 5 years).
hany
--Z.
Zontar The Mindless,
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The full text of the DOJ filing can be seen here, the Microsoft filing can be seen here.
At first glance the DOJ filing is a well-constructed set of arguments based on the evidence presented during the trial, the Microsoft one is full of anti-government rhetoric and outright contradictions. YMMV though.
--Coke
... just the ramblings of daveo, the open-sourced fan libertarian. (does anyone else find it interesting that many non-programmers use open source as an example for communism, while those in open-source itself don't, and tend to be libertarian, moderate, or moderate-left?)
-DAVEO
"A Microsoft attorney said the company will point to the remarkable financial success of Red Hat Inc., a leading vendor of the upstart Linux software operating system."
Too bad Red Hat went public looong after the antitrust suit was actually filed. Isn't this a bit late in the game to point to current trends? As much as we'd like to change the past..
"An economist who testified for the Justice Department, Franklin Fisher, had dismissed as ``a joke, of course'' the potential threat that Linux posed to the market dominance of Microsoft's Windows software."
Nice to know that people who testify for the DOJ don't watch the news.
"The Microsoft lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the company will tell the judge it believes Linux to be ``real competition.''"
I'd want to remain anonymous too after all the hoopla associated with Bill Gates' insistence that Linux isn't a threat.. not to mention the backing of several of his other yes-men. Nice to know that at least one person has some sense amidst that pack of utter liars.
"The Justice Department has argued that Linux has been successful challenging Microsoft in the sale of high-end business ``server'' computers, not consumer machines."
Not for long, baby. Once the hardware manufacturers realize that, then I'll be happy. I think it's absurd that IBM is taking a "wait and see" stance with regards to Linux PCs. Didn't Apple make the same mistake when IBM was just a start-up company? Thinking there was still lots of business in the mainframe market while IBM dove for the PC market and became the standard, leaving Apple to content themselves with being second best? Also, it's remarkable how many people say Linux has "a steep learning curve". I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but among the average human, -Windows- has a steep learning curve (not to mention computers in general).
"And Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was quoted in earlier evidence in the trial as saying at a technology conference this spring that Linux's impact ``will be fairly limited'' and that he's never had a customer mention Linux to him."
I don't think Bill even listens to his customers, so of course he never heard them mention much of anything.. Or else maybe he'd take the hint that people don't like it when their system "develops random features". I'm sure he thinks it's "cute", however.
"Microsoft also was expected to cite an announcement just days ago by rival Sun Microsystems Inc. that it has begun distributing free on the Internet a package of business applications meant to compete with Microsoft's Office software."
Now this is even sillier.. Who in their right mind is really afraid of Sun Microsystems or anything they have to offer? Perhaps in time their stuff will be good (they certainly have some nice concepts.. but in a business, you need more than just a bunch of "idea men" and loony ad campaigns), but for now Java and its associated hype goes a long way to prove how immature they and their products still are.
As a side note, anyone who thinks Sun is "really cool" and not just another corporate entity that has absurd notions of, well, just about everything, feel free to peruse these terms, which you must agree to if you want to post one of their logos on your site.. even if its simply as a supporter of Sun's technology. This stuff is pretty wild..
~ Kish
lol oops, wrong thread!
-DAVEO
But then, I hear things like the Ballmer "Web Office" announcement and realize that no, this is still the same stupid, bandwagon-jumping MS we've come to know and, well, know. It's disheartening to me -- I confess, I'm in that minority of /. readers that actually enjoys quite a few of the MS products -- to see how MS has been reacting to recent "threats" against it. Rather than learn from what's going on, they seem to have chosed to retrench and even to move backwards.
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
back when this whole mircosoft-in-court fiasco started, I was really excited about the prospect of finally seeing a possibility that perhaps microsoft would someday have real competition in the computer marketplace, and that other operating systems and productivity suites might start gaining the market share that microsoft's unfair business tactics were keeping from better software.
now that the trial is over, the entire climate seems to have changed. no longer is NT the only option for people who wear ties to work; more and more frequently, these people are doing research and finding that maybe the microsoft solution wont work as well as other possible solutions. apple isnt currently taking on intel head-to-head in any meaningful way, but they're making some new machines, and with IBM's release of their PPC motherboard specs, it looks like intel might not be the only real game in town for very long.
in short, I dont really even care what the outcome of this trial is. the trial sparked a lot of negative press for microsoft, and I'm glad that happened, because years down the road, that might be the only real consequence of this trial. dont look for the government to break up microsoft, because the legal system is too slow and too full of loopholes for that to happen.
and dont gloat prematurely about the breakup/fall of microsoft. instead be happy that we have made great strides since the start of the trial and hope for more progress in the future.
Check out RHAT's market cap folks - that serious money in anyone's books.
Whether or not it makes a dent in the case, we'll see.
I personally would be satisfied to see Microsoft penalized for heavy-handed dealings with ISPs and PC vendors. As for OS monopoliztion - as long as I don't have to pay for MS products I don't use when I buy a new PC, I'm happy.
And Rob - don't bother with Cryptonomicron - its not worth it.
You actually think The Register is unbiased? They're clearly members of the anti-Microsoft FUD spreading camp.
Actually, we aren't allowed to install software. The sys admins do that. So far the main complaint has been video cards.
/etc/X11/XF86config.
On our regular unix machines, the video cards are (obviously) known to the vendor, so they only have a handful of drivers to write. X86 is a driver nightmare.
So, what typically happens is the card install fails, and they end up running in some ungodly resolution like 320x400. Then they search for help on dejanews, and find something like a four ways to install their video card Xconfigurator, XF86Setup, XF86Config, vi
Of course, two of the people had unsupported video cards, so NONE of this helped.
As far as programming mission critical software goes, I disagree with you. Mission critical software is reviewed from the initial phases to the end, usually line-by-line, so it's actually impossible for incompetent people to trash a mission critical piece of software -- provided a professional design infrastructure is in place.
Funny, I 've never wanted to quit using Linux -- sure, I've struggled with new video cards now and then, but I've never considered stopping using it. The freedom in it is incredible, and the software just keeps getting better.
But it's nowhere near ready for the desktop. The apps are too incoherent, the X86 video driver installation issues justs beat people down.
Do you have any proof of those allegations? Microsoft doesn't libel or slander their competition (although Sun's McNeally and Oracle's Ellison do all the time). Microsoft doesn't withhold bug fixes. And Microsoft doesn't hide APIs for their exclusive use to beat competitors.
If you actually look (and I have) you won't find any proof of these allegations because their isn't any. These paranoid ravings have just been spread repeatedly and pervasively amongst the anti-Microsoft community to the point that some people take them on faith. You're just part of the problem.
Microsoft is where it is today because they make better products and market them better than their competitors. They're just better at the business game. Period. It's not even so much that they're particularly good, but that the competition has been so lousy.
It's ironic that you accuse Microsoft of FUD spreading when that's exactly what you're doing here to them. Actually worse, you're spreading downright lies. Microsoft shouldn't be under attack by the Government. This whole thing is driven by the political interests of the Silicon Valley (home to many an MS competitor) who can't stand to see anybody else come out ahead.
EVERYBODY knows that Microsoft used illegal tactics to make absolutely certain that there was no competition in the OS arena,
Oh, so the anti-Microsoft lies have become so pervasive that EVERYBODY just knows that Microsoft is guilty of something or another. No, sorry, I don't know that. In fact, I find no credible evidence against them at all. Real evidence, not UseNET rumors and random hearsay.
and the DOJ has proved this in court
No it hasn't.
Redhat stock has been ski high lately, maybe M$ has been buying it up to raise those prices to show RH is a competitor. "See look, even thier stock is comparable" 8)
Specifically, to which anti-Microsoft lie do you refer?
The DOJ filing containing damning Microsoft internal memoranda, the testimony of executives at IBM and Netscape, and the record of faked video demonstrations on the part of Microsoft, is not "UseNET rumors and random hearsay."
EVERYBODY knows what Microsoft was up to. Anonymous Cowards who may well be Microsoft spin machine flacks may be paid to say differently, but everybody knows it.
Have a look at OS sales and one thing should be very, very clear: end-users aren't driving this bus. Total retail OS sales are 'way down in the noise because the OS that runs on nearly every machine is the one loaded onto it at the factory.
The market for operating systems is the OEM preload market.
Now in that context, how much competition is there? Ask yourself what would happen if Microsoft had told (e.g.) Compaq in 1996 that they could only have Windows at full retail price. Could Compaq have substituted a "competitor's" operating system?
If you look at the actual dynamics of the industry, end-users aren't the consumers. As with TV, they're the product. Microsoft offers Dell, Compaq, and the rest access to us the same way that NBC delivers consumers to General Motors.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
First of all, if Microsoft wins the case, this will be a vindication for Linux! This will mean that yes, Virginia, Linux IS competition for Microsoft. Is that such a bad thing? I don't think so. It means that Linux will actually be viewed as a legitimate alternative to Windows NT by even more people than before. That in and of itself is a Good Thing (tm).
Secondly, Microsoft isn't legally a monopoly in the first place. Lets not change the definition of a monopoly just because we hate Microsoft. A 90% market share alone does not make a monopoly--you have a control entry into the market place, for one. This means that you can block other people from entering the market. Microsoft can't really do that: that can't (and haven't) stopped Linux, Be, etc. from making their own OSes.
And the 90% marketshare applies ONLY to desktops--Windows NT is actually a MINORITY in the server market. Remember, 70% of all Internet servers, for example, are Apache (OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!) and that means they are running either Unix or one of its various clones. Even in LANs, Novell and Unix beat MS hands down.
Finally, if Microsoft IS punished, this could be a nightmare for the industry. One, it means that the industry will have to be VERY careful about innovations, because they will have to be looking over their shoulders to make sure the DOJ isn't there watching their every move. Declaring the browser as part of the operating system isn't that farfetched--including Netscape on the Caldera distribution for instance, with a Caldera logo on it no less, is practically the same thing.
Look at from a car perspective: if the DOJ says that MS can't bundle IE with Windows, how much of a stretch is it to say DaimlerChrysler or General Motors can't bundle, say, an Infiniti sound system with their cars? Isn't bundling a stereo with a car hurting the aftermarket stereo folks? Afterall, the DOJs main argument is that MS is hurting competition by bundling a Web browser with its OS. The browser may be inferior to the alternatives, but so is the stereo. By all arguements against Microsoft, the fact that it is bundled alone will prevent people from buying someone else's browser. This is also true for the stereo. Most people do not add aftermarket stereos to their new cars. But some people do, particularly those who are knowledgeable about audio and want audio perfection.
Also, if the DOJ breaks up Microsoft, 2 or 3 Baby Bills will be MORE of a nightmare than one Microsoft. Imagine fighting not one, but now THREE Microsofts. No thank you.
My journal has hot
Isn't it "harm" that Netscape had to stop selling its browser and start giving it away to keep Microsoft from taking over the browser market? Isn't $0/copy the limiting case of a cross-subsidy?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The problem arises in that, once the decree comes down, no matter how it's worded, MSFT will come out fighting, using any and all tricks it can to regain its dominance. Time and time again, they have shown they will do anything and everything to quash competition.
They may stop using certain licenses, but they employ a lot of lawyers who have certainly been using this phase to think up new approaches in contract language to regain the monopoly.
In all, three things have brought about the decline of MSFT's dominance:
1. Having to act like a reasonable business while the court case was on;
2. Y2K causing people NOT to upgrade software or hardware once they were Y2K compliant; and
3. That nasty, nasty Linux and all its open-source ilk.
Once the case is over, 1 and 2 will go away. Which leaves them to concentrate on 3. And they will.
Will in Seattle
Companies are permitted to be founded for the good of the people. They should not have any rights.
That they do is a shame and was slipped through in legislation a few decades ago.
Not that I care, since I have holdings in a large number of companies, but it's not fair to the people that don't.
Will in Seattle
Yes, but the classic definition is a free market, with zero cost of entry, zero cost of information, all information available to all participants, and in which no contracts can be made that impinge upon these.
Like we have ever had that.
The only thing that has been changing is that cost of information and availability of information are improving - but they're not free, just cheaper.
Will in Seattle
Well, except that it's going down. I (sigh) sold it at $199 1/2 myself (yes, only 800% profit, as opposed to those who got 900%).
And I'm hoping it will keep going down to somewhere in the thirties or forties, so I can buy a few thousand shares then.
I doubt the judge will be concerned about Linux providers stock prices (yes, I know, they're just one distro, but they don't understand that).
Will in Seattle
..on the desktop, yet. On the server side, it's pretty good, since anyone installing a server is (usually) competent enough to install linux.
But, where I work, I distributed 5 RedHat 6.0 cd's to my co-employees, and all tried installing it at home. Only one person liked it and was excited by it, and continues to use it.
The other four switched back to Windows 98, citing that Linux was "too hard to setup and use".
The stunning part is that all five have degrees in computer science, and write C/C++ on Unix machines for a living.
Somehow I doubt Linux is much of a threat to Bill Gate's monopoly! At lest not for another couple years.
Also, remember Microsoft is NOT on trial based on what will happen in the future, but their activities in the past. The "future" of the software market probably plays a much smaller role in the Judge's decision than the past and current markets. Besides, isn't NT use still expanding rapidly?
Another /. reader posted a link to the DOJ website here. I think the DOJ is handling the Linux issue nicely.
To recap; MS is arguing that Linux poses a serious threat to Windows, due to RedHat and others.
The DOJ says this doesn't hold water. They quote a number of MS witnesses that all said that Linux isn't currently a threat, but may become one in the future. The DOJ argues that future predictions never have and don't currently make any difference in a trial. The DOJ goes on to say that MS's change of heart contradicts many past sayings by MS, and that their contention is less than honest.
Furthermore, the DOJ points out that MS increased the price of Windows 95, despite the preceived competition, after Windows 98 was released. This points directly to monopoly power.
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
It has been argued (quite accurately, IMHO), that the mere fact of the trial has essentially imposed a restriction upon any blatantly anti-competitive practices by Microsoft. As long as they are under the auspices of a trial, and the resulting public scrutiny, they can't make any obvious efforts to quash competition (or perceived competition).
Given some of the gaffes made by Microsoft during the trial, and Judge Jackson's apparent attitude towards MS, there's a pretty good chance that a guilty verdict will be presented, which Microsoft will certainly appeal.
I would say that regardless of the punishment proposed in the event of a guilty verdict, it is the verdict itself (and the resultant appeal) that will provide the best short term protection for competition. An appeal would keep the issue public, and impose the same restrictions on potential anti-competitive behaviour as does the current trial. If we just had a guilty verdict, regardless of the actual punishment, it would very shortly leave MS in the position of being able to engage in more anti-competitive behaviour (at least until a subsequent trial).
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
Even if Microsoft does lose handily at the District Court level, don't underestimate the significance of the prior Circuit Court reversal of earlier pro-government findings against Microsoft. The appeal will be to the same Circuit Court, perhaps to some of the panelists, but which panelists will be bound by the precedents set forth earlier.
The bottom line is that the fact findings not only have to be anti-Microsoft for Microsoft to lose, but specifically geared to distinguish the prior case.
At the end of the day, this could all be mere window dressing if the District Court's opinion is reversed. And then, of course, there is always the Supreme Court, who are not particularly friendly to anti-trust claims these days.
In other words, while the battle has been joined, and Boies made mincemeat out of Microsoft's legal giants at trial, victory is not certain. But even if the DOJ does prevail, this result will merely be the result of one battle of a larger campaign.
So watch out for the legal analysis of the fact-findings -- it's not only whether these findings go well for the government, but do they distinguish the prior Circuit court case.
Unfortunately, there is currently debate about how many 'Current Microsoft Employees' exist. It seems M$ has been screwing their own temps just as bad as they have been screwing the end-users.
Micros~1 is the prime example of what happens when all else is sacrificed on the alter of 'market dominance.'
Hmm. Nope. Dissolved and liquidated and all patents and copyrights returned to the people.
...
Nationalizing MSFT would harm the GDP, as the government would then use the (free to them) MSFT products, with all their inherent shoddy code.
;-)
Naturally, the copyrights should become copylefts
Will in Seattle
Was there ever real competition? There WAS OS/2 for a brief moment of glory, and DesqView, but as the graphical age came along, Windows won out. Joy, now we have to deal with Windows because it was the 'easiest' thing to use though it wasn't the best.
Linux those days, I remember running it. It wasn't as great and was more of a hobby for me. It wasn't too difficult to install, but if you didn't have the right hardware, you were cooked. That's why I left linux a while back - lack of support for the NCR53c875. *nix caught up in the PC end and look where it is now. It supports LOTS of different hardwares. When I started using X, it had support for about 23-30 video cards. Now it has support for about 500 cards and their minor variants.
MS had no competition, not because MS had such a great upper hand, there was nothing else graphical that existed and was well supported. Not to say that nothing was as great, but Windows was more well known and developed for. Too bad it wasn't great for anything but the home market.
What DID MS have? They had the PC market, but to keep it safe, they performed unfair activities. Of course, they were involved in other unethical buisness practices, such as absorbing the competition. When *nix got as big as it did, MS couldn't do anything to stop it. Who was there to buy? Linus and *bsd.org? Someone else would just continue the projects. PC *nix now more popular than ever, not as easy to use, but works great.
My verdict? Monopoly by virtue, unethical by practice in maintaining the virtue. Unethical in other practices also.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
--
Ultimately, the goal of a publically-held business is to create value for its shareholders, just like the role of a defense attorney is to do everything legally permissible to defend their client. Both happen without regard to truth, aesthetics or the public interest, except to the extent that those things affect the primary goal. Furthermore, in both cases, demonstrable failure to pursue the primary goal, even for "good" reasons, can result in the entity being sued in court for a failure to meet their responsibility. So even if scottm or billg wanted to "do the right thing" (and I believe that neither of them do), their hands are tied by stockholders.
Isn't Sun's "Community License" just an "embrace and extend" of Open Source?
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
RHAT could easily go to $20/ the day after tomorrow, esp if MS gets off without a breakup.